Labour Party Conference
October 31st, 2006 at 5:43 am by David FarrarAfter an extended period of mismanagement, Labour looks to have started to gets its act together. Months of whining about the Auditor-General and the Exclusive Brethren were sidelined to cameo roles only at the Party Conference.
After months of absence from any debate on policies, Helen Clark returned to centre stage with a potentially incredibly power vision of New Zealand being the first fully sustainable country on the planet.
Such a vision is potentially an election winner. It appeals to all that NZers hold dear, and reclaims a leadership role in an issue to date characterised by retreats and blunders. One could probably not come up with a better vision, if you spent a month with a dozen focus groups seeking for the political phrase that will engage voters.
And that is of course exactly what has happened. At this stage there are no policies or plans underway to fulfill this new vision of a sustainable NZ. It is merely lofty rhetoric invented by pollsters (God bless them) or focus group facilitators.
But for all that it is only rhetoric for now, it is potentially very powerful and election winning rhetoric. I would not under-estimate how central this may become to Labour’s re-election – but only if they can match rhetoric with substance.
The reality to date is that Labour backtracked on carbon tax, and our Kyoto commitments are in shambles with our rate of greenhouse gas growth faster than both Australia and the US.
No Right Turn points out that 49% of greenhouse gases come from the agricultural sector. The price to pay for being “fully sustainable” may be additional costs on agricultural products which will make us less competitive on the global market. That’s a big risk for an export dominated economy. Will Clark actually do anything beyond rhetoric?
And in fact already today we see the Government rushing in to defend kiwifruit exports against claims the cost of shipping them is bad for the environment. Now I agree the concept of food miles is a stupid one pushed by trade protectionist lobbies, which looks at only one part of the production chain. But make no mistake in some areas there will be a trade off between agricultural exports and a “fully sustainable New Zealand” if the Government is serious about this being more than rhetoric.
So it is a two edged sword for the Government. They have what for many may be an exciting and election winning vision. The fear and uncertainty about global warming could scare many into believing that to note vote for a “fully sustainable” (note that many people won’t even know what this means, only that it sounds good) New Zealand will be dangerous. But if Labour raises the vision and rhetoric and then fails to deliver anything of significance, they will end up being judged failures against their own words.
From all accounts the Labour Conference was very successful for the party. They managed to shift the debate from defending their past behaviours to policies for the future. They realised that non stop attacks on a christian group may be off-putting to many christian voters, and are now looking at the more sensible step of having a christian group within Labour.
And congratulations also to Tony Milne for being returned as Youth Vice-President, and Kate Sutton for a huge margin of victory in her election as Women Vice-President.
Related posts:
- Editor banned from Labour Party conference
- UK Tory Party Conference Day 3
- The temporary Leader of the Labour Party
- Labour Party Conference Protests
October 31st, 2006 at 7:50 am
So… NOT a labour supporter dad4justice?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:53 am
Yes but we know this is meaningless bullshit to try and lift the party on to something else. And the Government’s climate change policies are in a shambles despite talking about it for years. I simply have no faith the Clark overnment is capable of coming up with a complex policy on climate change. Their sole answer to the elctricity reforms is to have a commissioner. That lies in peices on the floor wioth a party hack running it. The Clark Government are clever politicians first and that is all they are.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:53 am
had you thought of joining the green party..?..
dad4justice..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:55 am
DAD4JUSTICE – I am deleting your post. Please do not post using that language and characterisations here again.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:57 am
It is a no-lose situation. Nothing can be realistically achieved in a short time frame and there will always be something else to dredge up when the time comes. A bit like “putting NZ in the top 10% of the OECD” really. Gone and forgotten, bring on the next issue please.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:04 am
I am pleased that Liarbour are coming out with a green message – that will take votes from one place only and hopefully that will be the end of the loonies in parliament. It also takes away a potential co-alition partner making the leftovers mostly centre (UF, Winston First, in particular)
Given the greens only polled 5.3% last election, and now have no Rod Donald, Labour’s “Greening” only needs to take an additional 10% of the green vote and they could easily drop below the 5% margin. A good result if they end up on 4.8% for the Nats.
National may be the biggest winner from this.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:55 am
Peter McK: I agree with your comment that this might be good news for National. From a personal perspective, though: I vote Green, but I’m much more interested in getting Green ideas adopted than in getting Green MPs into Parliament. (Especially as I disagree with a lot of Green policies, especially the trade protectionist ones). If both National and Labour are picking up on Green ideas around sustainability/global warming, that suits me fine.
DPF: good post. I admire the way you can give praise to parties other than National, when you think it is due.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:58 am
David, you really should stop Jordan from guest posting on your blog.
Their vision, in all respects, truly is monstrous and frightening. But every cloud has a silver lining. Any party with Kate Sutton in a position of leadership is going to come off the rails sooner or later.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:01 am
nothing new here, just clark spouting more U.N rhetoric.
she’s Toast.
BBQ at Phil Goffs place.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:06 am
Peter, I like you are “pleased that labour are finally coming out with a green message”. However I think that the Greens understand MMP better then anyone. therefore Labour will not leech votes from the greens. More likely as “green” issues are now more in focus (the major parties have caught up)they will increase their vote share.
Vote:I see a Green/Maori/Labour/Prog Gov next time
with Nat/Act/NF with not enough seats to form
a Gov.
Time will tell I suppose
Thomas
October 31st, 2006 at 9:10 am
” More likely as “green” issues are now more in focus (the major parties have caught up)they will increase their vote share.”
The Greens have pulled Labour back to the failed socialist rhetoric of the past, while the parties of the right move the western world beyond dependency.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:23 am
Come on we all know how they are going to implement the climate change policy:
1. tax middle-kiwi
2. tax middle-kiwi some more
3. give all the money away to foreign governments that couldn’t give a toss for the environment
4. tax middle-kiwi again because theres always more where that comes from
PS did I mention taxing middle kiwi?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:27 am
Thomas, – for each of the last three elections the green vote has slightly diminished. (1996 Greens were part of Andertons alliance) now without the political nous of Rod Donald it was going to be a little harder. (But given some people are very put off the Labour party, that may be the Greens advantage)
But given the Nats and labour are now both coming forward with a Green policy, suddenly people don’t need to vote for the greens if their driving motivation is the environment. ie they have more choice finally on environmental issues without needing to support a party whose ideas are flakey at best in most other areas (eg as simon points out trade protection).
I also wonder how long Anderton will hang around. He is largely irrelevant and there have long been rumours that is wants to retire.
I also wonder if the Maori Party would actually get into bed with Labour.
Given the current environment ( I think we are looking at one of the most facinating elections in a long time. (even two years out)
We know labour will do anything to stay in power including breaching spending caps, misappropriating money, lying, stealing, bribery, but will all that be enough against a strong National Party who for the past year has held the buggers on the ropes, have fresh policy, a fresh outlook, widespread support (49% in latest poll) but unfortunately lack co-alition partners.
Now take the greens out of the picture and the landscape changes. Suddenly Labour also run out of co-alition partners.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Sorry, I still don’t see this “Christian group within Labour” thing.
A party either leans toward Christianity or it doesn’t. Labour has shown by their policies and law changes (especially the prostitution law reform and the civil union bill) that they obviously don’t.
They can pretend to have a Christian faction now but I am Christian and I don’t buy it. Sorry Helen…
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Exactly Fletch,
not to mention their election of a Muslim MP, their support of the repeal of section 59, their policy of pushing mothers back into the workforce early and putting children in factory style daycare, Clarks support of abortions for underage girls without parental notification, their favouring of state schools over integrated schools, their proposed ‘hate speech’ legislation, Clarks vitriol spewed forth to people like Ian Wishart, Maxim Institute, Bretheren and anyone else who dares to question Labour’s direction of NZ. It is simply not credible.
Trying to dress their party up as some sort agent of Jesus caring for the Orphans the Widows and the Poor is simply not credible given that her party has done more to place stress on Family and Social institutions and put people into dependency on the state than any other in NZ.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:55 am
“not to mention their election of a Muslim MP”
What a lovely christian attitude you have there, truly you have taken Jesus’s ideas of love for all others to heart.
“Clarks vitriol”
Do you ever actually read your own posts?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:08 am
suddenly people don’t need to vote for the greens if their driving motivation is the environment.
My guess is that you are not a Green voter, so what on earth makes you think you know what Green voters are thinking? The greens will hold onto core support for now, and a greening of the nats or labs won’t change that.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:18 am
Lovely, suppose they didn’t mention the unmitigated stuff up last time they attempted this…..Kyoto. $$$$$! But yes, it is definitely a vote buyer for sure. Almost as good as student loans.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:25 am
Realistically, the only chance Labour had was moving back towards the centre to try to “buy” back their own membership that are now desperate enough to vote National or the increasingly minor parties. However they’ve chosen to move in the other direction (or into the stratosphere) and put taxing cow farts back on the table, to pay off their Kyoto debt. [Perhaps political parties should be responsible for the debt they get their country into?]
I’d say their rank and file may have thought the conference put on a brave face but are very worried. Their credibility is further in the red than they are, if you excuse the obvious pun.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:33 am
“their own membership that are now desperate enough to vote National or the increasingly minor parties.”
This, I think is a problem for us, at the next election we’ll be voting for the candidates & parties that disgust us the least.
(By “us” I mean the general voting public, I am a member of no political party. Shit, maybe I’ll have to start my own.)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:34 am
Andrew – like everything on this and other political blogs we only express our views. But I am not talking about all green voters – only a percentage of them (and then it is just my observations). I guess the Greens do have people who may support them for their hard left policies, because they think a dope smoking rasta is cool, because they don’t like big parties, but their essential message is the enviroment –
I have heard comments like “well they are the only party that cares for the enviroment” so people like that may now vote for another party if they have a strong environmental message.
My point is for those people who vote Green because of the environmental policy now will also have choice in either the Labour party or the Nats, and for that reason I think given the close to margin 5.3% polling of the Greens at the last election, it is entirely possible that should 10% or 15% of their support base vote elsewhere then that could push the Greens out of parliament (something which I would delight in)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:38 am
Sonic,
Said Muslim MP (Ashraf Choudhary) condones capital punishment (by stoning, no less) for adultery and homosexuality. The man is a barbarian.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:47 am
“”not to mention their election of a Muslim MP”
What a lovely christian attitude you have there, truly you have taken Jesus’s ideas of love for all others to heart.
“Clarks vitriol”
Do you ever actually read your own posts?”
Sonic, I was merely pointing out that Labour’s strategy of trying to dress themselves up as “Christian Friendly” when they have elected a Member of Parliament who is a member of a Religion that sees Christians as infidels worthy of only conversion or death, and when they have implemented policy to destroy the Family and Social fabric of this country and then claim to be the saviour of the ‘people’, is not credible.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:51 am
DPF “After months of absence from any debate on policies, Helen Clark returned to centre stage with a potentially incredibly power vision of New Zealand being the first fully sustainable country on the planet.”
Add in the Christian thingy and you see Clark reacting to the Nats, again. She’s moving into a classic two party confrontation with the “broad church” approach.
So the question is.. how relevant is MMP now?
JC
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:58 am
Duncan says, “Said Muslim MP (Ashraf Choudhary) condones capital punishment (by stoning, no less) for adultery and homosexuality.”
I do not think you have much to worry about. I am sure the majority of MPs would vote against such a proposal. If they did not how many of them would left in Parliament?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:17 am
DPF: ” The fear and uncertainty about global warming… ”
It is for the most part scaremongering in the same way as “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Birdflu”, “Next Ice Age Coming”.
That is why the National Party should ignite the debate and shine a blow torch on the phoney science being used by the left to advance an agenda of increased state control.
We know that CO2 helps the plants grow.
IF, and big IF, CO2 is actually a problem, it is largely solved already:
1. The U.S. car fleet turns over approx every 15 years. Most manufacturers are now pursuing Hybrid models which will slash vehicle emmissions by 75%.
2. Solar hot water heating can slash domestic power use from the National Grid used on heating hot water by up to 75%.
3. “Eco-bulbs” low-wattage but high output bulbs for lighting can slash power used in lighting by 75%.
4. Home composting can cut the landfill waste stream by 45% and slash methane emissions.
5. A shift from the failed mono-agriculture of the past to bio-diverse, organic farming based on sustainable crop and stock rotation along with composting and worm farming can slash agricultural emissions.
Opportunity abounds. There should be no fear or uncertaintity at all.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:21 am
The agricultural production of greenhouse gasses is a red herring at best and (more likely) totally biased pseudoscience produced by a tapeworm up a politicians arse.
The world survived quite fine until less than a hundred years ago some of which was in the agricultural era of Homo sapiens. I have yet to here of a theory that Carboniferous extinctions were due to methane production.
