Earth to John Roughan, come in John Roughan – Houston we have a moron

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
37
3

images

Has there ever been a more embarrassing column than the bewildering tripe John Roughan served up in the NZ Herald today?

Yes. Two.

Bob Jone’s snuff column where he gleefully told NZers that he goaded another human being into suicide, and of course the infamous Garth George column where he claimed flooding wouldn’t occur from Global Warming because God had promised Noah on the Ark that he wouldn’t flood Earth again.

But Roughan’s is as close to those terrible opinion pieces as one can get.

Today Roughan claims that the science behind climate change is political and not like the ‘good’ science that got a probe to Pluto…

if the worst that can happen is a rise of a metre in sea levels and a few degrees in mean temperatures over a century, I think we’ll cope.

The climate does seem to be changing. Auckland’s past two summers have been unusually long and lovely, this winter is unusually cold. Droughts and floods we can handle.

Science says otherwise, but not the sort of science that sends a probe to Pluto. Climate science is on a political mission.

That may be more exciting, more lucrative possibly, but I find all sciences more credible when their mission is the endless one into the unknown.

You can tell why after reading this steaming pile of crap why Roughan was appointed to write John Key’s biography. Only a man so welded to the current system of privilege could wilfully claim climate change will only lead to a meter rise in sea level and a few degrees increase in heat.

His ignorance of the issue he’s writing about is surely a new low for the NZ Herald. How this dinosaur manages to use a keyboard is beyond me. The science says no such thing John, the science says there is a growing possibility of catastrophic climate change and trying to determine ‘political science’ from ‘good science’ in the manner you have only further succeeds in highlighting your total disconnection from reality.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Pluto is more grounded to down town Auckland than John Roughan has managed in this column.

This ill informed opinion piece is humiliating.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

37 COMMENTS

  1. Isn’t there a small Atoll or Island in the Pacific whereby the people are lobbying the U.N for action on climate change ?…and that their govt is looking at potential refugee status because of the rising sea levels?

    Perhaps we can send Roughan there after the Islanders have all safely vacated to measure the rising sea levels.

    Without a boat.

    • Unfortunately Wild Katipo, if we put him on the island he’d no doubt float away. An entity (and I use that term loosely), so brimful of excrement would float away on the next tide.

    • The story about drowning Pacific atolls is typical of the political opportunism involved in the global warming story: The science simply does not back the claims of the extremists.

      Where islands are in trouble with sea level it is due to several other human causes:

      1/ Blasting gaps in reefs to get larger boats inshore and allowing wave action to destroy beaches

      2/ Hunting parrot fish which eat coral and excrete beach sand resulting in the loss of coral beaches over time

      3/ Over population. The soaring populations of both Kiribati and Tuvalo being now unsustainable.

      The good news is that left alone atolls adjust their height to suit the sea level through coral growth and beach formation.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013

      Perhaps the climate change story would get more attention if the media and the eco-radicals didn’t over-egg it?

      • Andrew – seriously?!

        You’re putting the blame on rising sea levels on parrot fish?

        And how does the population of Kiribati and Tuvalo explain rising sea levels? Is the weight of the people pushing down the islands??

        Even the “study” (peer reviewed?) you link to states, “Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis.”

        Which means 14% are losing area. That’s quite a number.

        It would be inyteresting to learn if that “study” has been peer-reviewed, or is simply another example of BS propaganda, bought and paid by the fossil fuel industry? Did you check?

        Congratulations. Yours is the most bizarre example of climate change denial yet.

        • This is just the tip of the iceberg of bizarre. As the impacts magnify and hit much closer to home so will the alternative explanations.

        • Frank,

          As I believe I said once before, I don’t usually bother engaging in scientific debate with non-scientists, but I’ll give you a brief education in this instance:

          Parrot fish poo coral sand. It’s where the beaches on coral islands come from. If you’ve ever dived in a coral lagoon you’ll see the sand coming out from the rear end of schools of parrot fish in prodigious quantities.

          If you kill the parrot fish, long term, you kill the beach. Over population and the ignorance of the islanders is destroying their habitat. Google the population growth of these islands: It is the root cause of their problem.

          Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age over 10,000 years ago and the current rise is not exceptional . Sea level rise will not engulf coral islands because the height of coral islands is determined by the sea level – the coral grows to the maximum height allowed by the sea level. It’s just another alarmist scam.

          This is the NASA data on sea level rise – much slower now than it has been in the past:

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

          …or are you saying the NASA data is a right wing conspiracy? 🙂

          • WTF?!?!

            You’re quoting NASA data to support your position that ” the current [sea level] rise is not exceptional”?!

            Jeez, Andrew, you haven’t read your own linked reference, have you. The NASA report states;

            Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world’s oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.

