tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1688497550787332771..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: FRIDAY MORNING RAMBLE: The four-day week editionPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80670090425167043632013-04-09T21:25:58.334+12:002013-04-09T21:25:58.334+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-21040228125748062842013-04-09T21:17:09.408+12:002013-04-09T21:17:09.408+12:00You committed blasphemy!You committed blasphemy!Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-71156882080804401912013-04-09T21:08:58.620+12:002013-04-09T21:08:58.620+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-43914272507267305502013-04-09T21:02:54.189+12:002013-04-09T21:02:54.189+12:00What did you say Judge? Something about Rand on we...What did you say Judge? Something about Rand on welfare?Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24957241746669866342013-04-09T20:18:52.817+12:002013-04-09T20:18:52.817+12:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-17765626552597376782013-04-09T10:41:12.135+12:002013-04-09T10:41:12.135+12:00@Ben: Free speech doesn't mean I have to provi...@Ben: Free speech doesn't mean I have to provide empty-headed blowhards with a microphone. If "Judge" Holden wants to yap incoherently, he can start his own blog. <br /><br />How far is too far? The guidelines are posted right there, directly above the comments box.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-46677443876742727222013-04-09T10:28:54.241+12:002013-04-09T10:28:54.241+12:00How far is too far? I thought this blog was agains...How far is too far? I thought this blog was against censorshipBennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-43081335072840654542013-04-08T22:14:28.716+12:002013-04-08T22:14:28.716+12:00Judge's last comment has been deleted. Too far...Judge's last comment has been deleted. Too far this time.<br /><br />Time to go, Judge. Don't come back.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-39393987004650165092013-04-08T09:39:35.843+12:002013-04-08T09:39:35.843+12:00@Ben: No, she didn't; no we don't.
@Judge...@Ben: No, she didn't; no we don't.<br /><br />@Judge: <a href="http://www.aynrandmyths.com/#9%22" rel="nofollow">Ayn Rand Myth #9</a>.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-2163040063701227602013-04-07T16:33:17.867+12:002013-04-07T16:33:17.867+12:00And she contracted lung cancer and later died of h...And she contracted lung cancer and later died of heart disease. You'd think they'd learn.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-48619165014445023702013-04-07T12:53:56.482+12:002013-04-07T12:53:56.482+12:00Ann Rand believed the scientific link between smok...Ann Rand believed the scientific link between smoking and cancer was a conspiracy, so it makes sense that Objectivists feel the same way about climate change.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5672190549971979032013-04-07T07:01:38.803+12:002013-04-07T07:01:38.803+12:00The evidence is the shrieking and evasion you see ...The evidence is the shrieking and evasion you see all around you, Andrew. See what I mean, even you're doing it.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85679351745246702912013-04-06T21:07:46.944+13:002013-04-06T21:07:46.944+13:00Way to back up your points with evidence judge.
S...Way to back up your points with evidence judge.<br /><br />Speaking of cold in Britain... http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-04-05/filmmaker-froze-to-death-reporting-on-homelessness/Andrew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16938498951651948409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80661204769604014492013-04-06T19:41:42.570+13:002013-04-06T19:41:42.570+13:00Objectivists are funny. When faced with a choice ...Objectivists are funny. When faced with a choice between reality and their religion they've chosen to walk away from reality. The weird thing is they claim reason as their highest standard - a fundamental principle of their religion. Response: shriek conspiracy and put fingers in ears and go lalallalalala!Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-70268230764544369362013-04-06T14:40:18.522+13:002013-04-06T14:40:18.522+13:00Binswanger update on his column in Forbes:
"...Binswanger update on his column in Forbes:<br /><br />"By the time you read this, my Forbes column will have had 10,000 views. I hope it gets even more, because it can change how people think about this issue, asking themselves: “How long can this go on?” and, “What would be so bad about warming anyway?”<br /><br />In the comments, my opponents make three rebuttals: 1. The science says otherwise, 2. my time-frame is too short, 3. warming is happening right now.<br /><br />But I think people can see that if the “science says” otherwise, the science is wrong—i.e., its not science. But that depends on the answer to 2—how long is too short? If the “science says” a third of a century is too short to for any noticeable change, then how long in the future is this disaster? two centuries? Three?<br /><br />Or are we to believe that there will be an acceleration of changes in the last few years? Say, in the 2050 to 2060 decade, things will rapidly go to hell. Yeah, that's a tack they could take, but it's not very plausible. And you'd have to combine that with the even more implausible idea that by taking tiny steps now (killing a lot of poor people in the third world in the process), it will make a significant difference on the scale of a whole planet, and that planet's interaction with the star it orbits.<br /><br />After all, unless there's a quick and massive conversion to nuclear energy production, the carbon emissions have to increase, not decrease, as the world's energy production increases.<br /><br /> <br />Although the U.S. never signed up, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, and has been in force since 2005. The signatories agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels.<br /><br />And how well has that worked out? Well, Japan, which promised a 6% reduction, instead saw a 7.4% increase despite 20 years of economic stagnation; Australia, which pledged to let carbon increase by no more than 8%, witnessed a 47.7% rise; the Netherlands, which promised a 6% cut, wound up with 20% higher emissions by the end of 2010; and Canada, which committed to a 6% cut, experienced a 24% increase.<br /><br /> <br />www.forbes.com<br /><br />The above is a good article, covering the whole history of this statism-motivated warming movement.<br /><br />Carbon dioxide emissions in energy production and use have gone up every single 5-year period in the time covered in the chart I found: tripling from 1965 to 2011. To change that trend would require the ending of industrial progress, which would mean mass starvation and an unimaginable retrogression to primitive conditions. And for what? Theoretically, to prevent milder weather, building dikes against (supposed) sea-level rises, and more food production. Actually, to prevent men from being free. And successful.<br /><br />The second response to my column was that the time frame was too short. It's hard to think a third of a century is too short. But when will it not be too short for the climate-panic crowd? 40 years? 50 years? Can we assume that in 2019, they will give up? Or will it take until 2029?<br /><br />The third rebuttal was: it's already happening. In support, they cite changes in the arctic and various droughts. The changes in the arctic are, according to what I read, offset by changes in the antarctic. Droughts and weather anomalies are the norm, not the exception, and my whole point is that there is no overall change in any of the world's inhabited regions. As I said, why aren't we seeing, after a third of a century, no snow in Massachusetts or at least some threatening sea-level rises in Florida (or elsewhere)."gregsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786701115887458801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38127471075811219252013-04-05T16:28:16.313+13:002013-04-05T16:28:16.313+13:00Is it "hell" freezing over before thievi...Is it "hell" freezing over before thieving NZ gov't (wotever hue)stops taxing petrol and electricity to save the rest of Earth from ghastly global climate change?<br />Presumably car manufacturers will still use rare materials to provide electrical cars for morons wanting eco travel (for 80km)<br />Peter Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com