It is a ploy aimed at justifying punitive taxes on a group in society perceived by these spinners to be privileged. Make no mistake and wake up.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:22 am
This is the problem when you let bureaucrats get involved in anything. 49% of emmissions come from the agricultural sector. It is like the fart tax. Cows burp and fart, so joe bureaucrat thinks they are contributing to net emissions. The problem is that these people don’t have a physical understanding of the world, so can’t imagine that the carbon atoms come from the atmosphere via grass in the first place.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:24 am
Porcupine
I do agree that the the whole Climate Change/Global Warming catastrophic predictions are based on phoney-science and are simply a front for socialists to incrementally advance state power.
What I’m pointing out is that even if their phoney-science had any credibility whatsoever, the solutions to their ‘problems’ are actually quite simple.
The fearmongering campaign of the type on close-up last night is dishonest and phoney and should be exposed.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:28 am
So lets cut a deal – tax cow burbs when the pavement we drive our cars on is producing as much Oxygen as farmland does.
Really, cant someone see through this crap and get these bureaucrats out of our arses?
How gullible can the population actually be?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:29 am
DPF, there’s another interpretation of this “green” vision. Those of us with longer memories recall the Keating govt in Australia, which, bereft of any practical policy reserves, turned to symbolic policies instead. This looks to me like Labour’s playing its final card. True, this policy gives great TV news soundbites and makes people feel warm and fuzzy, but it’s too far from the next election for this to hold its appeal by polling day (assuming of course polling day is still to be in 2008; as Whaleoil has remarked, Helen’s haircut and makeup are now in election mode). There’s nothing to stop the Nats going greener in the meantime.
And of course the devil is in the detail (with apologies to New Zealand’s five left-wing Christian Labour party members). Policies to implement this kind of thing cost $$$ and lots of them. With high interest rates, are voters really going to be prepared to pay new taxes/levies?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:29 am
What a coincidence that almost simultaneously Tony B liar has got on the same bandwagon. No coincidence that he has political concerns that are engulfing him too.
Result; choose a touchy feely diversion. Climate change didn’t arrive last week.
One commentator says that if the UK closes down completelt the problems are reduced by 2%. What is the NZ contribution.
Clark should get out there and menace the big players, China, Russia, US, India, Japan and lots of other pretty immovable objects.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:31 am
“This is the problem when you let bureaucrats get involved in anything. 49% of emmissions come from the agricultural sector. It is like the fart tax. Cows burp and fart, so joe bureaucrat thinks they are contributing to net emissions. The problem is that these people don’t have a physical understanding of the world, so can’t imagine that the carbon atoms come from the atmosphere via grass in the first place.”
Exactly.
And this ties in with the whole ‘carrying capacity’ and ‘food shortage’ bollocks that get’s peddeled.
It comes from urban socialists who have no experience of rural/country living.
The world is an integrated system that goes in a cycle.
The soil feeds the plants, the plants feed the animals, and the animals feed the soil. Managed properly, it is a closed-loop system that can be sustained forever.
Even human waste can be composted and feed the soil, and when humans come to the end of their lives their physical bodies go back to dust and feed the worms to create good soil to grow more plants and on and on.
The phoney claims about carrying capacity and finite resource etc are bollocks.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:33 am
gee..aren’t things moving fast..?
who’d have thought 12 months ago that climate-change would have such an (ever-increasing)grip on the zeitgeist…?
and as for the greens…
their future could be uncertain…(and this sudden greening of the old parties will..if nothing else..shut those greens up who argue the party should only be about environmental issues..and nothing else..eh..?..)
and this next election is looking more and more being a ‘green’ election..in that what we are seeing now is only the beginnings/awakenings of attention to these issues..
(and believe me..in my case there is no whinging/delight in being right in warnings about this…
what i have is a mixture of excitement/delight..that ‘things will now be done’
and that is why i always worked for the green party..
(in part so there would be no need for a ‘green ‘ party..’cos those ideas/concerns will be mainstream…)
and as for the future of the greens..?
i think this next election/parliament will be crucial for them..in that residual goodwill for being the harbingers of these urgencies will only go so far for them..
as the other parties move to prove how ‘green’ they are..the greens will be/should be moving in the other direction..
it is now up to the greens to prove/show they are a multi-faceted party..not one just welded to the environmental issues…
if they don’t..they will die…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:43 am
Phil
The greens are already dead – they died with the socialism their party was founded on.
We will bury them at the next election.
Best regards
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:49 am
The Greens, as the party of environmental conscience up to and including the moment, don’t have anything to fear from platitude-spouting from either of the major parties.
As a Green supporter, it is awesome and heartening to hear both Labour and National orating at length about their environmental goals. To what extent these goals are realistically articulated in concrete policy is the acid test. For my part I am skeptical that either major party will go sufficiently far to materially challenge the Greens with effective and achievable ideas. Time will tell.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Nah, I reckon Klark simply knows that without the Greens holding them up, Labour is toast!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:51 am
DenMT
The greens are far behind when it comes to environmental matters.
They still haven’t learn’t what “tragedy of the commons” is and hence their proposals all revolve around tax, spend, regulate, nationalise, control centrally.
Failed policy of the past.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:54 am
Battler: OK. So who are the Greens behind, then? Who is up ahead of them on environmental policy? I’m keen to know! They’ve got my vote! Give me details!
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:57 am
DenMT
If you outline some specific ‘environmental problems’, and the response offered by the Green Party, citing specific statements/policy releases from the Greens, I will offer a response / alternative.
Rgds
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
“The greens are far behind when it comes to environmental matters”
um… behind who Battler? National? Labour? Who have only just climbed on the bandwagon, along with their British & Australian counterparts. United Future? Who are still somewhere deep in the dark ages.
The Greens are dead you reckon? Looks to me like they’re alive & well & gaining support across the political spectrum.
So we’ll see.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Battler: So you make a clear, derogatory statement about the Greens environmental leadership, but can’t back it up without something to rebut?
OK then. The challenge to you is to tell me who is doing better in environmental policy in these areas (not your own personal opinion about how these areas should be tackled, mind, but a clear idea of who it is that is ‘in front’ of the Greens, who is providing real environmental leadership).
Climate change: Introduce a carbon charge on fossil fuels as soon as possible so that users of oil, coal, and gas pay more, and users of renewables pay less. The revenue received will be recycled to reduce income tax on the bottom band, for everyone.
Cap and gradually reduce net carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, in order to signal the need for change while allowing new more-efficient stations to be built as replacements for existing power stations.
Not support any additional use of coal for energy in New Zealand.
Polluter-pays tax: Raise around $300m per year by making diesel users pay their fair share –
Raise around $300m per year through a low-level carbon charge of $10/tonne of CO2.
Action on climate change is long overdue. The longer we wait to start shifting away from fossil fuels, the harder that shift will be when the time finally comes.
The carbon tax regime would allow negotiated exemptions for binding emissions reductions proportional to New Zealand’s target or which achieve world’s best practice for that industry.
Together, these two will pay for the first year of income tax cuts and a bit more besides.
*********
Note that these are actual, concrete suggestions, not happy-feel-good concepts to achieve somehow. Just a few examples. So who is doing it better?
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Battler, there are actually environmental concerns and it is self evident that resources will one day run out. What we need to do is get the bureaucrats snouts out of the closed-shop feeding trough long enough to let some rational people deal with the problem.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
I’m kind of happy to see Labour moving in this direction, every bit as happy as seeing National doing the same. They have both quite rightly picked an issue which is only getting bigger. If this is the battleground of 2008, then whoever wins, the outcome is good.
I don’t think the Green core vote will be much affected. They are still the party to vote for if green issues are what does it for you. But I think in the support base of both major parties there are a lot of people who will welcome this, who couldn’t bring themselves to actually vote Green, on the grounds of some of their more controversial views.
There are some who find even the milder environmental focus unpalatable, probably farmers and manufacturers. But they’re not really left with many alternatives now. If the right broke off a piece which was anti-environmental, that might work to slow the environmental drive down, but it would hurt the overall chances of the centre right getting power.
How much actual action eventuates from this greenification of the centre remains to be seen. Kyoto was too much of a hot potato for Labour to fully honour last time, but even partial honoring is progress. I see strong arguments that CO2 emissions from farms should not treat cows in isolation, but see the whole farm’s effects, including how much carbon sinking it is doing in its grass growing etc. If farms can be considered carbon neutral, and there is a very good case for it, then farmers don’t need to worry so much about fart taxes. Then it becomes more about the fossil fuels, and farmers aren’t isolated as a major loser.
It is in the fossil fuel usage where the biggest greenhouse gas savings are to be found. There are so many ideas about how to improve matters, I look forward to some serious centrist debate on actual moves.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Yes, there is a problem with global warming, but the mass hysteria of the bureaucrats brings back memories of the y2k job creation scehemes.
The problem we have in this country is that we are creating too many marginally educated people and then giving them responsibility for things beyond their abilities.
What would solve it is to not let any MP serve longer than two terms, maybe 3 if they end up as a minister and limit MPs who havn’t had a real job to one term. Then, tax bureaucrats at 50% and lower contributors’ tax to 25%.
Think how productivity and efficiency would rise!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Tragedy of the commons Battler? Isn’t it the green party that is always first to talk about the tragedy of the global commons? i.e. climate changed, de-forestation, species extinction? And no battler, putting a market price on these things won’t save them, decisive political action, as promote by the greens will.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
This could be totally percieved as a push for National but Nick Smith is currently travelling around NZ appearing at public debates for his new discussion paper cited ‘the BlueGreens’.
Im pretty bias, but this is a damn good paper. It does more than just bring out the lovey dovey crap that Clark has pulled out because it has substance. No doubt this is the real reason why Rick Barker and Clark have suddenly appeared streaming the same message. Only difference, they don’t have any substance to it. Its just rhetoric.
DPF-I think you also overestimate the ‘power vision’ as you so kindly discribe it. As mentioned in above posts (none of which are mine) there have been so many ‘power visions’ in the past and there is little evidence to suggest that just because you like the sound of sustainable development (which I think is an oxymoron) doesn’t mean you’d vote Labour. You’d vote Greens. Or some other incredible left wing party.
Lastly, their will be no christian party within Labour. Its hilarious that any Labourite could suggest such a thing. I’m yet to even meet a ‘left wing Christian’.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Id forgotten about the y2k scam – what a joke that was. On par with the Helen is in serious contention for UN secretary general hoax.
(Those not in government departments and quangos might not realise what a massive boost in employment y2k provided for a while)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:55 pm
the whole CO2 /fossil fuel debate is totally phoney.
there is enough coal in the ground to last human needs for centuries and burning the coal is good for the environment.
that’s why creation has natural forest fires. the fire burns all the deadwood releasing CO2, and the heat opens up the seeds. The ash fertilises the soil, and then the CO2 is food for the new trees.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
DenMT
Some comments on your list.
Introduce a carbon charge on fossil fuels – -tried and failed. Did you forget?
Cap and gradually reduce net carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation – - easy to say not so easy to do. Are we allowed Luggate High dam or to raise Manapouri?
Not support any additional use of coal for energy in New Zealand – - how does this fit with the promotion of local resources/industry rather than importing fuels? What if it is the quickest and cheapest way to power modern life? How many blackouts are you willing to accept? When we had our max electrickery demand day ever this winter, of the something like 6800MW only about 20MW came from ‘new’ renewables like wind despite there being about 1000MW potential. If the Greens won;t allow dams the demonstrated unreliability of wind just won;t cut it when you have power demand climbing 3% pa.
Polluter-pays tax: Raise around $300m per year by making diesel users pay their fair share – -fair share of what? Ok but do they get a rebate on the benefits they provide? How many lives have been saved by diesel powered fire engines and ambulances?
Raise around $300m per year through a low-level carbon charge of $10/tonne of CO2. – - tried and abandoned because it is just a tax that raises prices with no benefit. QED on what batteler said about Green command and control tactics.
Action on climate change is long overdue. The longer we wait to start shifting away from fossil fuels, the harder that shift will be when the time finally comes. – - actually it might be easier if we wait, we might be wealthier less intense in our foss fuel use and able to afford alternative technologies
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
“that’s why creation has natural forest fires. the fire burns all the deadwood releasing CO2, and the heat opens up the seeds. The ash fertilises the soil, and then the CO2 is food for the new trees.”
I get the distinct impression that you’re getting out of your depth here Battler. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientist around the world disagree with you.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hi Battler. Did you lose interest in discrediting the Greens in the manner you laid out above – what happened? To recap:
Battler: “The greens are far behind when it comes to environmental matters…If you outline some specific ‘environmental problems’, and the response offered by the Green Party, citing specific statements/policy releases from the Greens, I will offer a response / alternative.”
