Posts by dc_red
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bill Ralston is basically a hadit trying to be - something again. Sad, eh.
He does remind me, somewhat eerily, of Richard Prebble - who was appalling as an election-night commentator on RadioNZ. Not because of his politics, but because he had nothing of note to say, and wasn't able to offer anything much by way of comment. On the other side of the political fence, Bob Harvey is another with too much media access and too little to say.
-
some very real scientific research
As opposed to the largely unreal research? Or the mildly real?
Putting "scientific" in there is a curious ploy too.
Science = quantitative and objective = good?
But if Ralston had any understanding of (or interest in) research, he'd know you can't read any one study in isolation (or even, y'know, ignore the qualified conclusions of the one study you've actually bothered to look at?)
-
and Neil Young was quite possibly the best show I've ever been to.
No mean feat! A bugger I'm out of the country, would have been great to catch Old Neil, and, as you say, anyone else who caught my fancy.
-
this amounts to a SPECTACULAR lowering of the standards for platinum status
Brilliant. For too long my household has been hamstrung by its lowly gold status (which they practically give free to infants, dogs and serial bankrupts, right?) - finally we can aspire to doors being opened for us at the flash of a card.
It could be a million points per dollar, it'd really make no difference.
Don't tempt them...
-
That they say, means getting two even teams to the debate. This is daft of course as the those who deny Climate Change number a few hundred scientists + Ian Wishart and Rodney Hide, whereas those pro Climate Change number an estimated 300,000+ scientists. The rationale for revisting the debate is....?
It's not the outcome of the debate that matters so much as the fact of the debate itself. It suggests there are two sides, and accordingly that there is uncertainty, doubt, competing explanations, etc. Which in turn suggests that policy responses should be delayed, postponed, reviewed, etc. ad infinitem.
The (ahem) heavily outnumbered and intellectually outgunned creationists do the same thing in their attempts to 'debate' evolution. They don't win the debate, they win by having the debate.
-
Rodney Hide has a BSc and two Masters degrees, so is not - presumably - an unusually stupid man.
But the idea of him sitting in judgement of the science of climate change is preposterous, especially since his mind is apparently made up. In this cringe-inducing pre-election speech he parroted the most primitive of denialist talking points (like, 1/ no net warming since 1998; 2/ it was warmer in the medieval warm period; and 3/ Greenland was green once) while also declaring: "A warmer climate with more CO2 in the atmosphere is an unambiguous benefit to New Zealand and to the world."
In so doing, he revealed himself to be a complete and utter ass.
-
Jolisa, sorry.
Spilt some icing on the "s" key or something!
-
And while we're on a Front Lawn/Don McG tribute kick, the only thing weirder than watching this treasure from 1989 was realising that I'm in it!
God that was a stellar perm.Jolissa - which of the various stellar perms on display is/was you?
-
Allan Peachey won Tamaki with 15,000 votes to spare, I see.
Maurice "12,000 vote majority" Williamson should be another one to watch.
-
Didn't Alan Peachey enter politics (as a Nat) for the sole purpose of re-instituting bulk funding? Would be interesting to hear his views on Hide vs Tolley.