            You need to check what you link to.

            Then again, it shoots down your previous link nicely. Thank you.

            • Let me try to make this simple for you Frank.

              Andrew’s comment was “This is the NASA data on sea level rise – much slower now than it has been in the past:”

              That is precisely what the graph shows, because “the past” didn’t begin in the 19th century.

          • Andrew – Yes to right wing conspiracy – it exists all over the show. Wake up Andrew and show a bit of respect to Frank who is light years ahead of you both morally and intellectually.

            Most scientific research and data is funded by the very folks that are in denial and so they hire scientists who will spit out the kind of biased data that they want. Lies; lies and more greedy lies.
            Most of your revered and glorified scientists are full of it and produce research and conclusions that are untrue and misleading. Again propaganda meant to mislead.
            Look who funds most of their research ! ! ! ! Most universities research in the U.S. is a total load of BS as it is also funded by these mega corporate biased greedy psychopaths. You would not glorify most scientific research if you knew all of the hidden truths behind the funding and truths behind the lies.
            Look at who is calling the kettle black ! !
            Come on, most of your scientifically supported data is, for the most part, not worth the paper it is printed on.

            The word “conspiracy theorist” was coined by the Tavistock institute – check them out and learn a few things.
            http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml

            John Roughan – just another Herald “out of touch” biased journo who is not worth your time to read or react to. But thanks again Martyn for keeping us posted about more of the insanity at the Herald. Glad i do not go there anymore.

          • If it’s behind a paywall, Gypsy, it is meaningless to be used as evidence for anything.

            Do you really accept information without reading it?

            You can’t “understand the science” if you can’t read it! Jeez…

    • It’s Kirbati & his appeal has been refused. When I was a kid in the ’70’s the BBC ran stories on these islands “sinking” by the way

  2. He clearly hasn’t heard about the ‘Tipping Point’ .
    Like Key , his lack of knowledge is only matched by his lack imagination, his lack of anything geographical or anything historical.
    That’s why when Key speaks he sounds weak and can only ever manage faux conviction.
    By the way , where is he ??

    • Key is keeping his head down to avoid the flack his government is facing. Like Jason Ede he does a disappearing act rather than face the problems.

  3. Blatantly “political” science, which actually happens more often than most people realise, eg. Monsanto using its political and economic clout to promote an agenda that its version of ‘science’ is good.

    But, this goes beyond even that. This is outrageous rubbish.

  4. Does it NOT occur to this clown just how much land would disappear if sea level rose 1 metre?
    I suppose on the bright side, that would less for JonKey to sell off . . . .

  5. if the worst that can happen is a rise of a metre in sea levels and a few degrees in mean temperatures over a century, I think we’ll cope. –

    “Cope”?!?!

    The man is an asinine fool.

    A one metre rise in sea levels will result in almost every coastal city being affected; entire seafront neighbourhoods (Seatourn, Island Bay, Lyall Bay, Petone, Eastbourne, Kapiti Coast…) washed away, and flooding in Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin.

    No coastal property will be able to buy insurance. Entire communities will have to make a “managed retreat”.

    I repeat, Roughan is a fool.

    • Not to mention most of Florida , New York and coastal India underwater to name but a few of the many places that would require mass evacuation.
      And where does he think a lot of those people might want to go?
      ….Oh that’s right . I forgot. He doesn’t have an imagination!

      • Indeed, Grant. Raising sea levels by one metre would have catastrophic consequences to every coastal city in the world. And god knows what would happen to The Netherlands as well as every Pacific Island community.

        It might not be the end of civilisation, but I think we can safely say we can kiss goodbye the world as we know it.

        I live fairly well inland (I wouldn’t live in a coastal property if the vendor/landlord paid me to live there), but even I understand the far-reaching consequences of a one metre sea level rise.

        For an educated man like Roughan (and other AGW deniers) not to understand this beggars belief. For a species that can launch a robot probe (plus four previous probes, Pioneers 10 and 11 and Voyagers 1 and 2) to Pluto and out into interstellar space, our collective stupidity is incomprehensible.

