Yesterday's public meeting in Invercargill with Rod Oram and Jim Salinger was a great success. The two men delivered an in-depth argument that convinced all but the daft, of the validity of the science that shows that anthropocentric climate change is real and happening now. There were flat-earthers in the audience and one in particular was rude enough to try to disrupt the meeting with his ridiculous interjections, but he hadn't met Ali Timms before. Our bold and brassy chair bounded to her feet, feathers ruffled like a wee banty hen, and stopped him in his tracks. Three cheers for the chair! Slow learner though, that ignoramus, he tried again and again to hog the floor, until Rod Oram fixed him with his wry eye and slew him with a dry observation about diarrhoea and farting, that perhaps flew over the interjector's head, but had the rest of us snickering.
I spoke with both Rod and Jim before and after the meeting and found them to be lively thinkers and great conversationalists. Both made it crystal clear, then and during their talks, that Solid Energy's plans for Southland are wrong and should not be accomodated by Southlanders. The same applied to off-shore drilling for oil. It was very encouraging to hear such learned men describing the situation in such clear terms.
Today, I meet with the Fonterra big-wigs at the ES boardroom. I wonder if I'll come away from that meeting as impressed as I did from yesterday's.
I'll let you know.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Easily swayed, Rg by a couple of slick proponents of something those of us with our 'awareness' turned on have known for years.
Good to see you catching up.
I did warn you about JS though.
I learned something today, Robert. Normally man made climate change is referred to as anthropogenic but anthropocentric probably describes our delusional approach to the environment more effectively. :-)
I am sorry I couldn't attend, it sounded interesting. Instead I worked on finishing my research project on Wood energy which if implemented by NZ could go along way to helping ourselves and the planet.
Would have been interesting to have Salinger,Oram and Hansen,debating Chritopher Monckton.
Interesting, Colin?
More blood-sport, I reckon.
Bsprout - I must try to used the english language the way it was intended!
Pauline - you'd have liked the two very much and the audience, bar the rude man, were great contributers to the debate as well. Good questions, asked at the critical moments, are a powerful tool.
Didn't think you would capitulate so easily Robert!
I had a little hope that you RG were not one of the die-hard greens and would have the intelligence not to have the wool pulled over your eyes. Sadly you describe Salinger & Oram as learned men and great conversationalists. OMG!
Ahh - new bishops are appointed.
I can't believe those two continue to pedal their misinformation! See the article "Seeing through hoax of the century"
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/seeing_through_hoax_of_the_century/
"The media love stunts. They are so easy to report.Sadly, the media is not inquisitive enough to report those who question the circus acts of climate change. A week after the Maldives underwater show, Nils-Axel Morner - a leading world authority on sea levels - wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was “not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments”.
"Morner is a former professor who headed the department of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University and past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research commission on sea level changes and coastal evolution. INQUA was founded in 1928 by scientists who aimed to improve the understanding of environmental change during the glacial ages through interdisciplinary research. In other words, the Swedish professor has gravitas when it comes to sea levels."
"Alas his letter did not make headlines. That is a shame. Morner says there is “no rational basis” for the hysterical claims that the people of Maldives - or the rest of the world - are threatened by rising sea levels. And he sets out some facts."
Sally's link and the extensive comments are here
The real tradgedy of the Climate Debate is that the News Media have not provided equal time to both sides of the equation.
For example if it wasn't for the Internet one would be hardput to know that Lord Monckton had visited New Zealand after his debate winning sequence in Australia.
I've been away from computers for the weekend, climate change deniers, and haven't had the chance to answer your 'the earth is a disk' comments :-)
Goodness gracious me, Sally, tell me please how Salinger and Oram are not learned! I await your response with great interest! Clearly they are men and clearly they are good conversationalists, so I'll not bother asking you to clarify those statements, but perhaps you might confirm whether you've ever had a conversation with either of them, just so we know you are not just blowing smoke.
Colin - capitulate? Monckton was drummed out of the country just recently and for good reason. There is no value in what he spouts and that was recognised by all but his most fervent supporters. No one of substance wanted to 'debate' the bug-eyed loon (I just threw that in to incense those who take him too seriously - I know he has a bug-eye condition that he can't help and nor it seems, can he help his lunacy :-)
At the meeting, Mr Payne took the role of Monckton and displayed appalling manners by interrupting, refusing to give equal time to others and generally being an arse. He did the denier team no favours at all and consolidated the view held by most there that climate deniers are bug-eyed loons.
Shane - you went to the meeting? I didn't see you at all, nor did I hear your searching questions for the two presenters.
Bishops? A climate scientist and a financial commentator is who I saw and heard.
Robert
How sad you pick on Lord Monktons' appearance that is due to a disability, and rubbish his argument on emotion rather than fact.
