Cheers Comrades
Home » AGW and climate change » Is Good
Is Good
27 Comments
Welcome to the Sandpit
I love a good argument so please leave a comment
Please support the Sandpit
Do you feel lucky?
Iain Hall's SANDPIT
Bringing light into the darkness…
Home » AGW and climate change » Is Good
Comments are closed.
I love a good argument so please leave a comment
Please support the Sandpit
Do you feel lucky?
Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the "fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review" section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
let's look at the Australian Copyright Council's fact sheet on Fair Use:
The Federal Court has stated that “criticism and review” involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas. Criticism and review may be strongly expressed, and may be expressed humorously, and need not be balanced. The defence can apply where the criticism or review takes place in a commercial context, such as in published books or newspapers or on commercial television.
However, the court emphasised that the purpose of criticism or review must be genuine. If the person has other motives – especially if these motives involve using the material to make a profit, or using a competitor’s material to
divert customers from the competitor – the fact that they have also engaged in a form of criticism or review is not
enough to prevent the use from infringing copyright
All other content on this site is copyright Iain Hall and may not be reproduced in any form with out explicit permission of the author.
Comment Copyright
Anyone who comments at the Sandpit under a pseudonym does so on the clear understanding that by doing so they are giving any and all rights and ownership of those comments to the site-owner who may reproduce them in any form or at any other site or venue entirely at his own discretion.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Greg Naylor, Iain Hall. Iain Hall said: Is Good : http://wp.me/p1ZH5-2or […]
daylight saving time has finally ended — we put all our clocks back on standard time — when will this madness end?
Iain, this is really not up to your usual standard.
How about this, a radio science show from 1956 sponsored by the General Electric Co. which describes global warming during the first half of the 20th century and hits all the high points:-
* carbon dioxide as the cause
* 2 degrees per century
* water vapour is comparatively unimportant
* yes, there is solid scientific proof
* the glaciers are (were) retreating even then
* human activity is very, very significant and it is due to oil and gas burning
* etc
That’s 1956, almost 60 years ago. Al Gore was only 8 years old, so unless you believe he’s the anti-christ it’s very unlikely (impossible) that this was part of “the conspiracy”.
Sorry Iain, it’s real. It’s not a religion, it’s not a faith and it’s not a conspiracy. You can’t have your petrol driven lifestyle anymore.
You are in denial.
JM
This post is about a rather funny song that takes the piss out of you Warministas I don’t make any greater claim for it than that.
Which proves what? That crackpot theories have a long pedigree is all.
This is often asserted but has never been definitively proved .
…is well within natural variability
Bollocks!
Bollocks again
So what we are in an inter-glacial period so of course they will retreat
An assertion that is unsupported by significant facts
I have a friend who is very keen on conspiracies and he is very big on multi generation theories for them.
It is a millenarian religious cult JM and now that it is becoming more and more discredited and its ponzi schemes (like “cap and trade” in the USA) more unlikely to be created so you will have to find another way to attack industrial society because the people are just not buying what you are selling any more.
😆
I’m amazed that JM has his panties all in a knot over a Youtube video of some guys singing a song!
What do you expect Tessa?
JM (who I think is female) is a true believer in the Warminista faith and will seek anything to defend its liturgy.
I guess I’m pretty gullible. Last night I agreed to be a last minute guest (someone had canceled) on a radio program where the host’s real purpose was to bash me, not to interview me. (He didn’t succeed.)
Iain; Hall (in response to several concrete facts): Bollocks!
I’m sure you’re familar with the 5 stages of grief in response to the loss of something precious to you (you know the sequence Denial/Anger/Bargaining/Depression/Acceptance)?
You have to move through all 5 to truly recover and move on. But you’re stuck in the Denial phase.
What “concrete facts” would they be JM Because I only called “bollocks” to two of your assertions which do not meet any definition of “facts”.
The person here in denial is yourself. You are in denial that the whole AGW bandwagon is up axles is the mud of its own making, There has been too much exaggeration and doom-saying from your crowd , too much sharp practice and vilification from the rabid Warministas so now no one believes even the more modest claims that may actually be real or valid.
