My letter to the editor of the Southland Times was published yesterday. It supports Dr Russel Norman's speech to the House earlier this week. The one where the National Party MPs bellowed their indignation at hearing the words of the Philippine climate guy.
The climate has dealt a terrible blow to the Philippines with a
super-typhoon that has devastated the country.
In our Parliament, party leaders expressed their sympathies for the
Philippine people who are suffering terribly as a result of the deadly
typhoon.
In his speech, Dr Russel Norman quoted Philippine climate spokesman,
Nadrev Sano who said yesterday,
"To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I
dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of your
armchair. You may want to pay a visit to the Phillipines right now."
While Dr Norman was speaking, National Party MPs, Bill English included,
heckled and bellowed for him to sit down.
That was both heartless and shameful, in my view.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The ODT published Gwynne Dyer's column on climate change and the Philippines typhoon today. He finishes 'this is an early warning of how the warming will unfold, and what the impacts on human societies will be. But we are getting lots of early warnings, and so far we are managing to ignore them all'.
Thanks, corokia. Our own Southland Times also published Dwyers column yesterday and I noted the same statement. As well, there was a report on the souring of the oceans due to greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the same old crew will declare that it's all a scam. I expect one or two of them will scratch out a letter of dismissal of my own as is usual when climate change is the topic. However, I welcome such wittering, as it builds a platform for further public comment.
Crass is how Red Russel behaviour in the house has been described - and it matches.
For the record have a look at http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/sorry-russel-youre-wrong.html
Facts to show you are playing politics.
Russel was polite and determined not to react to the slavering Nat MPs, bellowing and grunting their discomfort. Why were they so incensed to hear the words of the Philippine climate spokesperson?
Guilt. Shame. Embarrassment at having their lunacy exposed.
Timing is everything RG and it wasn't the time for a political broadcast. It just proves your beloved Greens are all about politics.
Agreed, paranormal. Russel chose carefully both the timing and the message and the bellowing Nat MPs did exactly as Russel knew they would, bellowed and belly-ached and brought the media focus onto his message.
Timing indeed.
It's the climate, you see.
United Nations head Ban Ki Moon also decided the timing was right to speak out and remind the world that climate change will mean more extreme weather and that there will be more of these disasters. I'm not sure how much time after a weather related tragedy the National party, Paranormal and co would consider appropriate to wait before mentioning climate change. Unfortunately there are record breaking floods, storms, heatwaves and fires almost every week now, so we can't wait.
Alas Corokia and RG you also seem to lack the understanding of what is appropriate. That Red Russel decided to use what should have been a solemn moment to indulge in base politics is the issue, not how soon after the event he wanted to campaign on your new religion.
It's the climate is it RG - well, inconveniently the data doesn't seem to stack up for you.
Appropriate, Paranormal?
It's inappropriate to call the leader of the party we support by a name intended to insult and/or demean, as you do. Not saying you can't, just saying that you are guilty of inappropriate behaviour, so I guess you'll wear your hypocrite badge openly now. Also inappropriate to lable our views on the climate as religious, again intending to demean and insult. Are you blind to your own inappropriate behaviours, I wonder?
Now, to your last claim: You say,
"It's the climate is it RG - well, inconveniently the data doesn't seem to stack up for you"
If you have data that proves that the typhoon wasn't the result of AGW, then lets see it - not a pile of links thanks, but a reasoned, well constructed argument would be quite sufficient.
That said, I'm already more inclined to accept the opinion of the Philippine climate spokesperson and that of Mr Moon, than I am yours, but I will read what you have to offer.
Is it inappropriate in a robust political blogging situation to call people names that highlight a particular aspect of their politics? I don't think so.
Is it inappropriate to use what is supposed to be a solemn occasion to acknowledge the grief and loss following a disaster to peddle a particularly political agenda - hell yes. You'd expect more from a vaunted party leader? Not it seems for the Greens.
Again highlighting your belief, one could say your faith, in an unproven hypothesis by suggesting it is a religion - can't see the issue there.
As for facts - I was pointing out that when it comes to hyperbole the Greens have no match and know no better. The data I linked to showed how false the statements made by Red Russel (again linking to his politics in a political discourse - why are you so embarrassed by that one wonders - trying to hide things perhaps?) and the Philippines POLITICIAN about this cyclone and others may not be the absolute truth.
So where is your proof that the cyclone WAS caused by AGW - the data linked to showed there couldn't be a link. The data shows things are not getting worse as you AGW supporters would have us beleive. You are working off faith again, not science. Hardly surprising Climate Change is widely considered a religion when watching the antics of its more ardent supporters.
Paranormal - I fear you are not applying yourself to these ideas as fervently as you should.
I believe there is no need to insult Russel on this particular blog. It's boring and irritating when you play that same card, as it is when you say 'Liarbour'. You argument should stand alone, especially here. It's not that the term 'Red Russel' disturbs me or makes me feel embarrassed in any way at all, it's just trite, boring and pointless.
Russel's speech contained statements from the Philippine climate spokesperson and cited opinions of other climate scientists. It may be that they are incorrect (though I don't believe they were) so your claim that Russel's statements were false is a little off the mark - he was quoting the statements of others. In any case, your 'unproven hypothesis' position is a bit of a dag, given that you haven't even tried to prove that your own hypothesis, that there is no anthropogenic climate change, kinda makes your position 'religious', by your own definition. I wonder why you aren't willing to prove your argument? Could it be that absolute scientific evidence is not able to be irrefutable or beyond doubt? That being the case, and I believe it is, then we have to bring other mechanisms into the discussion in order to decide what is the most likely case. That's where the probability factors come in, along with the massing of scientific opinion in order to get the best possible agreed position, and that's why I'm supportive of the AGW hypothesis, because it is supported in turn by those two aspects - the majority of qualified scientists say it is so and the probability function strongly suggests AGW is a reality.
There is no way any particular weather/climate event can prove without any doubt that AGW is occuring, but those two aspects give us our very best guide. I still would like you, super-confident as you are that 'it's a scam' to prove that the typhoon was NOT influenced by AGW.
Having written that, I'm acutely aware that we'll make no progress at all with this discussion, so if you fail to respond, I'll not weep bitter tears of regret. I do wish though, that with regards the "Liarbour", "Red Russel" thing, you'd just gtfu :-)
Sorry RG,your logic is faulty.
There is a hypothesis that additional carbon put out by man is causing climate change. It only has to be shown that hypothesis is faulty to disprove it - as shown in the stats. I don't have to prove your proposed anti-hyypothesis to show the original hypothesis is bogus.
Sorry, your religion has no legs and is based on politics, not science. This was shown yet again by Red Russel using what is supposed to be a non political solemn moment for political points scoring. Dress it up with whatever you want, as Hide puts it in his column, the message was clearly Vote Green.
Interesting to note your fellow travelers in the red corner also agree Norman's speech was inappropriate.
Unless you agree with Goebbels line about telling a lie three times makes it the truth, Norman was still wrong in repeating the mantra around increasing storms expressed by the Philippines politician. Especially when even your vaunted IPCC admits there has been no increase in storms.
Using your logic, you would have agreed with the church scientists that insisted the world was flat, because that was the consensus that one scientist fought against. The problem with your approach is it is not science, and it is open to political manipulation as shown in the released emails from the UEA climate zealots who are in the thrall of big government money.
As for the names - New Zealanders are not interested in politics and forget quickly. I use the names as a ready reminder
Post a Comment