More importantly let me repost a comment from Trotters blog for you that may let you understand why the Greens have lost the public support on your climate change nonsense.
Chris, I would recommend you have a read of http://www.nzcpr.com/guest257.htm
It is not about the science of global warming, rather it is about the failure of the fourth estate to bring the public along with them.
And lets be clear. Monkton wasn't drubbed out of the country. Following his demolition of cliamte change haoxers in Australia, none of your lot had the balls to go head to head with him in NZ.
Rather than debate the issues, and lets be clear there are issues to be debated, the science is settled is just a propoganda slogan. As noted in the post I've linked to, denying the ability to have a debate is losing you public support.
The public have cottoned on to the fact that it's not ultruism driving the climate change hysteria - its the evil of big government money.
Paranormal
paranormal - I would contend that following the successful tour by Jim and Rod (Salinger and Oram if you prefer), the public has moved further to the 'recognising the reality of the situation' end of the spectrum of belief, than they were before. These two have spoken to over thirty audiences right throughout the country. They are entirely credible speakers and had huge support in Southland (Southland! Bill English and Don Nicholson country!!) so I can only imagine how well they've been received elsewhere (both say, 'very well indeed').
As for the buggy-eyes, I toy with you. Don't be so sensitive. Monckton got no leverage here in New Zealand because his clever-dick arguments are not convincing to people with a good 'bullshit' radar. he just couldn't swing it here. As for Australia, I'm not surprised :-)
Robert
I think you will see time has shown where the 'recognising the reality of the situation' actually sits.
Off topic I know, but had an interesting conversation with an astute Wellington lady last night. She sagely commented on Key's three way handshake "of course Key was excited - Richie had just won him the election".
She was in Auckland for a conference with the Brainwave Trust. You and I are trying to change the world. Here is someone who is actually changing the world. It was an interesting discussion around education and educators.
Paranormal
'She sagely commented..'
Wow! She's clairvoyant?
As am I.
Paranormal
I knew you were going to say that.
Robert-sometime ago I travelled down from Gore to attend that special meeting you chaired in the Invercargill Library.(I wore my Solid Energy Tie to give the meeting a little extra Pissa.)
I would have to say that I thought you did an excellent job and encouraged people to express their opinions.
Although "Paranormal" and others have shown your arguments on the issue under debate in this column to be ill informed and ignoring the fact that I would rather head for bed at this time,I feel compelled to make some further observations.
Your derogatory comments regarding Lord Monckton and your praise of your 'buddies" Jim and Rod show up just how little background research you have done on all three.
In MHOP your mind is exhibiting some of the same symptoms as the Waituna Lagoon!
That is--not open often enough and needs flushing.
Colin - naturally, I remember you well (and still covert your tie!). I appreciate too that you are a fair-minded person, having spoken with you at the meeting, and that you have a sense of humour. My jibes about Monckton seem light-hearted to me, but I'll cease as they do irritate others, I can see. I have nothing against the man, but recognise how someone with his particular skill-set can convince some people and at the same time alienate others. I don't find him at all credible and have done a good deal of reading about his history and his claims. I'm guessing I will not come to believe his claims, as my opinion on him is formed. His particular claims are numerous and I haven't the desire to explore each and every one. We have taken different paths here and there are others on the route you are perusing, each seemingly as unable to detour as you are and as I am from mine. It's a curious situation. I find the fact that he's mislead the media in the past enough to disbelieve his claims on anything. Why is it that you don't credit Oram and Salinger with credibility, I wonder? Btw, both men were very clear in their opposition to lignite mining at Mataura - do you think there is some reason for that? I'm genuinely keen to learn you thoughts.
RG
Oram is just a media mouthpiece with little real business credibility - yet he is a business columnist. Salinger is complicit in misleading millions for the money - and yet you find both of them more credible than Monckton?
Paranormal
paranormal - your opinions about Rod Oram and Jim Salinger read very light. Do you not have something to back up your opinion - examples or instances or articles debunking them? I'm very surprised at the lack of substance in your criticism. You say Salinger is 'misleading millions for the money' - what money are you talking about? Is Salinger making a fortune from misleading people and please, can you reference your claims? I'm very interested. Presumably you believe Oram is also, so throw in those backing articles as well, will you?
RG
Are you serious? Have you not heard of Climategate in Southland? Just google any one of Climategate, Salinger or CRU.
As for Rodnoramus, for a start look at what he and his cohorts did to the once significant readership of the Sunday Snide Whines.
Paranormal
Yes, paranormal, chuckle, chuckle.
Rod and Jim hold the high-ground then, if that's all you've got. The difference is, I met them and talked with them about all sorts of issues and can make a reliable judgement about their veracity. They passed my test.
Have you met Monckton?
Dwight Eisenhower once described an intellectual "as someone who used more words to say less than he knew."
Monckton an 'intellectual', Sally?
Post a Comment