Hot Topic not even warm

Some days it’s all too easy to find material for blogging. Here it is, 11:15 pm, I’ve spent all weekend installing software on my new PC (thanks for the early birthday present, Christopher), the All Blacks face Scotland at 6 o’clock in the morning and Andy sends me over to Hot Topic, where I find this among a series of election briefs:

Damian Carrington in the Guardian:

What does a second term for Barack Obama as US president mean for action on climate change? The short answer is that some action is now at least conceivable. It would not have been under Mitt Romney, whose statement that the president’s job was not to stop the sea rising was hideously exposed by the inundation of New York and New Jersey by the surge of superstorm Sandy.

The only thing exposed was the truth. Nature gave a demonstration of the truth of what Romney said.

It’s not the president’s job because it can’t be done.

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldRossNiff Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Clarence
Guest
Clarence

If it was Obama’s job to stop Sandy from striking New Jersey, what should he have done?

Diverted it to Philadelphia? Reduced its force (energy) by changing its route through the Atlantic? Deferred it until late November when the ocean is much cooler? Instruct the EPA to regulate storms?

Trenberth and some other extreme scientists say the President could’ve reduced the damage by forcing a reduction of emissions throughout his term. If he had reaced the target of reducing US emissions by 5 per cent, global emissions would have been about 1 per cent less. If that somehow had an even effect worldwide, the North Atlantic would have been around 0.01 deg cooler in about 20-30 year’s time. How could that have changed Sandy in 2012? Or in 2040, for that matter?

that matter?

Ross
Guest
Ross

Sorry to be off topic , but does anyone know what this UN agreement Tim Groser says NZ is signing up in 2013 instead of any extention of Kyoto ( if the latter actually exists ) ?

Ross
Guest
Ross

Thanks Niff. But from the dates on this document do I take it that Groser is referring to signing an extention or modification of this ? This incredibly bureaucratic doc appears to have been around for sometime or am I reading it incorrectly.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

This is the original Kyoto Protocol. There is no successor.

Ross
Guest
Ross

Richard and Niff

This was the article I was refering to in my original question

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-signs-new-climate-ca-132104

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Skeptical Science not even warm either:- Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012 by rpielke David Douglass alerted me to his reply to Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, John Cook: 2012: Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” . Physics Letters A in D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Reply to “Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli et al. Physics Letters A The first and last paragraphs of his Reply summarize with Nuccitelli, Way, Painting, Church and Cook [1] comment on our Letter “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” [2]. Their criticism is unwarranted on at least three essential grounds. (1) It is based on a misunderstanding of the climate shift concept, which is central to our Letter; (2) in making its claim of incompleteness because of neglect of the deeper ocean heat content, it ignores our statement of possible error and introduces incompatible data; (3)… Read more »

Niff
Guest
Niff

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Hot Topic is starting to disappear up its own backside

I posted a link to Der Spiegel where an engineer discusses the shortcomings of Germany’s massive expansion of renewables, and this gets dismissed as “activist propaganda”

What is the point of discussing anything with these zealots?

Andy
Guest
Andy

CTG March 16, 2013 at 8:03 am

New research shows just how toxic our little impotent troll friend really is. The so-called health problems associated with wind farms spruiked by andyS are in fact caused by none other than – andyS!

Every time the little prick shows up at a resource content hearing on wind farms to spread his lies, I will be there with this research to debunk him.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-11/#comment-37097

Dear CTG,
This “little prick” here would be delighted to provide real word evidence of the health problems attributed to wind farm noise.

I could call upon the residents of Makara NZ, Waterloo SA, Fullabrooke Devon who suffer health problems thanks to your useless windmills.

I could give evidence of people in he USA who have abandoned their houses because wind farms make their properties uninhabitable.

You may strut around earnestly “debunking” arguments with your “approved sources”, but unfortunately as we get to the scrag end of the global warming scare, real people who don’t give a stuff about your “debunkings” are suffering real personal hardship.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html#ixzz2NerZrtC1

But – I think I can be sure of this – 100% of the nearby residents had never been approached directly by the authors sequestered in their Sydney University offices – no doubt soundproofed from that nasty background traffic hum (i.e. they have no representative sample of would-be complainants, what specific complaints they might have, and why or why not complaints were made or not).

Or that the doughty authors had never spent any length of time within sufferance of a wind farm – Sydney ‘burbs not being renowned for the proliferation of wind turbines ‘n all.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I think I can be sure of this”

Now I know I can:-

Methods Records of complaints about noise or health obtained from wind farm companies regarding residents living near 49 Australian wind farms, expressed as proportions of estimated populations residing within 5km of wind farms, and corroborated with complaints in submissions to 3 government public enquiries and news media records.

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8977/4/Complaints%20FINAL.pdf

Pre-Print: submitted for publication

Acknowledgements: Mia Rose for research assistance; wind farm proprietors for data in Table 1.

Chapman and Waller criticize the exploratory questionnaire-type investigations that have been made – as if they have the credibility to do so.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Articles by Simon Chapman:-

Wind farms, the Waubra Foundation [see Chapman and Waller] and a post-office box

Latest wind farm research is a load of hot air

The web of vested interests behind the anti-wind farm lobby

Windfarms will make your children hate school, apparently

Can wind farms make people sick?

http://www.crikey.com.au/author/simonchapman/

Andy
Guest
Andy

People are leaving their homes without compensation because of wind farm noise, yet the local eco-fachists think it all one big hissy fit.

Maybe Bill and CTG should get a job in the Christchurch insurance industry. It provides a similar outlet for these thugs to bully people.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I had heard that you can elect to pay more for your electricity in South Australia so that it is “100% wind”. I am not sure if this is correct, and if it is, how they separate out the electrons. Maybe Bill can explain; I think he is on one of these plans. At least, Bill has claimed to be on 100% wind energy and in the same breath talks about his gas bill.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Here is your daily update from my personal hate mail at Hot Topic

I absolutely admire the patients (sic) and dedication to providing the information and links (Gareth, Rob, Bill, Macro and others) to try and educate Dopie but as with Andy S if you feed the trolls they keep coming back like rats.
They live in a delusional world where the reality of the “Inconvenient Truth” does not exist and they resent your attempts to burst their little `happy happy` bubble with real and well researched, peer reviewed science. As with rats their basic function revolves around nothing more than eating (everything), defecate and fornicate. They can be taught to do tricks for food but science, forget it. Best thing about them is if you don`t feed them they die.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/time-for-nz-to-do-the-maths-mckibbens-coming/#comment-37689

Charming, oh and I admire the patients (sic) too. Don’t let the straightjackets straitjackets pinch [sorry, couldn’t resist! 🙂 – RT]

Andy
Guest
Andy

Always glad of the proofreading RT, although I blame the Apple autocorrect and anything that Aaron Gilmore can think of for my mistakes these days 🙂

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Right, good idea. Blaming the night shift can be quite successful, too.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I haven’t posted much at HT recently. However, I am now being accused of ideological bias for trying to defend some organic farming practices.

This little rant by Thomas, who apparently is a big fan of artificial Nitrogen fertilizers made in big German factories, had me tickled

You have laid bare your deep ignorance often in your online postings for all to see. But your ignorance on why humanity depends so much on Nitrogen fertilizers is a new low on the open ended Richter Scale of AI (Andy’s Ignorance). Really, your bellicose and oversized opinions are not sustained by the general knowledge that these days should be assumed by a person like you. Bags of hot air

I thought these guys were greenies?

(and for the record I was just asking them for their views, not offering mine)

Post Navigation