I spent a bit of my lunchtime responding to you above, the least you can do is live up to your end of the bargain.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
phillip john
natural forest fires and the natural life cycle were around long before these ‘climate scientists’ and will continue long after these ‘climate scientists’ bodies have been cremated and their ashes spread around to fertilise the soil and grow new trees.
the only people out of their depth are the phoney-science followers, and they will be six feet under within the next 120 years, while the natural life cycle will continue for thousands more as it has for thousands past.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Insider:
“Not support any additional use of coal for energy in New Zealand – - how does this fit with the promotion of local resources/industry rather than importing fuels? What if it is the quickest and cheapest way to power modern life? How many blackouts are you willing to accept?” We still have about 3,000 meggawatts to milk out of hydro before we go thinking about this sort of thing. Also, the fact is that wind power abverages about 40-50% of its maximum out-put, when the wind ain’t blowing we can open the dams up a bit more.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
DenMT – while I was away from my computer insider covered off the points you raised so far.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Chuck Bird,
I worry about Choudhary because he is in Parliament – I am astounded that the even the Labour party would admit such a moral imbecile into their ranks.
Furthermore, I think there is hypocrisy at work here. If Choudhary were a Christian MP advocating the brutal execution of homosexuals and adulterers, would the Labour party approve of him?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
All you say in the above post is true Battler, no one disputes that. The questions are : in what way will the natural cycle continue to perpetuate itself in the next 200 years? Will temperatures continue to rise? Will this damage human life an to what degree? If so how can we mitigate these issues? Almost everyone including most of the National causes agree that the evidence is overwhelming and are now looking at the third question. What keeps a layman like you in confusion about these issues?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Battler, I think only extremists would suggest that global warming will end life on earth. But it has the potential to be a catastrophe for humanity, even if it doesn’t end us. I would like to avoid that for myself and my descendants.
Fossil fuels surely contain carbon that was at some time in the atmosphere of the planet. But what was the climate like? It could have been vastly different to now, and a move toward such a climate could be a disaster. It is becoming abundantly clear that the average temperature of the planet has jumped a lot in recent years. Most scientists agree about the cause – human created greenhouse gases.
Whether we can do anything about it remains to be seen. I don’t claim to know. But I think the only way we will ever truly know is to seriously try.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Insider: Nice of you to pick up the baton in Battler’s stead. I’ll overlook the fact that you don’t respond to the actual issue in his original comment, that the Greens are ‘far behind’ others in environmental matters, and simply comment on your analysis.
Fossil fuel carbon charge: You say ‘Tried and failed.’ I say – just because the Labour Party shied at the gate on this one does not mean it is a ‘failed’ method of effectively discouraging fossil fuel use. It means the Labour Party were not up to implementing it, hence my fears as to their commitment beyond hot air on their promised new climate policies.
Cap/reduce net CO2 emissions from power generation: The vision of this policy is best seen when read in conjunction with Greens science/research policy. Capping CO2 emissions will very shortly become standard practice across the world,
Not support new coal power: You automatically assume that new coal generation will be necessary to meet our power demands. A much expanded centralised wind generation effort is one of many lower-impact power generation options to look at, as well as expanded research into alternatives – not as required by free market rates, but as a matter of policy.
Polluter-Pays Tax: Their ‘fair share’ of net pollution. Polluters have to be made to foot a tangible bill for what is increasingly clear as tangible environmental effect. If we care about that section of the diesel fleet that provides services like the ones you describe, we’ll pay the extra. Bit of an emotive plea on your part.
Carbon charges: This is a tax that the Greens are looking to feed back as income tax cuts – read their tax policy. It is not a blind stick to beat polluters with, but a disincentive. Again, polluters are tangibly damaging the ‘commons’ – it is time solutions were found to remedy this.
Climate change: Yeah, waiting around is a smart argument. Sure. Maybe an OTT metaphor, but if you got a hurricane warning for your area, would you ‘wait around’ to batten down the hatches, or hope that it’s path avoided you somehow? If you need the National-type ‘insurance’ rhetoric to convince you, then fine, but surely some sort of action is indicated in the face of such a large body of (admittedly persuasive rather than conclusive) data suggesting impending global climate shift.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“Id forgotten about the y2k scam – what a joke that was.”
Really? In my opinion it was a valid concern known about, and worked on by some since the late 1980s & the fact that there was almost no cosenquence of the dates ticking over is testiment to the analysts & programmers involved in Y2K testing & debugging (some of my colleagues in a large corporation spent over a year working in a test environment, on a live system, whose date was several years into the future – bubble testing they called it – problems were found & fixed & implemented in the live system.
And on another topic… coal… we have so much of it it’s a pity we can’t find someway to use it cleanly. Or can we?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Battler: “DenMT – while I was away from my computer insider covered off the points you raised so far.”
That is just weak beyond belief.
To arrogantly pronounce that the Greens are ‘way behind’ others, then offer to give some sort of back-up for your outlandish claim, given some sort of specific information, then to say ‘Well, actually this other guy said exactly what I was thinking, so I might not even bother’ – what a lightweight.
Can you just answer for me then, who is it that is providing the leadership in these areas that you claim overtakes the Greens?
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Ok Ben, lets agree that the solution has to be government revenue gathering neutral, and that the conservation industry get their snouts out of the feeding trough and lets come up with ideas.
Agree almost entirely battler, but there are some real conservation issues out there. Just that with the closed shop far left political aristocracy in charge these issues will never see the light of day.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“Can you just answer for me then, who is it that is providing the leadership in these areas that you claim overtakes the Greens?”
ALthough I don’t agree with all of the assumptions in the report – Nick Smith’s Environment discussion paper is light years ahead of where the greens are at.
That’s why the National Party are polling within the margin of error of governing without a coaltion partner, and the greens are within the margin of error of not even reaching the threshold to have any MP’s in the house.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:40 pm
“It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack ” – Voltarie.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Battler: As I was kind enough to pull specifics out of the Greens policy for you as you demanded, I will ask you for even just one specific policy area where the National policy demonstrates attitudes that are ‘light-years ahead of where the Greens are at’.
Perhaps you can do this one without Insider answering on your behalf. Be interesting to see where your independent thought is at.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
This climate change scenario is a smoke-screen, put out by gutless western leaders, who cannot face the clear and present conflagration fast approaching of Islamification of the West.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Porcupine, revenue gathering would be a very cynical motive for an environmental push, sure. But I wouldn’t want to give the impression I think environmentalism comes for free. It doesn’t. It will cost our economy. I just don’t think it will cost us as much as climate disaster would, so I think the cost is worth it.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Mrs Danvers is mad!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Phillip john
I think you are fairly optimistic in your numbers about “average” output of windfarms – those numbers are best of the best, typically they are much lower. I’m not an expert but where will this 3000mw of hydro come from? We only have about 5000mw of hydro capacity.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
“Battler: As I was kind enough to pull specifics out of the Greens policy for you as you demanded, I will ask you for even just one specific policy area where the National policy demonstrates attitudes that are ‘light-years ahead of where the Greens are at’.
Perhaps you can do this one without Insider answering on your behalf. Be interesting to see where your independent thought is at.
DenMT”
Let’s look at development as an example.
From the Green Party Website: [ http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy8865.html#RMA ]
“Develop and implement a National Strategy on Sustainable Development that will link all policies, building on Agenda 21 and compatible with international reporting frameworks.
Ensure that sustainable development will take priority over growth in GDP as a national goal.”
From the National Party Environment discussion document [page 26]:
“The use of fully-costed infrastructure levies, including a right of appeal in their determination, should be developed as an alternative to urban limits, while retaining the ability to protect special sites from sub-division and development for environmental reasons”
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
“And on another topic… coal… we have so much of it it’s a pity we can’t find someway to use it cleanly. Or can we?”
We can burn it in power stations to generate electricity.
We shouldn’t be so mean to the trees and deprive them of precious CO2.
CO2 is to trees what oxygen is to humans.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Den
I’m not speaking for battler – it’s an open thread so don’t diss me for not doing what you asked him to do. you said the Greens are far ahead of others in environmental matters. If so their policies should not just be ideals they shoudl be realistic and workable. Carbon tax wasn’t. Saying Labour just didn;t try hard enough again demonstrates the Greens tendency to command and control. It failed because as has been shown elsewehere the level of tax needed to be higher by 10x or more to affect behaviour otherwise it was just punitive. Petrol price changes recently demonstrate that. So it wasn;t a policy that was effective. I’m not sure how ineffective policy is ahead of the pack.
Cap and trade may work but there have been huge problems in Europe with accounting and equivalences I believe. It also has problems in a growing energy market and it doesn’t deal with leakage.
Not support new coal power: You automatically assume that new coal generation will be necessary to meet our power demands. {no I didn’t, I said ‘what if’] A much expanded centralised wind generation effort is one of many lower-impact power generation options to look at, as well as expanded research into alternatives – not as required by free market rates, but as a matter of policy.
– Understood but we have seen the issues with wind this year. You typically have to build 3x the wind generation to cover conventional power and even then it may not be available when you need it. That poses problems in an electronic world need steady state electrickery.
Polluter-Pays Tax: Their ‘fair share’ of net pollution. –How do you net it out? What actually are you measuring and comparing? These are very complex equations and not easy to resolve. How do you compare a life saved today with a theoretical life from a theoretical climate scenario in 50 years?
Carbon charges: This is a tax that the Greens are looking to feed back as income tax cuts – read their tax policy. It is not a blind stick to beat polluters with, but a disincentive.
– but it’s not at $10, its been demonstrated. it’s really just another petrol tax to create a slush fund.
Climate change: Yeah, waiting around is a smart argument. Sure. Maybe an OTT metaphor, but if you got a hurricane warning for your area, would you ‘wait around’ to batten down the hatches, or hope that it’s path avoided you somehow? If you need the National-type ‘insurance’ rhetoric to convince you, then fine, but surely some sort of action is indicated in the face of such a large body of (admittedly persuasive rather than conclusive) data suggesting impending global climate shift.
– I was just proposing that the answer may not be as simple as you suggest. action now may not be as effective as action later. So which is better -action that makes you feel good or action that achieves what it sets out to do?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Well lets see what I have heard coming out of the Labour Party conference. They want to fund political parties solely from tax payers funds, they want to ban non-party politicing, they want us to become “sustainable”.
What is their time frame for this? Five years?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Actually you’re right insider, after doing abit more resaerch it seems like 20-30 % of capacity output is more likey.
You say: “I’m not an expert but where will this 3000mw of hydro come from? We only have about 5000mw of hydro capacity.”
I read it in a government report about 2 months ago but can’t remember what it was called. Needless to say, all other gpotential generation is in the lower half of the south island.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Talking about electricity capacity etc – one thing that would be exciting is if consumers could generate solar/wind etc on their premises and sell surplus electricity back into the National Grid.
It would help ease pressure on the grid and lower people’s energy bills through having sell-back revenue offset against their power charges.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Battler: Your ‘analysis’ consists of posting up two bits of tenuously related policy.
One is a broad, high-level statement of intent by the Greens, which discusses integration of policies with Agenda 21 (UN Rio Accord) and prioritising sustainable development over GDP growth (not as scary as it sounds, just a value hierarchy).
The National one is a narrow proposal for reforming building and development zoning and consent processes.
How the two relate in your mind is a mystery, as you refuse to engage in any actual analysis, but furthermore, how the National policy is demonstrably ‘light-years’ ahead of a high-level policy intent of the Greens is unfathomable. Additionally, the National contains the traditional bugbears of hard-right pundits – prohibitions on development in environmentally sensitive sites, and punitive levies for infrastructure (very loose here, no real discussion in the original Bluegreens document as to how this would apply in the real world).
Perhaps some further reading of the minutiae of Greens policy would serve you well, if you were keen to substantively debate and compare the two parties. Especially if you are trying to sell people the idea that National is miles ahead of the Greens. Sheesh.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
“you said the Greens are far ahead of others in environmental matters. If so their policies should not just be ideals they shoudl be realistic and workable. Carbon tax wasn’t.”
It wasn’t workable because the Nats dissed the hell out of it and the media ran with it. Now that we have a broad parliamentary caucus on the issue we can look foward to seeing ir put into action, just you wait and see.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Insider: I apologise if I came across as dissing you – I recall I said ‘thanks’ for actually engaging with the issues. Naturally I wouldn’t expect you to try and prove a point which someone else made. Robust debate is awesome on this kind of stuff, and I would never try to discourage it by being negative.
I am keen to respond to all the points you made but am off to meetings for a bit. Will reply substantively by the end of the day.
DenMT
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
phillip john
I think we are talking slightly different things. I think what you are talking about is additional hydro scheme potential whereas what I thought you were saying was that there was more we could get out of the existing hydro infrastructure ie through efficiency.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
“Perhaps some further reading of the minutiae of Greens policy would serve you well, if you were keen to substantively debate and compare the two parties. Especially if you are trying to sell people the idea that National is miles ahead of the Greens. Sheesh.
