Nobby Clark responded to my letter to the editor, by saying that he found my letter hard to fathom.
I'm sorry to have been so unclear, Nobby. I thought I'd kept it very simple.
Nobby raised several issues that vex him still, including New Zealand's nuclear-free stand - what did that actually achieve, he asked?
Nobby worried too, that bigger countries than us were doing nothing, so why should we do anything???
Nobby finished with that classic conservative argument winner - that a rise in global temperature would suit him just fine, thank you very much, as he wants to get a tan.
The tag-line to that, of course, is "Bugger the millions who starve, drown, bake or otherwise fail to survive the effects of climate change, I'm alright, Jake!"
Nobby - you knob.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Haha interesting character who can move mountains if it gets in the way of his thinking. The sun tan comment is at the heart of what is so wrong in todays communities. Small minded selfishness without a thought for anyone else.
Had an interesting exchange in the Times once about the ILT which he lauds as being democratic and anyone can stand. When I pointed out almost one third of Invercargill people cant even vote in the Trust elections he dismissed that at just a small issue that we should all overlook for the greater good. Had to give up as the rules kept changing.
Nobby is a knob alright
Your derision of Nobby highlights the inadequacy of your 'science'. In amongst all your dire warnings of doomsday from a marginal increase in temperatures there is little or no commentary on the positive effects from global warming.
My comments about Nobby, supported, I might add, by numerous people who've spoken with me over the past two days, centre around the heartless comment about tanning. So often I hear people (farmers mostly) say 'bring on climate change, it'll make our grass grow faster! To me, that's knob-talk.
In any case, paranormal, how can you cite 'positive effects of climate change', when you say it's not happening?
Hypocrisy, z'it?
I've never said the climate is static. My comments relate to the beleif man is responsible for the current climate. Particularly the warmists religion around catastrophic climate change due to mans burning of fossil fuels.
I'm on record here as saying that, in geological terms, we're on the downhill run to the next ice age.
Don't you think it odd that in amongst all the doom and gloom predicted by the warmists there is no-where that would be better off with change to such a complex system as our climate. Shows there is some really unbalanced propaganda being produced.
"I've never seen the climate as static"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Good one!
Who has?
You claim that the findings and pronouncements of the IPCC climate scientists are propaganda.
What leads you to declare that the scientific findings and reports of numerous highly qualified, peer reviewed scientists, are 'propaganda'?
I'd really like to know, para, and would appreciate a straight answer.
Where to start on the IPCC propaganda?
How about looking at the links I provided earlier. One of them shows that even within the report there are chapters that refute what other chapters in the same report claim.
Lets start from the top. The railway engineer Pachauri that made a load of bogus claims about the Himalayan glaciers. It flows on down from there.
There is the basic dishonesty of the authors removing inconvenient data, such as the medieval warm period, to garner their claims. And you say you rely on these 'scientists'?
All in all the IPCC are driven by the corruption of big government money - to paraphrase a favourite green tag.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
"all the IPCC are driven by the corruption of big government money"
Good grief!
I don't believe you at all.
That's your choice RG. Some time ago you made a comment about ostriches.
Carry on.
BTW, well done on the selective quoting you do.
I didn't say "all the IPCC". I said "all in all" which has quite a different meaning to your selection.
All's fair in politics I suppose.
Post a Comment