Clearly you are angry about this which is why you try to take it out on me,
when I was growing up int h 60s and 70s, it was all about the coming ice age –and the weather has been much more like an ice age than like warming
Iain, something that was an established fact at least 50 years ago – established by an American scientist in accordance with entirely mainstream physics established over 100 years ago, and an American scientist who established this model as part of American Department of Defense missile development, is:- An. Established. Fact.
At least as established as my the fact that my incredibly aged grandmother will die sometime within the next few years and certainly in advance of the death of either of my children.
Sorry Iain, you simply pine for the high-energy, high-carbon, petrol/oil/coal driven world and it’s being taken away from you.
You are in denial.
JM
I live a lower energy lifestyle than you do but beyond that.
Your comment makes no sense and does not answer my last posting to this thread.
and I know you have two children, so what?
You are still desperately clinging to the AGW liturgy and you are in denial about how lacking in popular credibility the theory is these days.
Iain, popular credibility is totally irrelevant. Brittany Spears has popular credibility – look at her sales figures.
What counts in this argument are facts.
You don’t have ’em. You’re just twisting in the wind trying to justify your petrol driven lifestyle.
You’re in denial.
JM
You say this :
When I ask you to produce said facts you jiggle around more than a fish with a hook in its mouth lets go back to your original comment shall we?
Is this a fact? No its an assertion
Is this a fact? No its an assertion and a wrong one at that
Is this a fact? No its an assertion
I am not disputing that glaciers are retreating but you can’t prove the cause
Is this a fact? No its an assertion
* etc
Is this a fact? No its an assertion
I don’t need them as much as you clearly do so how about you find some?
We are fortunate enough to live in a democracy which means that before any thing can be done about “climate change” it needs popular credibility if our elected governments are going to commit their efforts and treasure to “deal ” with it.
Petrol driven lifestyle???? WTF is that supposed to mean? As I said earlier I think that my energy use is less than yours. You claim to have traveled overseas by Jet air craft and you live in Melbourne so your winter heating costs alone would dwarf my entire domestic energy consumption, You have two children and I bet that they just love long showers. We have tank water and we are very frugal with things like showers
Iain, I’m not getting into a pissing contest with you about who is closer to living in a hole in the ground (aka low energy footprints), and in any case you know nothing about my lifestyle so you’re arguing against a phantom of your imagination.
Everything I cited is a fact, scientifically proved, not an assertion. You and I have been around the traps on these things many times and not once have you been able to back up your views.
I reiterate – you’re in denial.
Sorry, that should read “low carbon footprint”, low energy footprint has nothing to do with it. I think it’s telling that you don’t know the difference.
JM
I know more than you think because you have let slip enough detail about your life in your many comments here. why even in this thread you let slip that you have two children and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I even know that you have previously posted here under another pseudonym…
On this occasion the only view that I have expressed with this post is that I think that the song is funny/clever/cute. YOU are the one who is trying to make an argument about the veracity of the AGW hypothesis.
You can reiterate as much as you please but it won’t make it so
😆
Of course I understand the difference but then I’m not the one who is stuffing up their terminology now am I?
Updated comment
Read this it lays out pretty well the problems with the AGW argument
Iain: I know more than you think because you have let slip enough detail about your life …
There you have it. Iain Hall. Cyberstalker. And proud of it.
JM
when you come here and comment freely how pray tell is it in any sense “cyberstalking” for me to take note of things that you say about yourself?
You said
Which reveals that your grandmother is still living and that you have two children.
I neither asked you to reveal that nor sought the information from you or anyone else. You volunteered it entirely unprompted and your other comments are peppered with such gems.
Now I think that despite your claims of my “evil” what is evident here is a person who has scored an own goal.
Well clearly since I stated that my grandmother was still living I “think” that you know that. Ditto two children.
So what does your statement:- I know more than you think mean? That you know things I have not voluntarily revealed?
That’s a veiled threat. And when taken of a piece with your previous complaints clearly indicates “cyberstalking”.
JM
The only reason that “I know more than you think” is because I have just been paying attention to what you have been saying, and from that I have worked out the pseudonyms that you have used here previously, once again purely from the things that you have said in your comments, But also when you cite “cyberstalking” its a dead give-away to who you actually are.
Do the initials B and G mean anything to you?
Wow, JIM is Bob Geldof?
I was thinking Barry Gibb.
Bear Grylls?
Iain Do the initials B and G mean anything to you?
No.
Well what about ” M L” or “A J ” then?
This is for you “JM”