DenMT”
Let’s have a few more gems from the Greens then shall we-
“Form a Critical Mass: Facilitate the gathering of people on unmotorised wheels or feet for a journey around the streets, or impromptu street party.”
“If you asked the man on the street which could be more relied on, Wellington’s wind or a continuing flow of Middle East Oil, the Greens are pretty sure what the answer would be. This is why the Greens recently proposed a system of light rail, trolley buses and modern trains using electricity from wind turbines for Wellington.”
“15 Sep: Al Gore’s new film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a powerful documentary about the threat of global warming. Go and see it. The film is a great opportunity to enlighten people about the crisis we are in, or to just remotivate yourself. There are people all around the world who know things have to change. If that’s not enough to get to you moving, NASAs observation that a chunk of permanent arctic ice 3 times the size of NZ has disappeared in the last year should finish you off.”
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
“think we are talking slightly different things. I think what you are talking about is additional hydro scheme potential whereas what I thought you were saying was that there was more we could get out of the existing hydro infrastructure ie through efficiency.”
Cool, sorry that my original post on this wasn’t too clear. Still you seem to be advocation the use of dirty generation ahead of relatively clean generation even though the potential for further development of the later is redily available. Why you would adopt this position when hydro is generally a cheaper for mof generation is beyond me.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
“Why you would adopt this position when hydro is generally a cheaper for mof generation is beyond me.”
Wow, that was pretty bad, it should have been:
Why you would adopt this position when hydro is generally a cheaper form of generation is beyond me…………..
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
“Form a Critical Mass: Facilitate the gathering of people on unmotorised wheels or feet for a journey around the streets, or impromptu street party.”
Come on Battler, let’s see the link.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I’m all for looking after the enviroment, but for a politician to say “Climate change will hurt us if we don’t do something about it!” and then hop in her six cylinder Ford Fairmont and drive off… well… I feel like it’s just rhetoric.
As for a Christian arm for the Labour party… well I think the commandment Thou Shall Not Steal is going to be a problem for starters.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
hoolian said..
“..I’m yet to even meet a ‘left wing Christian..”
you need to get out more..hoolian..
oh.!..hang on..!..i forgot…jesus was a rightwing businessman..eh..?
who preached the pursuit of the dollar over all other concerns..eh..?
so..are you like george bush..?..do you have a direct line to the ‘big-fella’..?
y’know..being a rightie and all..you’d get priority calling..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Phillip
Actually I was pointing out the contradiction that the greens want renewables but don’t want more hydro dams, which I agree with you may be a better option than coal (not sure if hydro is cheaper though).
I think the greens need to get over the kneejerk worst case scenario view that any environmental impact is negative and that any industrial project is another nail in the environmental coffin. Has the Clutha dam been as bad as the predictions? What about Manapouri?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
“”Form a Critical Mass: Facilitate the gathering of people on unmotorised wheels or feet for a journey around the streets, or impromptu street party.”
Come on Battler, let’s see the link.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/transport/
2nd to last box, entitled “GET ACTIVE”
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Excellent
Helen Clark stealing Jeanette’s speaches and National Party nerds claiming they have better environmental policy than the Greens. Would this be happening without the Greens in Parliament? I think not!
Another reason to keep them there
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
We shouldn’t be so mean to the trees and deprive them of precious CO2.
CO2 is to trees what oxygen is to humans.
No it isn’t. Oxygen is to trees what Oxygen is to humans – i.e. for respiration. CO2 (plus light and water) is to trees what food is to humans.
Honestly, if you’re going to take part in a debate, at least get the basics right.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Read “polluter pays” as “we’ve got lots of good inefficient electricity supply companys just dying to charge you $1000 per connection”
How about polluter keeps money and changes practices to cleaner and greener or they will be dealt with by the law on the same footing as everyone else in the country.
Wouln’t trust you as far as I could throw you. Now where did I put the $20000 resource consent I need for my garden shed?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Andrew Bannister
The reality is that trees and plant life take in CO2 and give out Oxygen.
That’s why for thousands of years forest fires have emitted CO2, cleared the dead wood, opened the seeds, fertilised the soil with ash and then fed the new trees the CO2 and the world ecosystem hasn’t collapsed.
Humans burning some coal for electricity, oil for transport, and cow’s farting as they make milk is not going to bring about the doom being predicted by the red bellied communists masquerading as environmentalists.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
“Form a Critical Mass: Facilitate the gathering of people on unmotorised wheels or feet for a journey around the streets, or impromptu street party.”
the fact that this is down the bottom of the web page would indicate that it’s low on the list of priority. In fact it just looks like they’re encouraging people to organise at a community level to find fun creative ways to get the message across. Yes indeed battler, what kind of imbecile would advocate such frivolous activity?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:57 pm
phillip john
note I referred to it as a “gem”
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
“Humans burning some coal for electricity, oil for transport, and cow’s farting as they make milk is not going to bring about the doom being predicted by the red bellied communists masquerading as environmentalists.”
Again battler, the vast majority of climate scientists would disagree with you, and like most people (including the National caucus) I’m more inclined to put my faith in them ahead of you. No affront on you, just you don’t seem to have any kind of professional experience when it comes to this stuff.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Humans burning some coal for electricity, oil for transport, and cow’s farting as they make milk is not going to bring about the doom being predicted by the red bellied communists masquerading as environmentalists.
If you don’t know the difference between respiration and photosynthesis, how on earth would you know what effect the use of fossil fuels has on very complex ecosystems?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Klark could show she means business by immediately cancelling the perk that allows ex MPs free or cut price air travel for life and cutting out the international junkets she and others seem to be perpetually engaged in. International Air Travel accounts for about 5% of carbonates discharged into the atmossphere and because they are discharged at such a height are four times as damaging….Underground coalmine fires burning out of control in China discharge about another 3% which is more than every car and light truck in America. Similar but not so large fires are also burning in Pennsyvania and Australia….This makes cow farts, and coal fired power stations in this country pretty small bikkies….As for a Christian branch I understand the only christian in the Liabour caucus is Cunliffe and he is a pom.Seems like he might have a job on his hands.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
“Humans burning some coal for electricity, oil for transport, and cow’s farting as they make milk is not going to bring about the doom being predicted by the red bellied communists masquerading as environmentalists.”
Again battler, the vast majority of climate scientists would disagree with you, and like most people (including the National caucus) I’m more inclined to put my faith in them ahead of you. No affront on you, just you don’t seem to have any kind of professional experience when it comes to this stuff.”
Thousands of years of history is stacked against these johnny come lately red bellied communists masquerading as save-the-earth expert environmentalists.
I put thousands of years of the earth’s resilience ahead of the rhetoric of communists masquerading as environmentalists any day.
These people claiming to be ‘professionals’ are about as clued up as the people who claimed the earth was flat and the people who predicted “Next Ice Age coming soon” “Population Bomb” “Y2K”
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Klark could show she means business by immediately cancelling the perk that allows ex MPs free or cut price air travel for life and cutting out the international junkets she and others seem to be perpetually engaged in.
yes, and of course Braschschs and and Nazional will vote for that.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
So Battler, the 80% of professional climatologists that agree that current global warming is mostly anthropogenic are all part of a dastardly communist plot to spoil global economic growth and the triumphant march of capitalism into the future? Really, how do expect to be taken seriously when you put forward such nonsense as an argument?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:34 pm
“These people claiming to be ‘professionals’ are about as clued up as the people who claimed the earth was flat and the people who predicted “Next Ice Age coming soon” “Population Bomb” “Y2K” ”
Well they were right about Y2K Battler, the year 2000 came & went a few years back.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
“So Battler, the 80% of professional climatologists that agree that current global warming is mostly anthropogenic are all part of a dastardly communist plot to spoil global economic growth and the triumphant march of capitalism into the future? Really, how do expect to be taken seriously when you put forward such nonsense as an argument?”
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
It’s not the puppets you have to look at to establish the motive. They’re just the actors on the stage show dancing for a piece of bread and a pillow to rest their heads at night.
It’s the puppet masters / pay masters running the show you and calling the tunes you have to worry about.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
battler, again, not many are saying that life will not survive climate change, or even that humans will not survive. What is widely understood is that dramatic climate change could very adversely affect the human race.
You can wax lyrical about the impartial majesty of nature, but you are just missing the point. Sure mass famine will control our population, but I’d rather not be the one starving, nor any of my descendants. If I can do something to stop it, I will.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Oh, so now I see, all of American universities that are run like corporations secretly have communists at their helm. Yes, they’re all sitting their, biding their time, waiting for the right moment to seize the reigns of power.
Really battler, this is getting a bit absurd.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Ben there is very little if any thing humans can do that will have any major impact on cliamte.
70 % of the earth’s surface is covered by water. Water vapour is the major influence on climate.
Cities cover around 2% of earth’s surface. Us burning a bit of coal for power, running petrol engines, and farming a few herds of cows for milk is not going to cause global warming or famine.
Famine comes about due to unjust landlocking by corrupt governments, mono farming, and third world famers being forced to mono-farm export crops instead of diverse farming that could feed their families and produce a surplus to sell locally.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“It’s the puppet masters / pay masters running the show you and calling the tunes you have to worry about”
Ah the shadowy global cabal of reptilian lizard people who are brainwashing every scientist in the world…
We’re through the looking glass here people!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
ah the light’s are coming on in sonic’s head
it’s like how un-elected, highly paid Heather Simpson has more power than the average elected cabinet minister in the current labour government.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
“Famine comes about due to unjust landlocking by corrupt governments, mono farming, and third world famers being forced to mono-farm export crops instead of diverse farming that could feed their families and produce a surplus to sell locally.”
You are right about these things battler. But if many climatologist are right in predicting that global warming, if it continues unabated, will increase the intensity and frequency of droughts and hurricanes I think we can safely assume that this is going to put pressure on food supply in many areas. Come on fella, it’s not rocket science.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Phillip John says, “I get the distinct impression that you’re getting out of your depth here Battler. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientist around the world disagree with you.”
I seem to recall that you said that you were scientist. If so, I do not think it would a good idea to mention it considering the above comment.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
battler, we not only can affect climate, but we already have. This is what the scientists are saying. It really is that simple, and no amount of 5th form science or earthy country wisdom is going to convince me to believe you over them.
What we don’t know is whether we can reverse the process. And we will only really know if we try.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Ben
Vote:unfortunately for the johnny come lately puppet ‘scientists’, thousands of years of history is stacked against them, and the natural climate and life cycle systems will contine for thousands of years into the future, long after the ‘scientists’ have emitted more CO2 through the cremation of their dead bodies, and their ashes are fertilising the soil for the new trees that will grow up and absorb their CO2.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
battler, can you tell me exactly when in geological history that fossil fuels have been dug up in large scale and burned?
Notice also that mass extinctions have happened. Would you like to partake of the next one?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Ben
every year in fire season for centuries, tons and tons of wood has been burned in natural forest fires.
your strawman arguments are going up in smoke along with the deadwood in these forests.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
I’m still waiting for the ice age that was predicted in the 70′s. It seems the same screams of hysteria that where touted then are being used now. *yawn*
On a side note has it been two months already PJ?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:11 pm
battler, fossil fuels?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Ben – It’s hopeless.
Battler, science uses empirical evidence to answer questions.
You use emotion – mostly anger, fear, and bitterness with a splash of paranoia.
I think I trust scientists over anything you might believe. So far you have shown very little evidence that you actually know what you are talking about.
A tree that is burned has something very close to net-zero carbon emission.
Coal and oil are carbon locked up from years and years and years and tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of trees. They are high-density carbon products. That is why they burn so well. Where do you think all that carbon goes? Back into the trees?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Andrew, it could be hopeless. But perhaps he genuinely doesn’t understand the difference between fossil fuels and other sources of CO2. I’m giving him an honest chance to tell me when in the few billion years the earth has been around that wholesale burning of all that stored carbon has happened before.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:23 pm
and I arrive home to see on close up yet another scientist (who has been involved in the IPCC) coming out against those who claim ‘consensus’ in their vain attempt to shut down debate.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:30 pm
“Battler, science uses empirical evidence to answer questions. ”
Exactly. Not phoney claims of “consensus” and “the debate is over”.
“You use emotion – mostly anger, fear, and bitterness with a splash of paranoia.”
No. I have no fear of ‘climate change’. I’m not the one running a fearmongering campaign to scare people that they are causing the end of civilization by burning a little wood and coal for heat & cooking, driving the petrol engine car for transport or keeping a few cattle for meat and milk.
“I think I trust scientists over anything you might believe. So far you have shown very little evidence that you actually know what you are talking about. ”
You choose to believe the scientists who are peddling the line that suits your political ideology.