        • Some of the most intelligent people i now, who possess a lot of ‘street nous’, have never had any form of ‘higher education,’ but what they do have, is the ability to interperete complex information very astutely and manage to ‘cut to the chase ‘on most things without tripping over their shoelaces.
          In other words they don’t suffer from paralysis through over analysis.They are clear thinkers.
          Roughan, despite his so called education, is gullible , naive and little bit stupid.
          He can’t help that, but he should not be given the privilege of writing a regular column in N.Zs largest newspaper.
          It sounds like he thinks, when sea levels rise around N.Z, they won’t be rising anywhere else in the world!…..Hmmm

        • Way worse a picture than that will become apparent even with half or a quarter meter rise in sea levels,

          Putting aside droughts for the moment what we all are seeing is more severe rain events, as these events quicken it is likely that 1 in a 100 year storms will become 1 in 50 year events and so on as the melting of the West Antarctic sheets gathers pace,

          As the pace of 1 in a 100 year weather events quickens so will the lesser, but, in localized areas just as damaging 1 in 50 year, 1 in 20 year and so on weather events quicken,

          What will then occur in conjunction with the faster pace and intensification of severity of these events will be the gradual rise in sea levels which will simply slow the pace at which our river systems anywhere can expel the volumes of water from these weather events into the sea,

          Given such a situation and considering the lowland nature of much of our towns, cities, and our propensity to build and farm on what is essentially flood plains the potential for the destruction of much of this infrastructure is immense,

          Unfortunately human society when confronted by nature in all her fury has always been reactive rather than proactive so until such time as such places as towns/cities situated on flood plains in close proximity to a river become un-viable due to annual/biannual weather events it is unfortunate to think that such destruction is probably inevitable….

    • It’s tempting and easy to call Roughan a fool and a moron. Ok, he’s expressed some views that to anyone versed in even a little climate science and impacts make little sense. But, let’s come back to this point in a minute.

      Roll the clock forward some years, let’s say 20 years (a bit less than we’ve been shagging around since Kyoto) and what do we expect to see happening? On current trend adverse weather events will be more frequent and more severe. In New Zealand we can expect a floods, droughts, blizzards, tornadoes and severe coastal erosion from storm events. Go take a look at the seawall in Island Bay or the road to Cape Palliser if you think I’m dreaming. There will have been a significant number of weather-related deaths, uninhabitable houses and some major infrastructure (rods, rail) permanently unusable. And this is quite apart from what will be happening in low-lying areas worldwide and coastal regions susceptible to tropical storms.

      As these events get bigger, their impacts are going to come a lot closer into everyone’s reality – how many repeat floodings can a person stand? In little New Zealand it’ll be the norm for us all to know one or more people who have been severely adversely affected by weather events.

      So what will that be doing to people’s heads? Obviously stress symptoms will increase. However, what of those who have clearly, openly stated one or more of: it’s not happening, it is happening but impacts will be negligible perhaps even beneficial, it’s not related to GHG emissions, climate always changes, definitely not man-made. How many of these will recant?

      Who is going to stand up and say, “Oh shit, I was wrong, got that really wrong. I should have listened to Nandor and Jeanette, should have listened to Gareth and maybe that idea of James Shaw’s to deal with this cross-party was actually a goer!”? The loony left, the watermelons, the warmists can’t possibly be right or get it right. Because, if they got this right then what does that mean about other things they espouse?

      And so the explanations will become more surreal as the backfire effect entrenches people in their positions.

      So what of John Roughan? He’s not actually a moron, however it is fascinating when someone demonstrably intelligent expresses opinions that are completely out of whack with their perceived intelligence. There is something else going on. It could be that, for Roughan, intelligent means knowing where your next paycheck comes from, knowing who your mates are, understanding who has power and influence. In which case what he has written is smart writing. Indeed, writing an opinion piece warmly received by the readers of TDB could be the kiss of death.

      As we confront the unprecedented challenge that is global warming we are going to face complexities and paradoxes that are outside of our usual compass. Our current frames of reference may have little utility.
      .
      As I stand in my living room in 2025 knee-deep in water with the roof taken off by tornado will I get much comfort from knowing that Roughan was wrong and I was right? But, that’s not to say that peddling arrant nonsense about climate change and its impacts is OK either.

  6. Mike Hosking is also a columnist for the (National Party Newsletter) Herald – which pretty much sums up what sort of tripe will be found amongst its pages…

  7. What a dumb twit! What does a few Photos of Pluto have to do with Global Warming?
    Can someone please send this twit to Pluto! He can cool his dumb arse down when we turn our beautiful planet into a Venus scenario hell. What an embarrassment!

    http://youtu.be/N330egsJD8A

  9. Wiseacre in the comments section summed it up beautifully

    “What if climate change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?”

  11. When will the Herald owners do the honourable thing and give this publication a more appropriate name – maybe “Entertainment This Week” or “National Herald’s Believe it or not”?

  12. An article in Wake up New Zealand, states historical data of warming shows that over a long period the temperatures in NZ have fluctuated.It says NZ has shown no appreciable warming has occurred in last 100 yrs.
    Read it before you argue differently Frank.

    • Ouch, that must have stung Frank – being shot down by something from a Garth Georgesque website. NOT. Okay, so another bunch of God-botherers believe their sky fairy will save us from ourselves. When exactly has He/She/It done so in the past?

Comments are closed.