As soon as some scientists come out claiming they have reached “consensus” and “the debate is over”, you say “oh yes, the debate is over”. “Oh, the people of Christchurch must stop burning their home fires because it is causing global warming” – even though there have been natural forest fires for centuries.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:10 pm
On another related matter – The Stern report is a trojan horse for internationalism, not credible science or economics:
“It’s about creating carbon markets, creating a price incentive to cut back on carbon, about promoting research and development, about encouraging energy efficiency,” Stern said.
“Above all it’s international, it’s getting countries to move together,” he told Reuters after delivering the 580-page report to Blair and Brown.
One thing on which all analysts, policy makers, investors and lobbyists seemed to agree was this need for global action. ”
of course, some people are awake to it
“”The fact is there’s a very, very deep body of scepticism and resistance…not only in the United States although that’s perhaps the focal point,” said Michael Grubb, chief economist at Britain’s Carbon Trust, a group which spearheads Britain’s drive to a low-carbon economy. ”
“The report by Stern, the British government’s chief economist, earned a sceptical response from some fellow economists.
At the core of the report was the message that urgent action now would cost up to 20 times less than doing nothing.
“Telling people that this (action on global warming) will cost quite a trivial sum is giving the wrong kind of direction,” said Dieter Helm, an economics fellow at New College, Oxford. “I think 1 percent of GDP is probably quite low.”
Others were unimpressed by Stern’s cost estimate of doing nothing.
“It assumes that society will never get used to higher temperatures, changed rainfall patterns, or higher sea levels. This is a rather dim view of human ingenuity,” said Richard Tol, senior research officer at Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute.
“The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.”
Vote:“
October 31st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Interesting discussion here. I guess Phillip John will be pleased at a “green thread” on Kiwiblog – after chastising DPF for ages about not giving sufficient attention to “green issues”?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Helen is just using the global warming issue to position herself in the cocktail circuit after leaving power. Its a ploy of many outgoing politicians – Margaret Thatcher, Al gore, …
Hey Labour whatever you do please dont replace her with Phil Goff – he’s too good, he could take labour places, he might secure victory for you and we dont want that.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Still no answer to my fairly simple question, battler. When in the planet’s long history has fossilized carbon been burned up wholesale? Why are you so confident it couldn’t lead to warming?
We’re not talking about a few woodfires, a bit of car exhaust and some cows. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of vehicles of all sizes, factories, power plants all merrily burning away for hundreds of years, and steadily increasing in their number.
We’re talking about carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere before dinosaurs and has been underground ever since, the accumulated fossilized remains of millions of years of biological life, being dug up across a few centuries and sent airborne again.
Why are you so confident you know exactly what the effect of that will be? What do you think has led to the alarming spike in world temperatures in recent years?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I couldn’t help but notice the “food miles” bunkum being promoted. That “thought piece” which says a kilo of kiwifruit emits 5 kilograms of CO2 on its way to London. What a load of buggery bollocks. Would NZ2 not depart if it didn’t have a kilo of kiwifruit on board? Of course it would. The alleged carbon emissions would happen regardless of whether there are export products in the hold or not. No, this is just more bunkum to strike a tax or impose tariffs by stealth.
As for legislating against used car imports of a certain age, will that really help the poor old planet? Think about it, if they aren’t being driven here they will be driven somewhere else (probably in non life-sapping Kyoto countries like India and China), so what does the ban achieve in a “global” sense? Nothing. Again utter bollocks for sound-bite political gain.
Sorry Helen, we can stick a folk into the arse of your environmental revelations and turn it over till they smoke blue, excuse the environmentally unfriendly image.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:24 pm
“Still no answer to my fairly simple question, battler. When in the planet’s long history has fossilized carbon been burned up wholesale?
Why are you so confident it couldn’t lead to warming?”
Why are you so confident it will lead to warming with disaster for humans following?
“We’re not talking about a few woodfires, a bit of car exhaust and some cows. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of vehicles of all sizes, factories, power plants all merrily burning away for hundreds of years, and steadily increasing in their number.”
What we’re talking about is high density human living only covering 2% of the earth’s surface, with water covering 70% of the earth’s surface.
What we’re talking about is the likes of the U.S. vehicle fleet turning over within 15 years and with most manufacturers moving to hybrid models that will slash emmissions by 75%.
What we’re talking about is solar hot water slashing national grid power usage for water heating by 75%.
What we’re talking about is eco-bulbs slashing power requirements for lighting by 75%.
What we’re talking about is home composting slashing the waste-to-landfill stream by 45% and slashing methane emmissions at the same time as creating rich compost to put on the home vege garden and slash reliance on commercial crops.
What we’re talking about is composting toilets removing the need for discharge of sewerage into waterways.
What we’re talking about is shifting away from the failed mono-farming of the past and into biodiverse organic farming based on sound crop and stock rotation and closed-loop systems with zero waste.
“We’re talking about carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere before dinosaurs and has been underground ever since, the accumulated fossilized remains of millions of years of biological life, being dug up across a few centuries and sent airborne again.”
What we’re talking about is 300 years plus worth of coal available to continue fueling our power stations, steam trains and home heating and cooking, providing CO2 as food for plant life.
“Why are you so confident you know exactly what the effect of that will be?”
Why are the peddlers of doom so confident of pending disaster unless we slash carbon burning?
“What do you think has led to the alarming spike in world temperatures in recent years?”
There has not been an ‘alarming’ spike in world temperatures in recent years.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:35 pm
I`m on your side on this one Battler,remember the same vaunted scientist playing there computer games predicted a coming ice age in the Seventies.A few facts to consider;
With out green house gases and the green house effect the mean temp. of the planet would be minus 18 C.
95 of the green house gases are water vapour from evaporation of the oceans.
2 percent of the green house gases are man made.
The temp. of the planet has risen .6 of a degree in the last 150 years.
In the last 2 thousand years the planet has both been cooler and warmer(warm mediaevil period and the mini ice age afterwards)
Anyone who says that they can predict the future in 50 years time is not a scientist but a soothsayer!
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:07 am
Leaving aside the argument about whether global warming is real, is it possible to design a carbon tax that has no impact on NZ’s export competitiveness, or our local consumption of imports? If so, then the net impact would be reduction in release of carbon, with minimal downsides other than the deadweight cost of taxation (which could be offset by reducing other taxes).
I suggest a local tax on production here, with a refund (drawback) of that tax on export of goods (thereby ensuring no impact on our export competitiveness), and an equivalent duty on imports (thereby avoiding transfer of our carbon creation to other companies).
If we also create a policy that says the import duty isn’t payable if the goods arrive from a country with a similar regime (assuming their drawback isn’t available when exporting to NZ) we could become part of a growing community of countries implementing similar policies. Thereby removing one of the largest objections to change in this area.
It seems to me that this is an easier approach than cap and trade.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:14 am
PaulL, why advocate a tax? Don’t give the bastards ideas.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:19 am
So long as the total tax take doesn’t change, I have no problem with a tax. We already tax things we don’t want people to use – like cigarettes, alcohol and fuels.
My theory is that if the right refuse to come up with a mechanism that doesn’t distort the economy, then the left will come up with something half arsed that doesn’t work and makes a mess at the same time. Like nationalising carbon credits and expecting people to keep creating them.
Personally, I don’t see why people have a need to drive 4wds to take their kids to school, and have no problem with us doing things that discourage that. Leaving aside the potential global warming (not convinced on that) it is plain wasteful, and damages our balance of payments. If they want to pay the new cost, they can feel free to keep doing it. We can plant some trees with the money the tax raises.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:23 am
PaulL, I like my M55 and why should I be taxed for driving it. Its my choice and I prefer not to have busybodies telling me what I can and cannot do. The Green probably emit more harmful gasses during their sessions with Nandor, tax that.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:30 am
pdq, it is about externalities. I am fine for you to drive your M55, so long as you pay the externalities. That should be a central tenant of right wing policies IMO. I would personally set a carbon tax at a level that was below the generally agreed cost of the externalities, but above zero. Nobody should have cause to complain about that – they are still getting a good deal.
If, at that price, you would still rather drive your M55 than do something else with the money, then go ahead. That is what the free market is all about. So long as the tax covers the externalities, we can use the money to mitigate the impacts of your choice. If you stop driving the M55, we can stop planting trees. All easy.
The problem is that when some of the cost of your actions is borne by other people, your decisions may get distorted. You may drive an M55 when with the full cost you would have bought a M320 with the spare money spent on a home theatre system. Someone somewhere else gets malaria because the tropical zones broadened a bit. I don’t know what your choice might be, and my principle is that I don’t really want to know – that is what the free market is for.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:51 am
The answer seems fairly simple
- create an environment where hard work by intelligent NZers is rewarded instead of penalised so they feel they have a future here
- encourage them to re-invest their money increasing the efficiency of our existing industries and creating new efficient industries so that their children and grandchildren will feel they have a future here
- and these people will be happy to support sensible environmental policies that benefit all
We will of course have to tell these megalomaniac global bureaucrats where they can stick their carbon credits (before they start making us buy oxygen and water credits, which will be the next thing of course)
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:01 am
“What we’re talking about is high density human living only covering 2% of the earth’s surface, with water covering 70% of the earth’s surface.”
Keep talking the pseudo science battler, these figures mean absolutely nothing.
“What we’re talking about is the likes of the U.S. vehicle fleet turning over within 15 years and with most manufacturers moving to hybrid models that will slash emmissions by 75%. What we’re talking about is solar hot water slashing national grid power usage for water heating by 75%.”
The market ensures none of these things battler, especially when you consider the ologopoistic character of these industries. Did you know that car manufacturers make most of their profits from selling their parts at extortionary prices and electric motors undergo far less ware and tear than combustion engines? What you say will only happen if their are significant government incentives and deterrents to push them in that direction.
“What we’re talking about is shifting away from the failed mono-farming of the past and into biodiverse organic farming based on sound crop and stock rotation and closed-loop systems with zero waste.”
This is absolute pipe dream stuff I’m afraid battler, the only country that I know of where this is the norm is Cuba. Organics are labour intensive and typically yield less food per acre – exactly the things that the market pressures select against.
“There has not been an ‘alarming’ spike in world temperatures in recent years. ”
well again battler it’s you against the scientific community, guess who we’re going to believe?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:24 am
Dr Chris de Freitas seems to disagree with you PJ. Funny that.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
I hardly call .6 of a degree C in a 150 years ”an alarming spike” in temp.!
Remember that the ”hockey stick”model which shows that the world mean temp. has been constant in the last 2 thousand years and then has suddenly spiked upwards in the last 150 years which is trotted out by global warming proponents is a fraud.The reality is that it is has both been cooler and warmer than now in this time period.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:44 am
Dr Chris de Freitas, hey?
yes there are a few lone voices such as this who dispute anthropogenic global warming. I think it’s somewhere along the lines of 5% of climate scientists that doubt it. And while there is no way of telling wh is right for sure as a layman I’m going to go with where the vast majority of expert opinion lies. For instance, say if in the 1970′s, 95% of doctors specialising in the pertinent feild said that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer significantly and 5% said it doesn’t who would you have believed?
“A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”
“The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.”
“Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords “global climate change.” Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.”
So it seems that the only people who deny anthropogenic global warming are to be found outside the specialist scientific community. Well, your case just looks more and more spurious I’m afraid battler et al.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:55 am
This from the Herald about Dr Chris de Freitas.
“Of 16 published papers de Freitas has been editor for, nine have been authored by scientists who are well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate,” Dr Hume wrote.
Scientific American reported: “Some conclude that politics drove the paper’s publication in Climate Research. Dr de Freitas published a major study last year in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, edited by his brother Dr Tim de Freitas, of Talisman Energy in Calgary, arguing that “there is no reason to believe that catastrophic [climate] change is under way”.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:56 am
So if we take your argument re the smokers and lung cancer. Does that still mean I’m going to get my ice age that scientist of the 70′s predicted?
Follow the money PJ and you will find the truth.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:11 am
AGJ: Where does following the money get you? I am not going to rattle on at length about ExxonMobil, because that link to climate change publicity is well established, but what are you particularly referring to?
Follow the state-funded researcher’s money and it gets you to governments?
Please expand, for all of our edification!
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:12 am
Sorry AGJ I don’t recall any such consensus in the scientific community about the “impending ice age”. But of course if you can show me proof I’m willing to be proved wrong.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:19 am
PJ,the history of science is littered with cases of the science ”establishment” turning some new theory into dogma.It is esp. compelling to do this when the ”man made global warming hypothesis”is fifty years in the future and there are lots of dosh up for grabs in research!
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:24 am
Oh it was discuss at great length, a bit before your time perhaps? I suggest you take the blinkers off.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:26 am
“It is esp. compelling to do this when the ”man made global warming hypothesis”is fifty years in the future and there are lots of dosh up for grabs in research!”
I would have thougt that the opposite was true,
What with the 5 biggest oil companies being amongst the 100 most profitable companies on earth – abit of research funding to throw around there no?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:29 am
“Oh it was discuss at great length, a bit before your time perhaps? I suggest you take the blinkers off.”
Sure AGJ but was ther any concensus and if so where’s your proof?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:33 am
Phillip John: Are you crazy? How could you possibly think oil industry cash could be a drawcard when there is all that sweet government money sitting around to feather one’s nest with?
I mean, all you have to do is come up with some sort of half-arse theory about how the polar bears are dying, or the penguins are melting, and the government will literally drown you in research money! You’ll be living high on the hog for the rest of your life! That’s how it works man!
Like AGJ said, follow the money!
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am
“Sure AGJ but was ther any concensus and if so where’s your proof?”
Precisely PJ, where is the proof?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:44 am
“I mean, all you have to do is come up with some sort of half-arse theory about how the polar bears are dying, or the penguins are melting, and the government will literally drown you in research money! You’ll be living high on the hog for the rest of your life! That’s how it works man!”
The oil companies have more money to throw around than directors of government sponsored research funds and they have more of an axe to grind regarding this issue. i.e say if the Global warming is true and we act on it accordingly these companies stand to loose millions of dollars in profits. On the flip-side say that GW isn’t happening, what does the Tory party in the UK have to gain from perpetuating a myth like this? The answer is absolutely nothing.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Just on the temperature thing, the IPCC say that it is LIKELY that MOST of the warming in the second half of the 20th century is attributable to human activity.
So what they are saying is it is likely (60-90% certainty) that most of the observed 0.6d change (and I’m assuming that all that change happened post 1950 but I suspect that is not true) is attributable to humans, and that includes all effects ie industrial emissions, deforestation, agriculture, farming, transport.
I think we need to keep this in mind as to what is actually the consensus.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Phillip John: I was hoping I wouldn’t have to add a big ***SARCASM*** at the end of my comment… Should have been clear!
How anyone could point to financial motivation as a driver is beyond me. Surely if one was unscrupulous enough to be willing to toe someone else’s line simply to line their own pocket, a private sector company would be the logical choice, given their position on the back foot, and their deep pockets.
The trick really is not to debate motivation, but actual science. The body of evidence and theory around AGW is deepening and broadening every day, whereas the skeptic position tends usually to selectively presented anomalies and often erroneous isolated data (ie new Climate Science Coalition recruit David Bellamy’s oft-quoted ‘the glaciers aren’t melting’ rant).
The problem is that your every day blog-reader, as a gross generalisation, doesn’t follow the science or the terminology, and is happy to agree with whoever sounds most convincing in spewing rhetoric. It also helps if the argument in question tallies with your political outlook.
This thread has pointed up commenters like Battler and AGJ for who they are – one dimensional partisan grumps with a poor understanding of issues but a political barrow to push. It has also shown the other side of the coin – commenters like Insider, who while sharing the same views as the aforementioned, are actually willing to debate ideas, and engage with the issues beyond the politics.
Expect a lot more of the latter form of argument to occur post-Stern Report, and less of the former.
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Pj, The oil companies wont lose money at all. People still need the energy. Its the car manufacturers who will lose as they change to new technologies. The oil companies win either way as they just pass the cost onto the consumer.And when the oil runs out they change. Look at how BP is diversifying.
Vote:Personally I think a lot of that stated is just bullshit. Empiraical evidence over a 100 year period. Not even a sneeze in time. Also we only occupy 1.5 -2% of the earth and as for statisticians and the Mann hockey stick graph, its a joke. Putting out urban myths like the USA is the worlds worst polluter dont help the cause either. But that said I agree that mankind pollutes and things should change. Its the degree I’m not sure about.Just because we mightnt believe all that is said about how bad the problem is doesnt mean we should do nothing, as the way we treat the earth HAS to change.
Taxes are not the answer. Punishing economies just limits our competativeness and paying the Kyoto tax to who? doesnt help NZ change.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
”Follow the money”
-the scientists have there research dosh.
-The suits have a new commodity to ”clip
the ticket” on in carbon credits
-The oil companies keep selling business as usall
-And where the real money is;the politicians have a new layer of taxes to whack us with.
Remember it was Enron in the early nineties that first started to promote this carbon trading con.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Den
The barrows are on all sides. In Aus Greenpeace said today that it was “time to close down (the) coal industry”. This is just crazy talk so it is not restricted to AGW sceptics.
There are people everywhere putting stakes in the ground, eventually those stakes will converge around some common ground and the outliers will rot away. But expect a lot of talk and not much action till then.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
“Pj, The oil companies wont lose money at all. People still need the energy. Its the car manufacturers who will lose as they change to new technologies. The oil companies win either way as they just pass the cost onto the consumer.And when the oil runs out they change. Look at how BP is diversifying.”
Yes the oil companies will still do business but less of it. If we the politicians all accept GW and conclude that carbon emissions must be diminished then we will start to see low-carbon energy sources such as electricity produced from nuclear and renewable take a chunk out of market share from giants such as Enron and the rest of them.
I can’t see any oil company CEOs being too happy about this scenario.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Pj
Unfortunately most of the actual oil is in the hands of Governments not private companies – Pemex, SaudiAramco, Statoil, Petrobras etc – and that is where mostof hte money is. It’s a bit likke the electricity industry here. The big four would provide only about 15-20% of world oil production.
And as you point out there are competing interests from other energy industries and interest groups which sort of undermines the whole ‘seven sisters’ type argument. Remember coal is also very big as an energy source in the global mix and there are many opportunities for them due to their resource base.
There is also an expectation that oil demand will flatten in OECD countries in any case. The real growth is in the developed world which are exempt from emisisons caps. They are not going to sacrifice growth just to give countries like NZ and UK peace of mind…
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
PJ, they know its going to end eventually. I have business friends who are oil engineers. They state the oil is there but the cost of getting it will be high. They acknowledge that the worlds mineral resources are finite.Thats why they are diversifying. So we are seeing already new technology being introduced. I drove a Lexus hybrid the other day (doesnt the CEO of Ford drive one?)and its pretty good. Not 100mpg yet but Fiat are about to launch cars that will (and yes they are small..) I think the Greens need to start being a bit more practical about their aims. Some are more lofty ideals than realistic. As a kiwi I love our river valleys but have to say Project Aqua should have gone ahead. It will appear a small price to pay in the near future.I fail to see the difference in visual pollution between a wind farm and a hydro scheme. Bio gas is also the way forward as it is a win win. The truth is there is no single answer but like most things a mix of a lot of solutions.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
These governments are only listening to their own yes-person. There is major controversy around climate change and especially in what to do about it. The fact that international bureaucrats and their socialist government pets have come up with the carbon credit con is scary. Its not new – its just RIO in green clothing – they’ve been mining this seam for years while our biodiversity plummets faster than a labour leader caught with her fingers in the public cooky jar.
* Rio Report: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome Coordinator by Jan Tinbergen, 1976; http://www.clubofrome.org/about/index.php (sorry too old for full text folks you’ll have to try a library)
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
David: “Putting out urban myths like the USA is the worlds worst polluter dont help the cause either.”
I don’t know where you get ‘urban myth’ from, as the States pump out vast amounts more CO2 per capita than any other country. They are responsible for almost a quarter of all global CO2 emissions (next is the WHOLE of the EU with about 15%, followed by China at about 14%).
Fact-checking is your friend.
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pm
A very good speech that is well worth reading.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
“This thread has pointed up commenters like Battler and AGJ for who they are – one dimensional partisan grumps with a poor understanding of issues but a political barrow to push. It has also shown the other side of the coin – commenters like Insider, who while sharing the same views as the aforementioned, are actually willing to debate ideas, and engage with the issues beyond the politics.”
What the thread points up is that there is a political and economic agenda behind the “Climate Change / Global Warming” movement.
If these people can convince the public that they are causing Global warming and that there is disaster follow, the public will be far more prepared to pay whatever taxes are demanded of them or to give up their rights to drive cars, use power and raise stock on their properties.
It is the pro Global Warming side of the argument that don’t want to debate (a) whether it is actually happening or not, (b) whether or not it is positive or negative for our future and (c) if it is happening and it is negative what we can do about it WITHOUT transferring wealth from the people who created it to socialist and communist dictators.
There was another interview on close up last night with a scientist who disagrees and a scientist who agrees with the theory of Global Warming and it’s supposed dire consequences.
Everytime it got to debating that actual science, the pro-global warming ‘scientist’ simply keeped trotting out the rhetoric that there is ‘consensus’, rather than actually debate the point.
It is sound bite propoganda. Jo Public will walk away from that interview and in their mind is the idea that scientists have reached “consensus”, however there was not one shred of evidence presented supporting the dire claims.
When greenpeace are involved in interviews they peddle the line that “The debate is over”.
Pete Hodgson peddles the line that “The debate is over”.
We’ll there is news for these people-
1. Their rhetoric is unscientific.
2. The debate is not over.
Furthermore, I have pointed out in this thread and another thread that dealt with “Peak Oil” and “Global Warming” that there are a myriad of solutions to the so-called carbon problems and people need not fear.
i.e.
Transport = U.S. car fleet turns over every 15 years. Most manufacturers working on Hybrid models already which will slash fuel use by 75%. People are working from home via broadband internet reducing commuter traffic. Oceangoing vessels have advanced from 35 TEU ships to 16,000 plus TEU ships, massively reducing the fuel per unit shipped. Aircraft are becoming more and more fuel efficient.
Electricity = Solar power can cut National Grid power usage for hot water by 75%, Eco-bulbs can cut power usage for lighting by 75%.
Waste Methane Emissions = Home composting can cut waste to landfill streams by 45%, slashing methane emissions and creating rich compost for home gardening which reduces the amount of commercial food consumed and therefore needing to be produced and transported.
One commenter on this thread stated that I use fear, bitterness etc in debating.
This is demonstrably not the case. It is the people peddling the doom scenario that are using fear of the future and bitterness toward users of coal and oil in debate.
I have no fear of climate change or global warming because:
1. It is an unproven theory.
2. If it were true there is no evidence the net effect would be negative.
3. If it were true and the possible effects were negative, the tools needed to solve it WITHOUT punitive taxation are already available and we just have to take them out of our tool box and use them.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Ah yes, you provide a link to a speech by senitor Inhofe. An unbiased source if ever there was one.
JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting James M. Inhofe are:
1 Oil & Gas $311,208
2 Electric Utilities $180,907
5 Leadership PACs $100,347
6 Lobbyists $99,741
8 Commercial Banks $79,925
11 Air Transport $75,069
12 Insurance $72,171
13 Automotive $63,250
18 Mining $52,600
20 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $47,010
http://www.gatago.com/alt/conspiracy/22059638.html
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Battler: I’m tempted to bite, but there is little point. After all the energy I expended yesterday trying to get you to make good on your claim that other political parties were far superior to the Greens in their environmental policy, you succeeded only in making yourself look a bit silly.
You aren’t actually engaging any of the science. You point to a TV show, outraged that it was ‘soundbite propaganda’. Clearly you were dismayed that there was no discussion at the principled scientific level you seem so keen to dwell at here.
You have repeatedly recited a select mantra of emission-reducing activities that will ‘solve the problem’ if the net effect of climate change can be ‘proved to be negative’.
Since you were so wowed by the denialist scientist on Close Up (was it Chris de Freitas per chance?) perhaps you could articulate his argument, rather than just trade on how impressively he came across? That would provide a point of discussion, as opposed to your smug partisan hot air…
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
phillip john, what is wrong with these industries?
do you drive a petrol car?
do you use electricity at home?
do you use banking services?
do you ever travel by air?
do you use an automotive?
do you use any materials that were mined out of the earth?
do you use anything that contains chemicals from the chemical industry?
do you expect these industries to roll over to communists and socialists using phoney-science as a front to advance their long term political and economic agenda.?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Battler, maybe you missed this abov post
“What we’re talking about is high density human living only covering 2% of the earth’s surface, with water covering 70% of the earth’s surface.”
Keep talking the pseudo science battler, these figures mean absolutely nothing.
“What we’re talking about is the likes of the U.S. vehicle fleet turning over within 15 years and with most manufacturers moving to hybrid models that will slash emmissions by 75%. What we’re talking about is solar hot water slashing national grid power usage for water heating by 75%.”
The market ensures none of these things battler, especially when you consider the ologopoistic character of these industries. Did you know that car manufacturers make most of their profits from selling their parts at extortionary prices and electric motors undergo far less ware and tear than combustion engines? What you say will only happen if their are significant government incentives and deterrents to push them in that direction.
“What we’re talking about is shifting away from the failed mono-farming of the past and into biodiverse organic farming based on sound crop and stock rotation and closed-loop systems with zero waste.”
This is absolute pipe dream stuff I’m afraid battler, the only country that I know of where this is the norm is Cuba. Organics are labour intensive and typically yield less food per acre – exactly the things that the market pressures select against.
“There has not been an ‘alarming’ spike in world temperatures in recent years. ”
well again battler it’s you against the scientific community, guess who we’re going to believe?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I take it PJ that you disagree with his speech? What a surprise.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
“You aren’t actually engaging any of the science. ”
I’m not the one with a far left political agenda of command and control using a fearmongering campaign to bring the public into submission.
I’m not the one running around using phrases such as:
“The debate is over”
“There is consensus”
“It is inevitable”
And then turning around and accusing others of not engaging the science.
The onus is on the person pushing the theory to prove their theory.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Battler: If you can find one place in this thread, on this site, or on any site, where I’ve used the phrases you’ve got up there, I’ll get you a chocolate fish.
‘The onus’ is on anyone who makes a claim to back up that claim. You made an outlandish claim. You proved unable/unwilling to back up your claim.
Weak.
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“Battler, maybe you missed this abov post
“What we’re talking about is high density human living only covering 2% of the earth’s surface, with water covering 70% of the earth’s surface.”
Keep talking the pseudo science battler, these figures mean absolutely nothing. ”
It’s the global warming theorists pushing the pseudo science.
Trying to convince people that carbon burning activity on 2% of the earth’s surface is going to impact the climate more than the water vapour that comes off 70% of the earth’s surface, and trying to hoodwink people into thinking that we must massively cut emmissions or face disaster.
Dream on phillip john. These phoney scientists are on a hiding to nothing, and within decades their dead bodies will be cremated along with the dead wood forests, and the natural climate cycles will continue for thousands more years as they have for thousands past.
“What we’re talking about is the likes of the U.S. vehicle fleet turning over within 15 years and with most manufacturers moving to hybrid models that will slash emmissions by 75%. What we’re talking about is solar hot water slashing national grid power usage for water heating by 75%.”
The market ensures none of these things battler, especially when you consider the ologopoistic character of these industries. Did you know that car manufacturers make most of their profits from selling their parts at extortionary prices and electric motors undergo far less ware and tear than combustion engines? What you say will only happen if their are significant government incentives and deterrents to push them in that direction. ”
More leftist propoganda.
The reality is that every major car manufacturer is working on hybrid models of their products.
“”What we’re talking about is shifting away from the failed mono-farming of the past and into biodiverse organic farming based on sound crop and stock rotation and closed-loop systems with zero waste.”
This is absolute pipe dream stuff I’m afraid battler, the only country that I know of where this is the norm is Cuba. Organics are labour intensive and typically yield less food per acre – exactly the things that the market pressures select against. ”
This is big industry propoganda.
The reality is that small holdings where the land is intesively managed with proper stock and crop rotation and no land unused yields far higher food per acre than the factory style mono farming based on artificial fertiliser.
“”There has not been an ‘alarming’ spike in world temperatures in recent years. ”
well again battler it’s you against the scientific community, guess who we’re going to believe?”"
No, it’s a divided scientific community up against the reality of history.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Battler
I don’t have any basis for challenging your efficiency improvements but back of the envelope maths. Water heating demand down 75% due to solar? the sun only is heat effective for about 8 hours a day based on the drying power on my washing (more in summer but I have used that for an annual figure). I suspect a large amount of domestic hot water is used early in the morning or late evening. How is the late evening water going to be replaced in time for the morning? I think your number is overly ambitious.
Eco bulbs – have you ever used them, they are crap. The light quality is poor and they take ages to heat up. Apparantly their performance degrades over time too. The initial cost is hard to overcome when traditional TC bulbs cost 80cents. I think these will have limited consumer demand.
I think your fleet turnover numbers are too high. The numbers I have seen estimate US hybrids to be about 25% of the fleet in 2020-25 though a higher proportion of new car sales. It will be less in Europe because they use diesels more and there are still gains to be made from them in terms of conventional engine efficiency before looking to hybrids, whereas gasoline engines favoured in the US have less potential.
Just on Inhofe’s funding, it should be remembered that the energy industry is the largest industry, oil and gas are the largest parts of that industry and Oklahoma is/was a major oil producing state.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Battler’s figures for solar water heating are hopelessly optimistic and would have to involve a massive state-led rollout of heavily-subsidised systems across the country. In my job (architect) I do try and convince clients where possible to have solar water heating installed, especially when building new, but I have to be upfront about the actual efficiency of the various systems, which does not tally at all with Battler.
With ‘eco-bulbs’ – we actually advocate compact fluorescent bulbs, which may or may not be what you are talking about, but they have excellent performance and huge lifespans. Every light source, incandescent, fluorescent, or metal halide, degrades over time, but compact fluoros perform very well. One of the only good points Battler has made thus far, but in and of itself not a huge factor. Merely a wise choice.
Finally with the ‘fleet turnover’ issue, market penetration of hybrids is not expected to be anywhere near what Battler suggests in fifteen years. People have to see value in changing from SUVs, which will be either widespread tide of opinion against gas-guzzlers, or the appearance of a superior product. I hope for both, but global opinion suggests that the former will happen before the latter.
DenMT
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Trying to convince people that carbon burning activity on 2% of the earth’s surface is going to impact the climate more than the water vapour that comes off 70% of the earth’s surface, and trying to hoodwink people into thinking that we must massively cut emmissions (sic) or face disaster.
battler, you are both correct and incorrect here. I think you are correct that water vapour has far more impact on global warming than CO2 from fossil fuels will, by itself. However, and this is where I think your simplistic views are falling short; the two are not independent. A very small increase in global temperature from CO2 emissions can have a huge effect of total water vapour. It’s a (partial) mediation effect.
CO2 emission –> small increase in temp –> more water vapour –> large increase in temp
What do you think – plausible?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Thanks battler for sunshine (still dont agree entirely that we dont have major environmental issues) but otherwise great job.
Anderson and Woodhouse (1) reviewing some highly technical research (2) that forms part of the effort to understand the global climate had this to say in their introduction:
” The crux of the issue is how much warmer or colder the average temperature has been in several century-long intervals of the past 2,000 years, the two most intensively studied intervals being the Medieval Warm Period (about AD 1200−1400) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1600−1850). Could we be in for one of these natural swings in the future? If so, how large would it be?”
They concluded with a warning to those paying for and being paid for this research:
” the challenge for palaeoclimate researchers — and their funding agencies — is to produce multi-proxy reconstructions at the appropriate regional scale so that all of the voices can be heard.”
Moberg et al (2) conclude: “According to our reconstruction, high temperatures–similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990–occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue”
This all sure looks like controversy amongst scientists to me in the flagship of science itself (Nature). This is the level at which the debate rages and unless we understand this we need to be very careful about swallowing politico-economic rhetoric lock stock and smoking barrel.
(1) Anderson DM, Woodhouse CA (2005) Climate change: let all the voices be heard. Nature 433: 587-588
(2) Moberg A, Sonechkin DM, Holmgren K, Datsenko NM, Karlen W, Lauritzen SE (2005) Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617
Lets face it we know why scientists don’t speak out more don’t we folks. For those ignoramouses that don’t know – (1) they’re institutions are on the payroll, (2) many have left wing sympathies and don’t want to damage labour’s chances, and (3) did I mention victimisation by witch hunt, kangaroo court and being called counter-revolutionary male chauvinist, fascist, racist porcys. Look to your own ranks and see who have their snouts in the trough, and be prepared to develop meaningful policies.
I strongly suggest outsourcing this kind of thinking to Australia or the US where most of our top brains have gone to get away from you turkeys.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Andrew,
If your line of scientific reasoning is correct, could you expand on some of the following:
IF it is correct to say that an increase in CO2 emmissions lead to an increase in temp which then lead’s to an increase in water vapour:
1. What will happen to sea levels if more water is being vapourised and put into the atmosphere?
2. What will happen to this vapour once it is in the atmosphere?
3. How do you know what you know about (1) and (2) ?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
I’ll start this by making the point that I am not convinced by the global warming arguments at present, though I am open to the possibility that it is happening. I am also in favour of looking after the environment, and behaving in a sensible way with regard to resource use and sustainability.
There are some factors that no-one talks about that have a huge effect on calculations, and I have seen no evidence of them being taken into account.
There is a natural process that takes place when ice melts.
The larger the chunk of ice, the slower it melts, because of the ratio of surface area to volume. As the piece of ice melts, the surface area increases in relation to the volume of ice, so more heat is absorbed, and the ice melts faster and faster, even if the temperature remains the same.
The scientist would have us believe that there was an ice age some 20,000 or so years ago, and that the ice sheets came way further south and north than they do now. If this is the case, then, even with no recent temperature rise, you would expect there to be an ever accelerating rate of ice loss from glaciers, ice sheets & the poles.
Then you have to factor in the effect on air temperature of the ice melting. The energy to melt all that ice age ice came out of the air. As the volume of ice goes down, it means that less heat is needed out of the air to melt the remaining ice, meaning that the air temperature will, on average, be higher.
The conclusion is that we are seeing exactly what you would expect to see at the end of an ice age, even without any human intervention. And that is why, for me, there needs to be a stronger case for the proponents than is currently being made.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
1. What will happen to sea levels if more water is being vapourised (sic) and put into the atmosphere?
Ignoring melting ice-caps – very little I should think. Try to imagine what 1mm scooped off the top of all the bodies of water would do to the atmosphere. As an example, run a hot bath with all the doors and windows closed. It will get very steamy in there but you’ll find that the bath is still full of water!! And when the room cools down, there aren’t hundreds of litres of water on the ground.
2. What will happen to this vapour once it is in the atmosphere?
See above – Some of it will probably fall back to the ground and if the temperatures are indeed warmer, then some of it will stay up there. You see, warm air will hold a lot more moisture than cold air.
3. How do you know what you know about (1) and (2)?
I have observed it, it is easily demonstrated.
However, that is not the point. I was arguing that your perspective was too simplistic and I offered you another scenario to think about. You were arguing that water vapour was a bigger contributor to global warming. I agreed with you. However, I suggested that small amounts of CO2 could influence that water vapour. I never claimed my example was fact, and I clearly asked at the bottom if you thought this was plausible. All you did was serve up a dish of red herrings.
Tell me what you think of the water-vapour model? (not mine by the way)
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Peter S – That is a good point and has been considered by many people. However, it doesn’t invalidate the GW position – it’s an important covariate for sure. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Your theory can exist along side (or more likely intertwined with) that of the global warming scaremongers’ perspective.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pm
A few facts – real measured facts in real places.
Regardless of what is happening in the Northern hemisphere (not much) the measurement stations at Christchurch and Invercargill and Norfolk Island show no warming over the last 100 years. None.
Indeed after the peak El Nino year of 1998 the temp has been steady or falling. I cannot paste the graphs here because they get stripped but email me and I shall send them. The post 1998 stable/decline was not predicted by ANY of the IPCC models which show the temperature rising rapidly.
Vote:America is not the worst polluter because we do not know. Economies both emit and absorb C02. Europe absorbs little compared to low density countries like NZ and the US. America is probably a net sink.
The sea level is not rising in the Pacific. Actual measurements show considerable year to year variations around places like Tuvalu but no rising trend. So whether the sea is rising or falling depends on where you are and when. In Whakatane the tectonic plate rise almost certainly exceeds any sea level rise – so the sea is falling.
There is NO evidence which connects increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with global or local temperatures. NONE.
IF you don’t believe me go and look at the graphs – now that the Hockey stick is established “scientific fraud”. Even the RSNX has dropped it and Wratt did not mention on TV last night.
The mediaval warm period was warmer than we are today. Then came the misery of the Little Ice Age with the plague. And the Maori stopped coming to NZ. IF you think warm is a problem – try cold.
There is increasing evidence that our climate in the south is powerfully driven by sunspot and related solar activity. In particular rainfall is closely linked to solar activity. We may not like our current rainy period but we have no means of altering the behaviour of the sun.
Each ppm of CO2 added to our atmosphere has less effect that the one before. This is set out in the IPCC report and explains why the level of CO2 has had so little impact on temp. Water vapour dominates.
The Antarctic is particularly cold this year except for the one peninsula and that is why the ozone hole is so large this year.
Cold weather makes it bigger.
If I was taking bets on whether the next ten years in NZ will be cooler or warmer than now I would go for cooler. After all, eight years of cooling since 1998. We shall celebrate ten years.
When will we start to panic about the next ice age?
November 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
A few facts – real measured facts in real places.
Regardless of what is happening in the Northern hemisphere (not much) the measurement stations at Christchurch and Invercargill and Norfolk Island show no warming over the last 100 years. None. (These are important stations because they are “non-urban” and hence not subject to the heat island effects which dog the northern urban stations.)
Indeed after the peak El Nino year of 1998 the temp has been steady or falling. I cannot paste the graphs here because they get stripped but email me and I shall send them. The post 1998 stable/decline was not predicted by ANY of the IPCC models which show the temperature rising rapidly.
Vote:America is not the worst polluter because we do not know. Economies both emit and absorb C02. Europe absorbs little compared to low density countries like NZ and the US. America is probably a net sink.
The sea level is not rising in the Pacific. Actual measurements show considerable year to year variations around places like Tuvalu but no rising trend. So whether the sea is rising or falling depends on where you are and when. In Whakatane the tectonic plate rise almost certainly exceeds any sea level rise – so the sea is falling.
There is NO evidence which connects increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with global or local temperatures. NONE.
IF you don’t believe me go and look at the graphs – now that the Hockey stick is established “scientific fraud”. Even the RSNX has dropped it and Wratt did not mention on TV last night.
The mediaval warm period was warmer than we are today. Then came the misery of the Little Ice Age with the plague. And the Maori stopped coming to NZ. IF you think warm is a problem – try cold.
There is increasing evidence that our climate in the south is powerfully driven by sunspot and related solar activity. In particular rainfall is closely linked to solar activity. We may not like our current rainy period but we have no means of altering the behaviour of the sun.
Each ppm of CO2 added to our atmosphere has less effect that the one before. This is set out in the IPCC report and explains why the level of CO2 has had so little impact on temp. Water vapour dominates.
The Antarctic is particularly cold this year except for the one peninsula and that is why the ozone hole is so large this year.
Cold weather makes it bigger.
If I was taking bets on whether the next ten years in NZ will be cooler or warmer than now I would go for cooler. After all, eight years of cooling since 1998. We shall celebrate ten years.
When will we start to panic about the next ice age?
November 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pm
A few facts – real measured facts in real places.
Regardless of what is happening in the Northern hemisphere (not much) the measurement stations at Christchurch and Invercargill and Norfolk Island show no warming over the last 100 years. None. (These are important stations because they are “non-urban” and hence not subject to the heat island effects which dog the northern urban stations.)
Indeed after the peak El Nino year of 1998 the temp has been steady or falling. I cannot paste the graphs here because they get stripped but email me and I shall send them. The post 1998 stable/decline was not predicted by ANY of the IPCC models which show the temperature rising rapidly.
Vote:America is not the worst polluter because we do not know. Economies both emit and absorb C02. Europe absorbs little compared to low density countries like NZ and the US. America is probably a net sink.
The sea level is not rising in the Pacific. Actual measurements show considerable year to year variations around places like Tuvalu but no rising trend. So whether the sea is rising or falling depends on where you are and when. In Whakatane the tectonic plate rise almost certainly exceeds any sea level rise – so the sea is falling.
There is NO evidence which connects increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with global or local temperatures. NONE.
IF you don’t believe me go and look at the graphs – now that the Hockey stick is established “scientific fraud”. Even the RSNX has dropped it and Wratt did not mention on TV last night.
The mediaval warm period was warmer than we are today. Then came the misery of the Little Ice Age with the plague. And the Maori stopped coming to NZ. IF you think warm is a problem – try cold.
There is increasing evidence that our climate in the south is powerfully driven by sunspot and related solar activity. In particular rainfall is closely linked to solar activity. We may not like our current rainy period but we have no means of altering the behaviour of the sun.
Each ppm of CO2 added to our atmosphere has less effect that the one before. This is set out in the IPCC report and explains why the level of CO2 has had so little impact on temp. Water vapour dominates.
The Antarctic is particularly cold this year except for the one peninsula and that is why the ozone hole is so large this year.
Cold weather makes it bigger.
If I was taking bets on whether the next ten years in NZ will be cooler or warmer than now I would go for cooler. After all, eight years of cooling since 1998. We shall celebrate ten years.
When will we start to panic about the next ice age?
November 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Andrew Bannister,
Fair enough about the eo-existence.
Vote:My gut feeling is that, were we having the impact on climate that it is suggested that we are, then, coupled with the temperature rise one would expect to see from the natural ice loss, the increase in temperature should be compounded, and therefore much in excess of what is claimed.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Unplug yourselves from the matrix and go here
http://bloggingitreal.blogspot.com/2006/10/post-pastoralism.html
to see the real motivation behind this governments wankerish stance on the environment. Then shed a tear for your children whose future is dependent on our efficient agricultural sector.
Where are the brave scientists fighting this bullshit? Where are the moderate left wingers distancing themselves from this crap? Wake up everyone. You moderate to “semi-spinnner but possibly redeemable” lefties are being sucked in chewed up and spat out.
And your children will pay the price in the half chardonnay glass, lifestyle block, powder puff wilderness of the future. Reign in your extremists you turkeys.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 5:39 pm
testing………..
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Owen McShame
I don’t know where your stats come you provide no links or evidence. Basically you just spout opinion and pass it off as fact. Why should we believe anything you say?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
These are important stations because they are “non-urban” and hence not subject to the heat island effects which dog the northern urban stations.
Right, and we should selectively ignore those and focus on these 3 only.
In Whakatane the tectonic plate rise almost certainly exceeds any sea level rise – so the sea is falling.
Are you being funny? Sorta like – the road grabbed me by the face and pushed me off my bike, right?
Each ppm of CO2 added to our atmosphere has less effect that the one before.
Of course it does. That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard for a long time. It’s like saying, every meat pie I eat has less effect on my hunger than the last one I ate.
The sceptic’s companion to An Inconvenient Truth is also littered with nonsense like this. I am not sold on global warming, but this kinda thing smacks of desperation.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Sorry to break in but here’s what I mean about the left.
NZ doesn’t have an intelligent community. Now they’re burning the books to prove it.
Sorry to change subject but on the news tonight:
Scientist being victimised and called “politically tainted” because he is not prepared to set aside his objectivity and tow the lefty line.
QED (see other posts)
PS Scientists are quite sensitive about having their integrity challenged, so many are probably booking their flights tonight.
Thanks media/legal/compensation industry feeding trough – thanks a million.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
“to see the real motivation behind this governments wankerish stance on the environment. Then shed a tear for your children whose future is dependent on our efficient agricultural sector.”
If it’s a vast communist conspiricy the nwhy have all the tories jumped on board?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Oh and here’s a quote aimed at me on “no left foot” or whatever they call themselves:
“I’m not in the business of providing a platform to climate change deniers, any more than I am to holocaust deniers (and I place them in the same category of sheer intellectual dishonesty).”
Its confirmed: Climate change is a religion.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Owen: That is a grab-bag of traditionally trotted-out skepticspeak. To respond to each point.
Weather station recordings: These are cherry-picked individual stations. Global aggregates are what is meaningful, not local, isolated stations. Having seen your name about in climate-change debate circles, you should know this. If you like, I’ll search up stations which show a much sharper upward trend, and the usefulness of isolated data in a global context will be thrwon into relief.
America is not the worst polluter: This can be spun in a number of ways, but put in simple terms of carbon dioxide output, which is the most reliable indicator, taking out the effects of any absorption, the US slays the opposition. Almost 25% of global CO2 output? If the US is not the biggest polluter, who beats them, and by which criteria?
Sea level not rising: I totally agree with you when you point out that sea level is relative to where you are – it is not uniform across the earth as Ken Ring from the Climate Science Coalition would be first to point out. Cherry-picked isolated areas are not representative of global trending – which is not to say there is no risk. Obviously Tuvalu has got its proverbial danglers hanging out in the wind on this one, so regardless of what anyone thinks, if climate change DOES lead to sea level change, they’ll be moving.
No evidence connecting CO2 increase to temperature increase: There is plenty of evidence, mate. What I assume you mean is there is no concrete, slam-dunk, smoking gun, add-a-cliche, hard PROOF. Fair enough, I agree. There is however, a very large body of highly persuasive scientific thought. At what point does one assess the risk that CO2 increase is linked to temperature increase as worthy of acting on? Looking at National, the UK Tories, and a large mass of humanity’s shifting opinion, one would say… ‘Now’?
The ‘hockey stick’ is established scientific fraud: I’d be careful how you employed ‘fraud’ there, Owen. It sounds like you’re suggesting Mann et al were trying to perpetrate a mass deception for their own personal gain. The ‘hockey stick’ model is not the single prop by which the argument for AGW was suupported, much as so many commenters seem to wish it was. http://www.realclimate.org is an excellent place to start if you are interested in the supporting evidence.
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now: Not according to the National Climatic Data Centre in the States, who have this to say:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Furthermore, even if the temperature could be proven, what does this have to offer for the CO2 debate?
Solar forcing is responsible, not your ‘Greenhouse’ hokey: The actual effect of solar forcing on climate is a technical area in which my understanding is a bit lacking, although I have read as much as I can on it. I have looked at the oft-quoted Friis-Christensen/Larsen paper in Science, and the various responses to that, in terms of the effects of the solar cycle on global surface temperature, and for what its worth, I don’t find the link particularly compelling. That’s just me though! If you have any further reading to suggest to me on this one I’d be keen to check it out.
cheers
Vote:DenMT
November 1st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Phillip, I gave you the 3 reasons why everyone pretends they can see the empresses new clothes above if you care to read:
(1) their institutions are on the payroll
(2) many have left wing sympathies and don’t want to damage labour’s chances
(3) victimisation by witch hunt, kangaroo court and being called counter-revolutionary male chauvinist, fascist, racist porcys
- for anyone who dares to have an opposing view.
Remember how mam sahib cemmented power dont we?
Oh and there’s a forth reason – most rational people have left the country because there’s better wages and conditions overseas with the bonus that they dont have to listen to the same old left wing clap trap they’ve endured for generations.
If you’ve only got yes-symbionts left and must suffer the consequences.
Your being used by the people who want to control us – the next thing is “water credits”.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Den
On the point regarding impact of CO2. My position is influenced by my lack of faith in our reconstruction of past climate. I don’t doubt we can get approximations but we are talking 0.6d and I am not sure if they are either comprehensive enough or accurate enough to give that level of accuracy – one only has to look at the error bars in the paleoclimate results to see there is significant room for interpretation.
So bearing that in mind, given the increase in recorded history, if it is not anomalous then the whole focus on CO2 goes out the window as there is no signal, despite what the physics might say re energy absorption by CO2.
That said I have a frind who works on paleoclimate and he tells me of some very interesting work on mass extinctions due to sudden natural CO2 increases 50m years ago. NZ apparantly has some really good data points for studying that event. no-one knows where the CO2 came from but a theory is a massive upswell from a huge fractured gas field
Vote:November 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 am
“(1) their institutions are on the payroll?”
Paranoid.
“(2) many have left wing sympathies and don’t want to damage labour’s chances”
Paranoid
“(3) victimisation by witch hunt, kangaroo court and being called counter-revolutionary male chauvinist, fascist, racist porcys
- for anyone who dares to have an opposing view.”
Paranoid
“most rational people have left the country because there’s better wages and conditions overseas with the bonus that they don’t have to listen to the same old left wing clap trap they’ve endured for generations.”
Half of them are in Australia – where 80% of workers have their wages negotiated by a union (centralised collective bargaining), a more progressive tax system and a more left wing version of working for families – looks like everyone’s who’s leaving wants us to go further left!
Vote:November 2nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Phillip, you are either part of the self consistent universe of the NZ political elite or you need a very serious reality check. I assume you are off to Aus and are going to vote for John Howard? – yeah right.
Anyone else, lets follow the unfolding witch-hunt at the MOH and watch them duck for cover to protect their warm spot up their politicians arses shall we?
Come on any betting people out there want to predict who the fall guy will be?
Vote:November 3rd, 2006 at 6:45 am
All of you are full of crap exept battler
Vote:November 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Great points battler. Insider, some good points. That’s why if we don’t know enough about it we should leave the environment alone.
These IPCC spinners are planning to waste the planets valuable energy “capturing” CO2 and bury it underground.
http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/ccsspm.pdf
There’s just no end to their crap.
We have no idea what the short or long term consequences will be.
Humans have f*cked up nature bad enough – they shouldn’t be f*cking it up more under the pretence of unf*ucking it.
The bureaucrats have had a free lunch on this stuff for over 30 years – enough is enough.
Vote:February 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:February 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:February 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:February 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:March 2nd, 2007 at 7:31 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:March 14th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:March 15th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:March 15th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:March 15th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:March 15th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:March 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 8th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 10th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 12th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 18th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:April 19th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 20th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 3:45 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 4:56 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:April 27th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 28th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:April 28th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 28th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:April 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 4th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 5th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 6th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:May 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 14th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 15th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:May 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 19th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 1:37 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 1:38 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 3:30 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 3:31 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 5:58 am
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 7:48 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 7:48 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 21st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 24th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 27th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:May 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 12:02 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 3:32 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 3:32 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 8:42 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:37 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:15 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:10 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:43 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 7th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 8th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 9th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 10th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 11th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 14th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 14th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 17th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 17th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 21st, 2007 at 3:59 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 21st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 4:15 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 4:02 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 1:57 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 1:57 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 2:59 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote: