More on National and Environment

October 7th, 2006 at 6:46 am by David Farrar

Frog Blog labels the Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand as “pretty gutsy” and “more gutsy than Labour by far”.

Ruth Berry sees it as similiar to David Cameron’s move to the centre.

No Right Turn rates both presentations also.

Tags:

134 Responses to “More on National and Environment”

  1. SPC () says:

    It’s a matter of relative expectations. It’s also an encouragement. Greens would love to have National and Labour compete for their greater approval. They would hand over their MP salaries and accept obsolescence just to have their policies enacted. Honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. battler () says:

    Dr Brash and Dr Smith have alienated the Maori’s and can’t articulate the truth that Global Warming is a hoax, peak oil is a myth, there is enough coal in the ground to last us hundreds of years and nuclear power is safe as houses, so they try and out-Labour the Labour Party to cuddle up to the greens in time for next elections coalition talks.

    Great, Her Majesty’s Loyal ‘Opposition’ is now doing the Government’s bidding. What an excellent democracy we live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. SPC () says:

    Most scientists believe in global warming. Even oil industry believes in peak oil.

    Sure there is a lot of coal about – the issue is clean burning coal tech coz of pollution and global warming.

    We are unlikely to use nuclear power until Oz does. And they have a lot of coal.

    For us it’s hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar – tidal and conservation (and maybe some coal).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Keith () says:

    If it’s good for the Greens, it’s bad for NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. battler () says:

    “Most scientists believe in global warming.”

    Despite the Government and U.N. attempts to shut down debate it is still hotly debated amongst the scientific community. And further, even if the earth were slightly warming, that would not necessarily spell disaster. It could in fact increase the rate of plant and vegetation growth, which then absorbs more carbon dioxide and increases food supplies.

    Note whenever the various Global Warming prophets like Pete Hodgson et al are pressed, instead of debating the issues, they use phrases like “The debate is over”.

    They don’t want to debate it anymore because they know they are on shaky and contested ground.

    “Even oil industry believes in peak oil. ”

    It suits the OPEC cartel to create a perception of scarcity of oil so that they can stifle new investment and keep oil prices artificially high in order to extract monopoly profits.

    Note that as soon as the oil price per barell fell, OPEC issued orders to it’s members to slash production so as to keep the price up high.

    Peak oil has been predicted again and again and never come about. Some theorists now even suggest that the earth could be continually producing oil.

    Even if oil did peak at some stage, that would send a signal to the markets that other energy sources would be economic to produce on a mass scale. It doesn’t require a Government response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MCMC () says:

    it is still hotly debated amongst the scientific community.

    True, but that debate isn’t about whether or not warming is happening or its general causes. The debate is about which models are the best at explaining observed warming and how much warming there will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. James () says:

    Sorry MCMC but not true. There is much debate about wheather there is any actual warming trend occuring. The satelite readings for the last few decades say there is not.

    Go here for a live time reading of the Earths temp and whats actually happening up there…

    http://www.junkscience.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Keith () says:

    “.. The debate is about which models are the best at explaining observed warming and how much warming there will be.”
    Well, the debate in some quarters may be about that, but there’s also a hell of a lot of debate about whether global warming is a cyclic event that ocurred naturally before the industrial revolution, about whether it’s actually caused by solar activity, about whether it’s even happening at all.
    The models are primitive and over-simplified and have been shown to be wrong again and again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kiwi_donkey () says:

    James: Wasn’t the satellite thing a calibration issue? I can’t find the link, but seem to recall that was shown not to undermine the warming hypothesis? Can anyone help?

    While every Wellington resident must be sceptical of global warming, it is pretty hard to ignore the opening of the northwest passage. Also, glaciers are retreating. And more ice is falling off Antartica.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Keith () says:

    kiwi_donkey, those things may be happening but that doesn’t prove a causal link between climate and man’s activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Keith () says:

    “The ozone loss over Antarctica is calculated by measuring the hole’s area and depth. “Such significant ozone loss requires very low temperatures in the stratosphere combined with sunlight,” ESA atmospheric engineer Claus Zehner said. “This year’s extreme loss of ozone can be explained by the temperatures above Antarctica reaching the lowest recorded in the area since 1979,” Mr Zehner said

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. James () says:

    Which glaciers are you refering to Kiwi-donkey? Some are retreating and others are advancing.I think the NZ big ones are advancing but can’t find notes I took on that.The point is that climate change is a natural phenomenon and thats that. Greens seem to belive its something new and so want to impose eco-dictatorships on us as the “solution”

    With the track record of mass death and misery that Green hysteria has caused mankind over the last three decades,it pays one to stop and think very hard before accepting anything these politically motivated “humanitarians” claim to be true…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. err.. () says:

    James, do you have anything to actually back up your assertions or are you just talking out of your arse as usual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter () says:

    James, give me if you would be so kind, say five points relating to courses of action that you think the Nats should follow to gain power. These recommendations should address the means by which you intend to deal with the following problems-

    1) The left’s massive propaganda machine, that includes Klark’s personal media centre, reputedly with staff numbers that exceed TV3 and TV 1 combined, Klark’s almost complete control of the mainstream media by means of strategically placed political sympathizers, the fact that the most influential news medium in the country (TV One ) is controlled by the government, and that TV3 is owned and run by socialists who think Canada is a country NZ should emulate.

    2) The education system, from the pre-school division to the universities, exists mainly as a tool to introduce leftist political ideology to children and young adults, at the expense of any references to individual freedom and liberty.

    3) A voting base of around 2 million that depends to the majority extent on the government to provide it with income. How do you propose to convince the public service, the beneficiaries and the corporate welfare sector to vote for a party that believes in reducing their income?

    4) Further to item 1 above and the use of that propaganda system to duplicate world wide propaganda relating to the environment, by what means do you intend to overcome this propaganda system, given that it is funded by billions of dollars and has a global political footprint that makes the oil industry look like a corner store.

    Please understand, I do not necessarily disagree with those who are criticising the Nats for deciding that making themselves a carbon copy of Labour as the way to power, but I believe that before you criticise some way of doing something, you have to have an alternative solution that will work better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    Who are you gonna believe kiwi-donkey? The worlds scientific community or the finest lobbyists the energy companies can buy? After all, those same lobby groups were sure right about that whole smoking-causes-cancer hoax.

    The best way to look at this debate is to weigh up the pros and cons of the issue – I mean, sure, if the scientists are right and humans are causing climate change and we don’t do anything to stop it then all our cities will be flooded and our civilisation will be destroyed – but what if all those scientists are WRONG? The worlds most profitable industry will have had unfair carbon taxes levied against them for no reason. Does that sound fair to you? Me neither, and I feel it’s worth risking the survival of our species to ensure that companies like ExxonMobil are allowed to return a healthy profit to their investors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter () says:

    DIM, the policy you are suggesting (the Pain in The Arse Precautionary Principle) was behind the banning of DDT. Now DDT is cleared, that’s fine, but you and your ilk have the blood of millions on your hands, who have died from malaria and other diseases that the DDT could have prevented.

    The other aspect to this is that “the environment” craze is not really about caring for planet earth, its about bringing more political power to the left. You’ll never cease the deceit and the propaganda, because to do so would loosen your grip on power, that objective that the left will always value far above any cynical pretence to care for the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter () says:

    BTW DIm, if its the world’s most proftiable industry, then why not have a go yourself? Get yourself an exploration licence, persuade a few investors (should be easy, its the world’s most rofitable industry according to you) and drill a few wells. Have a go ya mug. Try a bit of reality. Naaah, delusion is your choice ain’t it DIM, propped up by a generous cheque from Aunty Helen every week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Keith () says:

    “The other aspect to this is that “the environment” craze is not really about caring for planet earth, its about bringing more political power to the left..”
    amen to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. james.c () says:

    Global warming doubters have as much credibility as 9/11 conspiracy theorists (with less creativity).

    Of course to implement anything they are going to have to get elected, which requires more votes from the middle, and with the mad right ‘locked in’ (and so hell bent on ideology over reality) slight shifts to common sense will see them loose votes, evidenced by the half-baked conspiracy theorists that frequent this blog.

    That aside, here here Nick Smith, for a genuine step forward.

    peace
    james cairney

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter () says:

    Nick Smith should join Labour. National will never get my vote as long as turncoats like him front the party. He should take Brownlee English, John Carter, Williamson, Rich and Ryall with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. John Cawston () says:

    Has anyone noticed that politicians usually deliver something on Global Warming either before, during or straight after a blizzard?

    As we write, Ngamatea Station has lost 7000 new born lambs and remain in a whiteout, the Desert Road is closed and the fruitgrowers are desperately working to save their crops from intense out of season frosts. On TV3, the sheepfarmers are saying that they are lambing later and later to try and save more lambs and both farmers and growers are complaining that such cold weather is a feature of the last 10-15 years.

    Anyone notice that last June was the coldest for over 40 years?

    Oh well, just another “extreme weather event”, and entirely to be expected as we fry.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kent Parker () says:

    Probably the onset of another ice age, JC.

    Bring back the mammoths!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    I am quite happy to be a global warming sceptic.

    Incidentally, I have no doubt that the world experiences climate change. I have no doubt that this results in major ecological change.

    What I am very uncertain about is whether humans have a significant influence on global environmental change.

    My two road-to-damascus conversion points were:

    1. when Lomburg was vilified for escaping the plantation; and

    2. when the “global scientific community” closed ranks on Mann when some upstarts demonstrated that his “hockeystick” was faked. (google M&M and have a read)

    IPCC 3, the document that is raved about as the “consensus” relied heavily on the hockeystick to “prove” that the climate was warming. Unfortunately of course, the diagram ignored the Mediaeval warm period – where global temperatures were considerably higher than they are today. It also seemed to rely on one set of US readings from one tree species (the bristlecone pine) and to extrapolate heavily.

    It also turns out – and I don’t have the maths to prove it, so check M&Ms work, that the algorythms selected by Mann hunted for hockeystick effects and delivered them even when provided with random data.

    Where does that lead us? well I don’t really know. The earth is getting warmer, probably, but it has before, and it will again.

    Overall however, I get really concerned when I hear “consensus” touted as a scientific principle, and when I see heretics being burned.

    I am also old enough to remember the 1970s fear of the next ice-age that was going to engulf us by the end of the century.

    I am also deeply concerned about the DDT scam by environmentalists, and the Y2K scam and the BSG scam and the birdflu scam – there seems to be some need at the moment for apocalyptic scams that only World Government ™ can solve.

    So are we destroying the planet? I think the Jury is still out, I hear that Antarctic ice-core records are pretty useful. But the more I hear apocalypse the more I want to walk away.

    On redbaiters point, I reluctantly agree. This is not about science anymore, it is all about politics. To be elected in NZ you have to go with the flow. The flow at the moment is that man is the cause of all climate issues (breathtaking in its hubris, but there you go).

    Fortunately they have also chosen to situate us in what is know in dip circles as “good company” that is, we should not move faster or further than any of the countries we do business with and rely on for our economic well-being.

    Very sensible. If we are going to be hysterics for climate change, best we don’t cripple our economy at any greater rate than our trading partners and competitors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. battler () says:

    “1) The left’s massive propaganda machine, that includes Klark’s personal media centre, reputedly with staff numbers that exceed TV3 and TV 1 combined, Klark’s almost complete control of the mainstream media by means of strategically placed political sympathizers, the fact that the most influential news medium in the country (TV One ) is controlled by the government, and that TV3 is owned and run by socialists who think Canada is a country NZ should emulate.”

    For decades the left have been masters at utilising letters to the editor and telephoning talkback to create the public perception that their’s is the majority view and everyone else better swing in behind or else.

    They have also been clever at having other groups endorse them i.e. Unions, Family Planning Assn, Environmental Groups, Teachers Associations, University Professors and other ivory tower and pen pusher types.

    Further they have set the agenda and utilised language to their advantage.

    If the right wants to make any headway, a number of things must happen:

    1/ Any media that is not going to run at least balanced stories should be by-passed. Don’t waste time with them. Set up other channels such as billboards, blogs, direct mail. Flood the letters to the editor and the talkback lines on a CONSISTENT basis highlighting the myths, lies and propoganda being spouted from the left.

    2/ There is no substitute for getting physical people in front of physical people and getting organised. There needs to be associations of like minded people all over the country – small business associations, home school associations etc etc etc to diseminate information and build “solidarity” as the left do with their unions and conferences etc.

    3/ The agenda and the language needs to be SET BY THE RIGHT, NOT PANDERING TO THE LEFT. Example – instead of trying to out Green the Greens on “Climate Change”, the right should be coming out hard saying that “It is totally unproven that humans cause climate change. The Greens and Labour are peddling this as an excuse to saddle the country with Kyoto debt, raise taxes, and restrict the freedom of families”. Instead the Nats are effectively saying “Oh Well, the Greens are right and we will be socially responsible and adopt their policies”.

    On housing – The Nats have bought into Labour’s philosophy of having to “provide Social Housing”. What they should really be saying is “This unjust Government has flogged the workers blind collecting tax to build houses owned by the crown, and now tens of thousands of Kiwi Families will never own their own home because Labour is hoarding over 60,000 houses. The National Party would allow people to buy these homes off the crown because we believe that families should own their own homes, not be tenants to the elite government renting forever in their own land”

    get the picture?

    “2) The education system, from the pre-school division to the universities, exists mainly as a tool to introduce leftist political ideology to children and young adults, at the expense of any references to individual freedom and liberty.”

    Exactly, and again the right MUST set the agenda instead of pandering to the feminazis.

    National has bought into the whole, “Mothers want careers and we should pay for daycare with their tax dollars” crap. How many women really prefer trudging off through commuter traffic to another day of office politics to raising their precious newborn babies?

    We have let the left denegrate home makers and mothers so badly, that women feel they are not valued unless they are working for a paycheque.

    Instead of pandering to the left with money for daycare for new borns, the Right should be saying:

    “It is vital to prevent breast-cancer for women to breast feed and it is vital for the health of the baby to be breast-fed. How dare this Labour Government force women back to the workforce and put their precious babies into daycare from 12 weeks old, causing breast cancer for women, and tooth cavities for children. We would provide income tax splitting to allow women the right to nurture their own children instead of forcing children into factory daycare and women into the workforce so soon after birth. Shame on you Labour Government!!”

    This would relieve stress on families, and generally people with good families who believe in family will vote right not left.

    “3) A voting base of around 2 million that depends to the majority extent on the government to provide it with income. How do you propose to convince the public service, the beneficiaries and the corporate welfare sector to vote for a party that believes in reducing their income?”

    With the corporate welfare sector you need to say – Do you believe the government is better than you at picking investments? If they say yes, expose the bastards as the theifs that they are.

    With the Public service say – “Do you want to be a pen pusher stuck in a boring Government job for the rest of your life or do you want an economy flourishing with exciting opportunity where you can really develop and earn what you’re worth instead of this lowly $45,000 – $60,000 government salarly>

    With the beneficiaries say “Look how the government is ruining businesses with red tape and how they keep you trapped on a meagre income of $10,000 to $20,000 per year. SHame on the Labour government for consigning you to a life of low income”.

    “4) Further to item 1 above and the use of that propaganda system to duplicate world wide propaganda relating to the environment, by what means do you intend to overcome this propaganda system, given that it is funded by billions of dollars and has a global political footprint that makes the oil industry look like a corner store. ”

    By consistently exposing the hoaxes and lies to one person at a time.

    The problem for the right is that people like Helen Clark think in terms of 30+ year time frames, and just consistently put the work in to achieve their political ends.

    A lot of people on the right are only thinking in terms of 3 year time frames and elections, and not doing the on going background work to build a long term constituency for the values that the right of centre represents.

    Rgds

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Duncan Bayne () says:

    Oh well, one less difference between National and Labour. Not that this latest move should come as any surprise, after all National was responsible for the RMA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Xavier () says:

    The Blue Greens Document is a very interesting one, and if undertaken, could signal a very strong environmental shift for them. I do think that given their historical rhetoric on environmental issues, particularly around Climate Change and Energy, they need to work harder to ensure they have credibility. It will be an uphill battle for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter () says:

    Battler- I’m in broad agreement with what you have written. Funny thing is, I thought we were doing quite well along th elines you suggest until the Nats turned, led on by that treasonist Campbell in the UK. I don’t think the NZ Nats really know too much about what’s really going down. I think they could have won an election without these concessions. However, maybe they see it as a strategy to take the Greens out of the picture. (keep them under 5%) Think about life without Bradford Locke Fitzgerald etc. Maybe its almost worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Duncan Bayne () says:

    Red,

    Does it matter if the Greens are in Parliament if the Government adopts their policies anyway?

    I recall the founder of the Socialist Party in America responding that he didn’t care about the Socialist Party shutting down, because the Republicans and the Democrats had adopted all of the Socialist’s policies themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter () says:

    Yes, perfectly true Duncan. However, the best long term strategy to rid ourselves of these power crazed people is to defund them. They all exist on government funding. One way you could explain the Nat’s position is that its a long term strategy. By removing the socialists from political power, and thereby defunding them, the Nats can then simultaneously reduce their capacity to spread propaganda and buy votes. The cycle will gradually be broken.

    Is this the plan? If it is the plan, will the Nats carry it out? They were in power nine years previously and did sweet fuck all. Have they changed?? No, but if Brash can get rid of the socialists they might change. Do I think they will? No, and that’s why I’ll be outta here by the end of this year. The best way to stop socialists is to stop funding them. They’ll soon not be able to steal one dollar from me to pay for their propaganda or to buy the votes of the no hopers who keep them in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrew Davies () says:

    SPC
    The Green MPs “would hand over their MP salaries and accept obsolescence just to have their policies enacted. Honest.”

    I wonder if Sue Bradford and Keith Locke would endorse that statement.
    Redbaiter is right, power is the first step and a Marxist|Socialist “paradise” is the end game. The means to achieve that include race, gender, sexuality and environmental politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Keith () says:

    Redbaiter, if you’d like to put up a guest post on my blog, get in touch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Fred () says:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

    The disappointment for the left will be if GW is not caused by human activity but is merely part of a natural cycle.
    It may be more,say, the result of solar activity than of the hated SUV. The stuff of lefty nightmares.

    And remember over 30 years, global emmissions will increase 41% without Kyoto, 40% with Kyoto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fred () says:

    Err…’emissions’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. c () says:

    Another desperate attempt by National to pull in the Peter Mck’s of this country.

    The RMA was a National stunt that backfired. The whole global warming issue comes down to China and India with there massive industrial program. I can’t see National/Act trying to stop them.

    No, just another failed attempt by National to gain a few votes. But most voters will look at it and think hmmm.. Blue/Greens?

    Don Brash?

    BRT?

    No it doesn’t add up!

    Well keep it up anything is worth ago when your clutching at straws!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hoolian () says:

    C-You couldnt be more wrong.

    BlueGreens has been in the pipelines for a while. To say that this is a form of racking in the votes is incredibly ignorant. Its additionally naive of you because BlueGreens is lead by Smith, who is unarguably passionate about this sort of thing. You’ll find that National actually has an interest in taking this country forward, and that not everything they do is to get votes from people like you.

    Also, the RMA was implemented during a National Govt, but they had ammenments planned when they were replaced by Labour. Subsequently these ammenments were scraped and has been left to go out of control. So you can blame Labour for the RMA not National.

    BlueGreens is an excellent way for National to prove that it really is the best party to lead this country. Regardless of the comments C makes, I like Frog’s point that Labour did nothing but suggest another panel and some things they might consider. BlueGreens is a good move for National, it would be a shame that it fell apart purely on negative connotations about its economic focus etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    No, and that’s why I’ll be outta here by the end of this year.

    Why…because you’ve failed so many papers you’re not allowed to re-enrol next year?

    And BTW, anyone who was actually productive, or had real family or friend to spend time with, would not be endlessly posting so many long-winded boring repetitive regurgitations in here as you do. No job, no friends, not even allowed back next year…draw you own conclusions folks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Keith () says:

    Way to address the issues, AttorneyGeneral.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    should also remind those with short memories. The RMA was invented by Geoff Palmer – who was the Labour Minister for the Environment. The fact that Simon Upton got convinced to continue and implement the Act says 2 things:

    1. National may have really thought it was a bipartisan issue; and

    2. Upton always thought that he was cleverer than he was. Nationals pet little “intellectual” (maybe an oxymoron in Bolger’s cabinet?)

    In any case, anyone remember the Town and Country planning Act – yuk. The RMA was supposed to get rid of that and introduce an outcome based system.

    I guess Simon wasn’t smart enough to see how the town planners and the activists would reinvent themselves as “the community” and continue exercising their preferences and imposing costs. (brings me back to point 2 above)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. battler () says:

    AttorneyGeneral – how about addressing the issues?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. cowboy ronnie () says:

    To all the peak oil doubters:

    As of right now, production has been flat-but-bumpy since late 2004. The peak month of production is presently May 2005. This is true despite high oil prices giving strong incentives to produce more oil. Lack of refinery capacity is often cited as an alternative explanation for this. If this were true, heavy hard-to-refine oil would be cheap. It isn’t.

    The major international oil companies have not been able to increase production for some time, despite strenuous efforts (the notable exception is BP which has had access to resurgent Russian production via a subsidiary). An analysis of Exxon’s production suggests the problem. Their existing production apparently declines at rates varying from 6% to 14% per year. Thus all the new projects they bring on stream each year just serve to offset the declines in their current fields. This strongly suggests they are at or near peak. More recently, it emerged that in 2005, they hardly replaced any of their oil reserves – instead almost all of the quoted energy reserves they developed were actually natural gas (in Qatar). Shell is even worse off – they only replaced 60%-70% of production in 2005, and only 19% in 2004. The situation does not appear to be much better in OPEC. According to the US EIA, Saudi production is declining 5% to 12% each year. So they have to bring on that much new production just to stay level. Similarly, Iranian production is estimated to decline 8%-13% each year. This to me is the most compelling argument that we must be close to peak oil production. The amount of new production required every year just to stay level is enormous. We know this was the main symptom of US peak – all quotas were removed (oil production in Texas was managed via a quota system), and despite strenuous efforts to increase production, it never could climb higher. It is noteworthy that a number of OPEC officials were quoted in 2005 saying that OPEC was producing everything it could with effectively no quotas.

    That’s all for now – Happy to answer any objections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter () says:

    Keith- be more than happy to help re your request and will be in touch. Glad to help a fellow aficianado of West Texas Country music. (Sad to read that Don Walser died a few weeks ago.)

    I think a piece on the Nats caving in to the left’s propaganda war might be a good subject, and the whole issue kind of fits in here with Mr. Farrar’s sudden need to moderate because he’s had “complaints”. Well hell, its his blog of course, and he’s pretty good really, but I dunno why the so called right in this country are always so eager to get beat up by the left, and when they are going to realise that as long as the left control language and ideas the way they do, things will only get worse..

    Apparently the left expect us not only to meekly allow them to steal from us, regulate us to death, pervert our democracy, destroy our armed forces, make freedom and liberty words that cannot be spoken, undermine our right to own property and chip away at our freedom of expression and individual rights but we must be boot licken’ nice to them while they’re going about it all.

    Y’know, fair enough that people object to cowardly untrue smears like the one about Dr. Brash’s STD, but that said, I don’t see many such examples or even that many cuss words here. …and anyway, how can cusswords be objectionable to liberals who watch South Park and or traditionally drool over foul mouthed Hollywood actors? The question that perplexes me is what would the complainers be complaining about and what is it that’s apparently going to be fixed by moderation? Got me beat.

    When we dance together my world’s in disguise
    It’s a fairyland tale that’s come true
    When you look at me girl with those stars in your eyes
    I could waltz across Texas with you.

    Waltz across Texas with you in my arms
    Waltz across Texas with you
    Like a storybook ending I’m lost in your charms
    And I could waltz across Texas with you.

    My heartaches and troubles are just up and gone
    The moment you come into view
    With your hand in mine dear I could dance on and on
    And waltz across Texas with you.

    Waltz across Texas with you in my arms
    Waltz across Texas with you
    Like a storybook ending I’m lost in your charms
    And I could waltz across Texas with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. cowboy ronnie () says:

    For an excellent summation of the compelling reasons to accept peak oil visit this site:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/storyonly/2006/3/1/3402/63420

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Keith () says:

    Cool, Red. :o) It’s a free-fire zone as far as lefties go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. maksimovich () says:

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a study group established in 1988 by the United Nations and other world organisations to study the climate issue, estimates that total consumption of carbon energies in the period 1860–1998 totals just 1.1 per cent of what physically remains in the ground pending future production and consumption,

    IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Cambridge University Press,
    Cambridge, 2001, p. 236.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. cowboy ronnie () says:

    “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a study group established in 1988 by the United Nations and other world organisations to study the climate issue, estimates that total consumption of carbon energies in the period 1860–1998 totals just 1.1 per cent of what physically remains in the ground pending future production and consumption”

    Interesting, I wonder how much carbon would have been made atmospheric in the time under comparitively normal pre-industrial times? Alot less than that 1.1% I imagine. The perinent questions are – how much carbon in the atmosphere is too much? where is the tipping point? have we altered the carbon cycle to the extent that global temperature increasing drastically?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Shawn () says:

    I said just before the last election that National needed to move further to the centre on economic and environmental issues, and further to the right on social/family issues.

    Two out of Three is a good start :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Keith () says:

    A National party that moves towards the “centre” on any issue has lost my vote. What is nowadays regarded as the centre isactually leftist.
    What’s needed is a clear, courageous and unequivocal voice from the right of centre. National isn’t that, even now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. cowboy ronnie () says:

    “What is nowadays regarded as the centre isactually leftist.”

    Says more about you than any political reality keith – New Zealand is one of the most right wing countries in the world. Just ask the world bank.

    http://www.doingbusiness.org/EconomyRankings/

    BTW – being liberal on social issues is neither left or right – it’s just liberal as opposed to conservative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. phil u () says:

    sure keith..but whaddaya gonna do..?

    where ya gonna go..?

    to the ‘dancing fool’…?

    or over to the national front..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. John Cawston () says:

    “In any case, anyone remember the Town and Country planning Act – yuk. The RMA was supposed to get rid of that and introduce an outcome based system.”

    Yup, I remember it as a progressive piece of legislation. After you were elected to the County Council, the tar seal extended a mile past your farm gate.

    “I guess Simon wasn’t smart enough to see how the town planners and the activists would reinvent themselves as “the community” and continue exercising their preferences and imposing costs. (brings me back to point 2 above)”

    Palmer’s and Simon’s intentions were honourable but in the immediate aftermath of the RMA the BoP region splashed out and appointed two “planners”. To the North, Waikato is believed to have appointed over 20.. and it showed.

    Several years ago, I saw a case study for the approval of a huge sawmill in the US, in Spotted Owl country. Total cost from application was under NZ$900 and time from application to approval was 10 working days.
    The difference to here is that if you are interested in such projects you can get a big book detailing all the conditions to be met.. you just work your way through the list before you apply. The authorities are required by statute to approve or disapprove the project within 10 working days.
    Objectors must pay a bond and for each day they hold up the process they get charged the predicted daily net profit of the project.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Shawn () says:

    What National needs to do is become genuinely conservative and nationalist. Conservative means applying the precautionary principle to the whole of life, including economics. And nationalist means putting the nation first, not big business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Keith () says:

    cowboy, only “right wing” in terms of economics.

    Phil, I’m not sure but I won’t vote for National simply because they appear to be the lesser of a number of evils. That vote would appear to endorse their policies and I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. battler () says:

    Just because present Geo-Political factors and the orders of a profit hungry cartel are putting pressure on production & supply using current infrastructure does not mean that there is not a plentiful supply of crude in the earth that could be tapped in to should the political situations sort themselves out and the price rise high enough to encourage fresh investment in exploration, drilling and processing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Redbaiter () says:

    Phil, I could ask that you substantiate your claim that ACT and the National Front are both right wing.

    IE: perhaps you could provide readers with one or two examples of policy similarities?

    I won’t tho, because last time I asked you a like kind of question, you lied your way out of it without a milligram of shame. So there’s no point is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. cowboy ronnie () says:

    battler:

    “Just because present Geo-Political factors and the orders of a profit hungry cartel are putting pressure on production & supply using current infrastructure does not mean that there is not a plentiful supply of crude in the earth that could be tapped in to should the political situations sort themselves out and the price rise high enough to encourage fresh investment in exploration, drilling and processing.”

    I actually agree with you here battler: the only problem is the geo-political situation doesn’t look like “sorting itself out”. If you look at the databases of any of the major oil companies you find some disturbing figures. That is of the currently economically recoverable reserves 2/3 are in OPEC countries, so yes, if they were opened up to the foreign oil companies we would see oil back down to about $20-$30 a barrel in the next couple of years, and it would stay that way until we approached peak production – 10-20 years away.

    This is why exxon and the like are drilling in the up to 2kms depth of water in the Mexican gulf to find oil (extremely expensive to produce). They know that OPEC will continue to dribble the oil to us so the prices stay high and they’re desperately trying to mitigate the effect of the cartel, but even in the short to medium term that’s hopeless. OPEC has been waiting a long time for this situation – they thought that they had us in 1971 when they cut production in protest to the Yom Kippur war, but the non-opec countries were able to find more massive oil fields (North sea in particular) and conservation efforts decreased demand massively. So while the price of oil spiked for 2 years OPEC ended up destroying large portions of their export markets. Today is a very different story. Though we have bought some time though increased conservation in response to higher prices (which is most of the reason for the recent drop in prices) production in non-opec hasn’t increased in the last 2 years despite high prices – OPEC truly holds the cards now – they can demand $60 barrel oil if they like, and there’s sweet FA we can do about it – they truly have us over a barrel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Falafulu Fisi () says:

    Keith said…
    [The models are primitive and over-simplified and have been shown to be wrong again and again.]

    I have to agree with Keith completely here. Numerical computing (mathematical & scientific computing) is my domain area, and I have seen some peer review scientific papers that proponents of global warming have said it showed the connection between human activities & upward warming trend. This is rubbish. Not one single citation in those papers I have come across, pinpointed the “Forcing Function” (temperature time dependent function) that establish this causal effect. Some of the models are complex but lots are very simple, which makes you wonder, that a single equation could determine the fate of the earth, which is naive to think that way.

    I have debated with some pro-warming scientists over the internet, and when I cited peer review papers in some Climate Changing related Journals (there are many of them), they go quiet. I take it that they ain’t seen complex models (or perhaps want to see them), may be it is too hard to comprehend or hard to write the simulation software to solve the models. There are some who are upto the task of modeling, but I find some who wouldn’t want to answer my question when I ask for certain parameters in a model cited from a peer review paper. I suspect that some of those scientists are from NIWA. God help the government for policy advise if NIWA scientists do not understand “advance differential calculus” numerical computer modeling. As I understand that NIWA do use some sophisticated numerical modeling, however I have never seen one NIWA scientist in any of the NZ-Australian annual Industrial Mathematic Conferences over the last 3 years presenting their numerical models to academics & industries. The last 3 years conferences were held at Auckland University, Albany and then Albany Campus again this year. There were other government departments who sent representatives to the Conference, which they presented their research and numerical models to the participants. One particular models presented by AgResearch about how they use sophisticated calculus to model tree growth, very impressive.

    More debate & complex modeling is needed before a final outcome is to be concluded. I see that the Green Peace is already declaring that the debate is final. I wouldn’t be surprised if they accuse Falafulu Fisi as an agent of Oil comapanies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    You asked why I didn’t address the issues. Ha. You don’t “address the issues” with those who are wilfully determined to ignore all evidence contrary to their cherished illusions.

    1. Human induced climate change is as certain as gravity. The topic now consumes the total attention of many of the best trained minds on the planet, and their overall consensus is remarkably solid. It is happening, now. Get used to it.

    2. Peak Oil is inevitable. Before strutting forth your own simplistic and fatally inadequate little opinions on the topic…spend a month or two EDUCATING yourself on the about it. The debate is complex and wide-ranging, but the “excutive summary” is simple…in one form or another Peak Oil will occur sometime in the next decade. Get used to it.

    Attributing either of these vital matters to some form of “leftist hoax” is the essence of risible denial. The source of your obdurate refusal to accept the obvious is simple…the left has in total been proved correct, and the right demonstrably proven wrong. Get used to it, or get relegated to the dustbin of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. battler () says:

    The Scaremongers are out in force again – but still no evidence for their hysterical claims of pending doom.

    We’ve heard these sort’s of things before – “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Next Ice Age coming soon”, “Peak Oil” – Peak oil has been predicted again and again and again, and yet when you adjust for inflatation the price has remained pretty much stable for decades. Surely if it was such a scare commodity the price would be rising in REAL TERMS, not just in line with inflation of the money supply.

    If the price of oil starts to increase dramatically in REAL TERMS it will send a signal to the market to develop other energies. We don’t need nanny state intervening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. battler () says:

    The Scaremongers are out in force again – but still no evidence for their hysterical claims of pending doom.

    We’ve heard these sort’s of things before – “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Next Ice Age coming soon”, “Peak Oil” – Peak oil has been predicted again and again and again, and yet when you adjust for inflatation the price has remained pretty much stable for decades. Surely if it was such a scarce commodity the price would be rising in REAL TERMS, not just in line with inflation of the money supply.

    If the price of oil starts to increase dramatically in REAL TERMS it will send a signal to the market to develop other energies. We don’t need nanny state intervening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. cowboy ronnie () says:

    battler:

    “Peak Oil” – Peak oil has been predicted again and again and again, and yet when you adjust for inflatation the price has remained pretty much stable for decades.”

    stop talking out your ass – this is utter crap.

    google search “the oil drum” and educate yourself fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. cowboy ronnie () says:

    “At around $60, prices over the last year or so are the highest they’ve ever been in the absence of a major oil shock (the highest was in 1980 when iran and iraq went to war – a barrel was $100 in today’s dollars). They are also very volatile – any hint of disruption can cause a several percent change in price in a day. Prices are now high enough that demand has stopped increasing at least for the time being, and stocks keep building – suggesting the market is nervous and wants more oil on hand.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    and there was me thinking that the major causes of oil prices were geopolitical uncertainty, Chinese demand, the OPEC cartel and a lack of modern refinery investment, particularly in the US (largely due to shortsighted environmental regulation in California).

    My reading of the economic outlooks is thatI see no evidence whatsoever that long-run demand is slowing for oil. In the US you have the usual seasonal dip going on between summer and winter, and last I looked, China was still aiming at 9.5% growth – lots more need for oil there.

    I also see that more production is coming on stream. So what if prices stay they are going to be around $60 a barrel (altho i very much doubt this will be the case) – seems to be promoting more extraction, better science and more refining.

    Oil is going to be around for a long, long time, bet on it.

    Why would anyone looking to learn anything want to search green lobby groups to learn about oil? Do you have any actual neutral science on the topic?

    Why you are so anti oil anyway? the food you eat and the services you enjoy are dependent on oil. Our entire society is built on its use. Or is it only other people using oil that bugs you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. battler () says:

    The price of oil in 1973 when adjusted for inflation was $90/barrel in todays dollars.

    Today the price of oil is $60 / barrel.

    Demand has increased massively, 33 years have elapsed, the price of this commodity has fallen over 30%, and yet it is about to peak within a decade? Give me a break!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    I also see that more production is coming on stream.

    But all it is doing now is filling the hole being left by the decline in the much older and larger fields.

    Yes oil is going to be around for a long time, in fact we will never likely actually use the last drop….but the era of cheap oil is coming to an end.

    Why you are so anti oil anyway? the food you eat and the services you enjoy are dependent on oil. Our entire society is built on its use.

    Precisely. I’m not anti-oil, except that it is ALSO a major contributor to the carbon load in the atmosphere. But just leave that aside for a moment, pretend that hydrocarbon energy was an entirely benign energy source…the simple fact that the rate of increasing demand is about to overtake the now static rates of production increase, and that everything we enjoy is based upon it, this basic economic reality is going to change everything.

    Until now supply has generally exceeded demand, which in economic terms has meant that the price has been held more of less constant in real terms. (With notable exceptions of course.)

    But the day the underlying demand exceeds supply, the price WILL have to rise to constrain demand for the laws of reality insist that actual consumption can never exceed actual production. Underlying demand has been growing very steadily at around 4%pa for decades. Production has now reached a “bumpy plateau”…and if you actually listen to the industry, it is not assuring us that supply will ever grow significantly beyond this plateau.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    We’ve heard these sort’s of things before – “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Next Ice Age coming soon”, “Peak Oil” – Peak oil has been predicted again and again and again, and yet when you adjust for inflatation the price has remained pretty much stable for decades.

    I don’t remember the worlds scientific community reaching a consensus that we were on the verge of another ice age – the theory was put forward by a few scientists and embraced by the media.

    I’m not convinced peak oil is an immediate concern – it’s my understanding that Saudi Aramco alone has enough proven reserves to meet current demand for the next seventy years.

    But if all of the worlds geologists and oil experts WERE warning us that the oil was running out, and the only people denying it were lobbyists for General Motors and Toyota I know who I’d believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. battler () says:

    “…and if you actually listen to the industry, it is not assuring us that supply will ever grow significantly beyond this plateau.”

    Of course they wouldn’t want to assure us of that because they don’t want the price to fall any further than it already has.

    They want consumers to be in the position where they think Oil is scarce enough to justify paying the price being charged, but not quite scarce enough to rush out and replace oil as an energy source, because they want to lock in their profits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    The price of oil in 1973 when adjusted for inflation was $90/barrel in todays dollars.

    Jeeze that is such a crock. You are using a peak price at the height of the early 1970′s OPEC oil shock….a transient event against the underlying trend. What a selective and dishonest use of numbers!! You challenged me earlier to debate the issues…and you respond with this kind of tosh.

    Saudi Aramco alone has enough proven reserves to meet current demand for the next seventy years.

    Danyl,

    I think your 70 yr number is the reserve available IF production of the Saudi fields continued to be exploited at the current rate. But by themselves they nowhere near satisfy existing total global demand, let alone the underlying growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. battler () says:

    “Jeeze that is such a crock. You are using a peak price at the height of the early 1970′s OPEC oil shock….a transient event against the underlying trend. What a selective and dishonest use of numbers!! You challenged me earlier to debate the issues…and you respond with this kind of tosh.”

    The world survived to tell the story of the Cartel artificially inflating the price to $90/barrel, what makes you think the world can’t survive the Cartel artificially propping the price up to $60/barrel with the growth in incomes we’ve had over the last 33 years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Keith () says:

    On the subject of climate change, a paper just released:
    Proceedings of the Royal Society A, October 3rd, 2006. Full title: ‘Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions’. Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke
    Which indicates that climate change is driven by the action of cosmic rays on water vapour molecules. Nothing whatsoever to do with human activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. pdq () says:

    I do like Brash’s logic, if the science is in doubt why not take an insurance policy approach. That certainly appeals to me.

    It takes the environmental issue (if there is one to be had) to a level that actually appeals to most balanced people, rather than the hysterical Green’s we must ride bikes and bounce on trampolines for energy approach, or Labour’s tax-it-if-it-moves approach with Kyoto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    I do like Brash’s logic, if the science is in doubt why not take an insurance policy approach. That certainly appeals to me.

    I think you will find the Greens have been calling this the “precautionary principle”…for at least a decade. Still it’s just as valid coming from Don Brash as it is from Jeanette Fitzsimmons I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. phil u () says:

    as has been noted over at frogblog…

    “..Does anyone else find it amusing the presence of a plastic container on the front of Nationals nice and shiny new policy document…..?..”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. MCMC () says:

    Keith-

    Did you read the contents of that paper? The authors don’t make any claims that their findings undermine current models of climatic change, only that they’ve found another variable. No one ever claimed there weren’t natural inputs, but this hardly undermines the global warming theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Keith () says:

    MCMC, yes, I read the paper.Of course the authors don’t make any such claims–it’s a genuine scientific paper, not some cobbled-together piece of propaganda that so often passes for “science” in the global warming debate.
    But the implications are obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. aladin () says:

    This article isn’t hard to understand:

    http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/location/story.cfm?l_id=1&ObjectID=10364503

    aladin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. battler () says:

    The article prophecies impending doom without one shred of credible evidence to support the claims.

    Go and have a cup of coffee and some poached eggs and enjoy your Sunday. Don’t be scared by the false prophets of doom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. MCMC () says:

    Keith-

    I think the implications are obvious only if you’re really looking for it to be. Like I said, no one has denied that some natural things cause warming. If that article doesn’t discuss ranges of effect and how this plays into climate models, then it has no real relevance to whether or not warming is anthropogenic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Keith () says:

    MCMC, I’m usually fairly polite, but that’s just a garbage response.
    The implications are obvious regardless of whether I’m looking for them to be or not.
    The paper doesn’t discuss how the findings “play into climate models” because that wasn’t the point of the research–that discussion will no doubt follow, using the findings as evidence.To suggest that the paper is irrelevant because of that is laughable. It may be very relevant indeed.
    And while no-one has denied that “natural things cause warming” the crucial question, surely, is what proportion of warming (IF it isn’t simply a cyclic phenomenon) is anthropogenic?
    The paper may help answer that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Keith () says:

    MCMC–we can bat this back and forth all day, but I just don’t find the subject that fascinating, since I couldn’t care less about global warming.
    You may find this site interesting:
    http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i-detect-first-tiny-rumblings-of.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Redbaiter () says:

    Thanks for that URL Keith, interesting site.. had to laff at the poll.. “What frightens you the most?” Global warming 67 votes, Green hype and hysteria 751 votes..!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 () says:

    heh!

    the complete list of things that global warming will accomplish is excellent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Rattus () says:

    All the Nats need to do is now jump into bed with the Maori Party, and for Act to align itself with Labour,Scotland to beat France at football, Wellington to beat Canterbury at ruggers, then we know that the hole in the ozone layer is a serious threat to mankind.

    A world gone mad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. MCMC () says:

    Thanks Keith, I’m familiar with Dr. Stott from his other writing, but I hadn’t seen his blog. I’m actually sympathetic to many of his claims, but I think there’s a significant difference between his opposition to global warming arguments and those of the Wall Street Journal editorial page or junkscience.com and I wouldn’t support the latter group to use to former to bolster their argument.

    I don’t know how to reconcile what he’s arguing with Oreskes’s findings here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. pdq () says:

    “I think you will find the Greens have been calling this the “precautionary principle” ..”

    I agree AttorneyGeneral, but the Green packaging turns most off, 93% of the electorate in fact, me included. If National can gain traction with at least half of that 93% on the issue then I would suspect that the Greens would be very happy.

    Shame Janette has said she would NEVER go with National.

    National has the brand and the middle ground to achieve more than the Greens ever could on their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. llew () says:

    “kiwi_donkey, those things may be happening but that doesn’t prove a causal link between climate and man’s activities.”

    So because the problem is disputably the fault of mankind’s activities, it is not a problem we should try & address?

    “The other aspect to this is that “the environment” craze is not really about caring for planet earth, its about bringing more political power to the left.”

    Umm… try wearing a tin hat. I understand they’re all the rage in paranoid circles.

    “Instead the Nats are effectively saying “Oh Well, the Greens are right and we will be socially responsible and adopt their policies”.”

    You say that like it’s a bad thing – regardless of the specific issue, it says to me, and I think most reasonable, intelligent, and take note guys, paranoia-free voters that a party is willing to change in response to an issue & not just hammer the old left/right slogans.

    “Thanks for that URL Keith, interesting site.. had to laff at the poll.. “What frightens you the most?” Global warming 67 votes, Green hype and hysteria 751 votes..!!!”

    Heh… that’s convinced me! Hoo boy! Seriously, who’s peddling the hype & hysteria?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. battler () says:

    “You say that like it’s a bad thing – regardless of the specific issue, it says to me, and I think most reasonable, intelligent, and take note guys, paranoia-free voters that a party is willing to change in response to an issue & not just hammer the old left/right slogans.”

    It is a bad thing.

    It’s not about left/right slogans, it’s about the fact that the left are using an elaborate hoax and an urban myth to scare the public into handing more power over to the government, and some on the right are too lazy to articulate the truth to the public and instead capitulate to the hysteria in an effort to win votes at the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. sonic () says:

    “an urban myth”

    Yes that’s right, we are just making it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. llew () says:

    Not just making it up Sonic, but making it up to hand over more power to the government…

    Which of these guys was whining that the “left” are so prone to conspiracy theories when we were discussing 9/11 a while back?

    Seems it’s not confined to the “left”.

    I don’t recant my “most reasonable, intelligent, and take note guys, paranoia-free” comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Owen McShane () says:

    Many posts claim that AGW is a fact and we are doomed.
    The same posters are equally confident of the Peak Oil theory.

    I presume they are also aware that the world’s population goes into decline around the middle of the century somewhat later than oil Peaks.

    The European population collapse is already well under way. Italy’s population halves in thirty years.

    What can we do that can about GHG emissions that can in any way match the congruence of Peak Oil and Population collapse?

    A thought experiment for some of you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. battler () says:

    The sad thing is Sonic, the products of the leftist education system have so little understanding of economics that they can’t tell when a commodity is priced 30% cheaper adjusted for inflation than it was 33 years ago, it is NOT becoming more scarce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. toms () says:

    You know, paranoia is the first stage of the onset of a pyschotic episode. I hope none of you guys have been allowed a firearms licence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. George Darroch () says:

    Yes, it’s all a conspiracy launched by a French communists calling themselves “scientists”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. sonic () says:

    Only those educated at the Redbaiter school of common sense can tell us, there is oil now therefore it is obvious there will be oil forever!

    Do not listen to these so called “experts” if something is around now you can use as much as you want and it will never run out!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. sonic () says:

    The problem with these so called “scientists” spit is that they do not have any common sense.

    For example everyone knows that if you just keep withdrawing money from the bank without checking how much is left , then the money never runs out.

    Of course leftist moprons are so paranoid they actually check their balance.

    Idiots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. battler () says:

    Sonic,

    If quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied at a given price, the price will adjust till it reaches equilibrium again.

    If as a ‘consumer’ of energy in the marketplace you go shopping for energy and find that the price of oil based energies is rising and you are not prepared to demand the same quantity at the new price you would shop around for alternatives that offer a better price proposition. At this point a whole raft of other options become economically viable be they hydrogen, solar, wind etc etc.

    The “Peak Oil” theory (myth) is not a credible excuse for the Government to restrict freedom of movement or increase taxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. llew () says:

    Battler said: “it is NOT becoming more scarce. ”

    because…

    Battler also said: “Some theorists now even suggest that the earth could be continually producing oil.”

    This would obviously (setting the global warming debate aside for a moment) be terrific. Can we have some evidence please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. battler () says:

    “For example everyone knows that if you just keep withdrawing money from the bank without checking how much is left , then the money never runs out.

    Of course leftist moprons are so paranoid they actually check their balance.”

    With commodities Sonic, the market price tells us if it is running out or not.

    Right now oil can be bought on the market for 30% cheaper than it could be 33 years ago.

    If the price of oil were to rise, indicating demand/supply pressures, two things would happen –

    1. The increased price would encourage fresh investment in expoloration, drilling and processing.

    2. Alternative energy sources become price competetive in the marketplace.

    We don’t need leftist hysteria and government propoganda to solve basic supply & demand economic problems in the everyday marketplace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. battler () says:

    “Battler said: “it is NOT becoming more scarce. ”

    because…

    Battler also said: “Some theorists now even suggest that the earth could be continually producing oil.”

    Correction. It is not becoming scare AND some theorists now even suggest that the earth could be continually producing oil.

    It is not becoming scarce because the quantity demanded does not exceed the quantity supplied.

    Again, if quantity demanded at a certain price exceeds supply at that same price, the price will lift till equilibrium is reached.

    If the consumers of this commodity need energy but are not prepared to continue buying the same quantity at the new price, then alternative energy sources become price competetive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. sonic () says:

    LLew, he is an Adam Smith invisible hand zealot. The market is always right, all hail the market.

    No point arguing with people like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. battler () says:

    So sonic packs his bags and walks away, tail between the legs, while the world continues to be awash with cheap oil, and by all credible accounts plenty more where that came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. llew () says:

    “No point arguing with people like that.”

    I’m not necessarily arguing, I’m neither a scientist, nor an economist, it’s just that if the earth is producing oil fast enough to make it an inexhaustable resource then I want to know!

    If the earth is not producing oil at such a rate, then peak oil is no myth, it’s just debatable when it will occur.

    Battler, I want to see one of your credible accounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. battler () says:

    Meantime Sonic is attending a seminar rally and workshop session entitled:

    “All hail the nanny state: how pen pushing politicians know better than producers and consumers what they are prepared to supply and purchase at given prices”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. llew () says:

    Now now, Battler, you believe in the Oil Fairy, so might pay to go a bit light on the sarcasm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. battler () says:

    hey – I would put it to you that I’m one of the more restrained posters on this blog in terms of not abusing people personally and I tend to stick to the issue at hand. Sonic was having his “All hail the market…” darts bounce back at him in that case :-) ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. llew () says:

    Battler – very true :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. battler () says:

    “I’m not necessarily arguing, I’m neither a scientist, nor an economist, it’s just that if the earth is producing oil fast enough to make it an inexhaustable resource then I want to know!”

    Llew, there is no need to worry when the price of oil is cheaper than it was 33 years ago.

    It’s a matter of basic economics. Personally, if Oil becomes too expensive for my liking, I’ll buy a hybrid car, and install solar hot water system.

    Meantime while oil is cheaper than it was 33 years ago, I don’t appreciate Governments taxing me to subsidise hybrid cars and solar panels for snobby trendy greenies peddling their prophecies of doom when the reality is the complete opposite to their claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. llew () says:

    OK, here’s a politically naive question, harping back to the post that started this:

    “Ruth Berry sees it as similiar to David Cameron’s move to the centre.”

    I have to admit, I read nothing past the headlines about Cameron, since by & large I don’t give a fig about the UK scene.

    But why is this debate set between the “right” and the “left”.

    Why is some tory concession on climate change seen as a move from the “right”?

    Why is it that the “left” are perceived to be global warming harbingers of doom, and the “right” are perceived to be oil company apologists? (by each other of course).

    And no dopey left/right/big corporation conspiracy theories please.

    This is surely an issue we should all be concerned about, whether we’re causing it or not. Correct?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. sonic () says:

    Battler, sorry to say this mate but perhaps you should study econimics a little further than free market 1.

    Also can I get A source on “30% cheaper adjusted for inflation than it was 33 years ago”

    You do know that 1973 was at the peak of the Arab oil embargo and is therfore hardly a fair comparison don’t you?

    Of course you dont, sorry.

    Here is a real graph for anyone interested

    http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. battler () says:

    “Why is some tory concession on climate change seen as a move from the “right”?”

    Because it is a vain and cynical attempt to attract votes. National lost the election by a couple of % points, and Nick Smith wants to be high up in the next National Government so his brave idea is for National to try and get 2 % points off the greens.

    Nevermind that the theories being used to advance the green policy agenda are not based on any solid evidence – politics is a numbers game, and Don & Nick are trying to get 2 points off the greens before 2008 otherwise their ‘political career over’ numbers will be up.

    “Why is it that the “left” are perceived to be global warming harbingers of doom,”

    Because the left typically tend to be people who are persuaded by a mix of Socialist and Communist theories of nirvana that the Government controlling most things will solve our problems.

    Companies trying to make a living through profitable trading activity are evil and any tool in the tool box is acceptable if it adds to state power even if it is a hoax. Becuase the end (Socialist Nirvana) justifies the means (Hoaxes, Myths, Corruption, Stolen Elections).

    “and the “right” are perceived to be oil company apologists? (by each other of course).”

    I don’t know anyone who is an “Oil Company apologist” except for the communications spokespeople of oil companies. I’m no oil company apologist. I am against cartels. I am for rational economic analysis of commodities including oil. I am opposed to hysterical claims of doom not based on any solid evidence.

    “And no dopey left/right/big corporation conspiracy theories please.

    This is surely an issue we should all be concerned about, whether we’re causing it or not. Correct?”

    In terms of Global Warming:

    1. It is not proven that it is occuring.

    2. If it were occuring there is no evidence that it is human induced.

    3. If it is occuring there is no evidence that the net effect of it on human/planetary life will be negative.

    In terms of “Peak Oil”

    1. There is no evidence that world oil supplies will peak in the long run.

    2. There will always be price spikes resulting from geo-political events and actions of cartels trying to extract economic rents.

    3. Even if oil production were to ‘peak’ it does not spell doom and gloom. If the price of oil were to rise higher than the prices of other energies, consumers would switch. Solar systems, hydrogen cars etc would achieve enough of a demand to create economies of scale, and we would be off on another cheap energy induced cycle of economic growth and prosperity.

    So chin up folks, enjoy the bounty of creation and don’t waste your short vain lives away being sucked in my power grabbing hoaxes, myths and doom and gloom forecasts.

    As surely as you are reading this the sun will rise again in the morning and humans will live to see another day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. George Darroch () says:

    “In terms of Global Warming:

    1. It is not proven that it is occuring.

    2. If it were occuring there is no evidence that it is human induced.

    3. If it is occuring there is no evidence that the net effect of it on human/planetary life will be negative.”

    Who’s got the hysterical claim without any evidence?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. battler () says:

    The doom merchants have the hysterical claims with no evidence.

    “One such question is the percentage of 20th Century warming that can be attributed to CO2 increases. This appears straightforward, but it might be rather surprising to readers that this has neither an obvious definition, nor a precise answer”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. neil morrison () says:

    “But why is this debate set between the “right” and the “left”.”

    Most likely because that’s how politics usually breaks down. But seriously – it’s not all bad that the Left and Right offer different points of view, it sharpens the debate and (ideally at least) weeds out stupidity from both sides.

    But to a degree both sides have been at fault. The Right has had a greater tendency to be more skeptical than warranted and the Left have often acted in a quasi-religiousness manner – believe in us or you will perish in the fires.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    battler,

    sonic just posted the graph proving the point I made further up. You have been shown categorically happy to use an utterly bogus interpretation of data in a futile attempt to prop up a fake denial theory. Why should anyone take you seriously in the face of your own proven ability to discredit yourself?

    Does the word “scientist” mean anything to any of you? Do you have any idea of the degree of training, research and hard work and skill it takes to get a peer-reviewed paper into a major scientific journal these days? Do you have any idea what the scientific method is actually about, and how HARD it is to actually get the kind of virtually 100% consensus across such a wide range of experts working in such a difficult field? Does this make science infallible…of course not. But it does raise the bar VERY high before novel ideas are accepted. What typically happens is that new observations validate newer and more sophisticated models that have wider ranging predictive powers.

    Climate is almost by definition not an easy science to generate “hard data” in and to draw absolute conclusions from. Until the advent of vast amounts of computing power, most of the problems were computationally impossible. I would estimate that 85% of our knowledge in the area has arrived within the last decade, and new material arrives weekly. Yet the overall trend of the results is remarkably clear…human activity is driving climate change at a dangerous rate and potentially triggering a response from the planet that we can neither accurately predict, nor which our current civilisation could survive in any recognisable fashion.

    Now I have two hard science degrees, I worked in various geophysics research areas for over 15 years, although I moved into an entirely seperate commercial activity in the early 90′s in response to declining public sector science funding. As have done a lot of people I knew back then. So can understand what I am reading, but I am aware that my real knowledge is now dated and I feel no desire to make any claims of current competency whatsoever. Yet I can tell you this. Your climate change denial ideas are a feeble attempt at justifying doing nothing in the face of the consequences of your own actions. (You wouldn’t be a National Party voter by any chance…you know….the Party of “personal responsibility”?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. George Darroch () says:

    Battler, read the bloody post. And read any primary scientific literature on climate change and you’ll find that your positions are not supported.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. batter () says:

    “battler,

    sonic just posted the graph proving the point I made further up. ”

    The graph proves my point. There is more Geo-political risk now than there was in 1973 and OPEC is abusing it’s cartel, yet oil now is still over 30% cheaper than it was that time. And yet incomes have increased massively over the last 33 years.

    Nobody answered my earlier question: If the world surivived to tell the story of US$90/barrel oil 33 years ago, what makes you think it can’t survive $60/barrel today with the massive increase in incomes?

    “You have been shown categorically happy to use an utterly bogus interpretation of data in a futile attempt to prop up a fake denial theory. Why should anyone take you seriously in the face of your own proven ability to discredit yourself?”

    The facts speak for themselves. The fact is that 33 years ago the world survived $90/barrel oil, and in recent times we are surviving $60/barrel. And it only held up at $60/barrel because OPEC artificially choked production to lock in profit margins. The crude oil is still sitting there ready to be pumped.

    “Does the word “scientist” mean anything to any of you?”

    A scientist is someone who studies science – i.e. the physical universe. Does the fact that scientists study something mean that they are 100% correct in the theories they come up with to explain their observations? No.

    “Do you have any idea of the degree of training, research and hard work and skill it takes to get a peer-reviewed paper into a major scientific journal these days? Do you have any idea what the scientific method is actually about, and how HARD it is to actually get the kind of virtually 100% consensus across such a wide range of experts working in such a difficult field?”

    There is nowhere near 100% “consensus” on the issue of “Global Warming”

    There is disagreement at virtually every level of the debate from whether or not Global Warming is occurring at all. If it is, is it cyclical or a trend. Is it human induced or from other causes. If it is happening at all what should the response be. If it is happening is it positive or negative for humans. And on and on and on, there is debate and disagreement at every level.

    “Does this make science infallible…of course not. But it does raise the bar VERY high before novel ideas are accepted. What typically happens is that new observations validate newer and more sophisticated models that have wider ranging predictive powers.”

    And the ideas proven false get gently brushed under the carpet.

    “Climate is almost by definition not an easy science to generate “hard data” in and to draw absolute conclusions from. Until the advent of vast amounts of computing power, most of the problems were computationally impossible. I would estimate that 85% of our knowledge in the area has arrived within the last decade, and new material arrives weekly. Yet the overall trend of the results is remarkably clear…human activity is driving climate change at a dangerous rate and potentially triggering a response from the planet that we can neither accurately predict, nor which our current civilisation could survive in any recognisable fashion.”

    Hold on. You say that we can’t accurately predict the response. You then proceed to say that our current civilisation could not survive it in any recognisable fashion.

    Which is it?

    Can you predict the response or not?

    If you can’t predict the response how are you so confident that civilization could not survive it in any recognisable fashion?

    “Now I have two hard science degrees, I worked in various geophysics research areas for over 15 years, although I moved into an entirely seperate commercial activity in the early 90′s in response to declining public sector science funding. As have done a lot of people I knew back then. So can understand what I am reading, but I am aware that my real knowledge is now dated”

    And in a decade or two from now what is today being claimed as “Knowledge” and “Consensus” will be classified as “Outdated”.

    “and I feel no desire to make any claims of current competency whatsoever.”

    In the same way that in 15 years from now the people who are so confident in their theories will also feel no desire to make any claims regarding their compentency whatsoever, because their theories will most likely prove just that – theories.

    ” Yet I can tell you this. Your climate change denial ideas are a feeble attempt at justifying doing nothing in the face of the consequences of your own actions. (You wouldn’t be a National Party voter by any chance…you know….the Party of “personal responsibility”?)”

    So you agree that Climate Change is so hard to get ‘hard data’ on. We know that scientists disagree. We know that what you were confident in 15 years ago now makes you feel unable to make any claim to compentency.

    Yet you call me feeble for questioning shaky science and not changing my life in response to some unproven theory about what might or might not be happening in the atmosphere.

    Meantime, back on earth, south Island lambs are freezing to death and the world is awash with so much oil OPEC has to price-fix to keep the price at a profitable level for their members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. battler () says:

    From the NZ Herald TODAY:

    “Opec ministers back supply cut

    7.40am Monday October 9, 2006

    ALGIERS/DUBAI – Opec oil ministers today lined up to support the removal of 1 million barrels a day of crude from oversupplied world markets as swiftly as possible…..”

    “A senior Opec delegate said on Thursday that leading oil exporter Saudi Arabia would shoulder the biggest part of the burden as Opec moves to address a 23 per cent drop in prices since July 14 and brimming fuel stocks around the world…..”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. battler () says:

    “Battler, read the bloody post. And read any primary scientific literature on climate change and you’ll find that your positions are not supported.”

    Some of the people peddling junk science should look at reality and they would find their myths and hoaxes aren’t supported by reality.

    And all the arrogant hanger’s on who only look as far as the next hyped up journal or greenpeace newsletter should stand back and look at the big picture of reality, as right now they can’t see the forest for tree they keep banging their head against trying to convince the realists that their hoaxes represent truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    The graph proves my point. There is more Geo-political risk now than there was in 1973 and OPEC is abusing it’s cartel, yet oil now is still over 30% cheaper than it was that time. And yet incomes have increased massively over the last 33 years.

    No you just changed your point in response to the data. Liar.

    Nobody answered my earlier question: If the world surivived to tell the story of US$90/barrel oil 33 years ago, what makes you think it can’t survive $60/barrel today with the massive increase in incomes?

    No it nearly did not. The 1970′s Oil Shock triggered a major global round of recession and inflation. I recall with a grim horror watching my the mortgage rate on my first home jump from around 7% to over 22% in the space of less than a year.

    The reason WHY the world survived this experience was:

    1. There was still plenty of non-OPEC oil that could be brought on stream at that time. eg the North Sea.

    2. The technologies and patterns of use at that time had been developed in an environment of low cost oil. This meant it was relatively cheap to extract substantial efficiency gains and demand reductions very quickly.

    3. The US was still in a very strong geo-political position to lever prices back down fairly quickly, thus minimising the long-term harm.

    None of these conditions apply now over 30 years later. Non-OPEC production has peaked, we are on the law of diminishing returns regarding efficiency gains and thanks to GWB…the US card is both economically and politically more tattered than ever before.

    The point is that I can read the scientific papers with enough skill and knowledge to know how complex the issue is, how much information there is to reconcile and how downright HARD this science is. The problem is that if we were talking about something most people *think* they know all about…the weather. If the debate was say the quantum mechanics of the more esoteric critters in the sub-atomic zoo, the average person would accept that they know nothing, and would not feel the need to contest the results.

    Climate is NOT weather. It is like the relationship between arithmetic and complex analytic functions. Just because you can add and subtract, does not make you a mathematician. Lambs freezing in Southland is weather….climate is another 5-8 degC average over the whole globe, during the lifetime of our grandchildren.

    awash with so much oil OPEC has to price-fix to keep the price at a profitable level for their members.

    The predicted first symptom of Peak Oil will be sustained price volatility. Exactly as we are seeing. Thank you for proving my point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. battler () says:

    “”The graph proves my point. There is more Geo-political risk now than there was in 1973 and OPEC is abusing it’s cartel, yet oil now is still over 30% cheaper than it was that time. And yet incomes have increased massively over the last 33 years.

    No you just changed your point in response to the data. Liar.”"

    No. The point remains the same.

    1973 – Geopolitical tension and Cartel operating – Oil Price US$90/barrel.

    2006 – Greater Geopolitical tension. Cartel still operating – massively increased incomes -Oil Price US$60/barrel.

    World survived 1973. World will survive 2006.

    “”Nobody answered my earlier question: If the world surivived to tell the story of US$90/barrel oil 33 years ago, what makes you think it can’t survive $60/barrel today with the massive increase in incomes?”

    No it nearly did not. “”

    It “nearly did not” ?? Another way of saying: “It did”.

    “The 1970′s Oil Shock triggered a major global round of recession and inflation. I recall with a grim horror watching my the mortgage rate on my first home jump from around 7% to over 22% in the space of less than a year. ”

    Oil shock is not the only reason for inflation. Inflation results from mismanagement of the money supply. We now have a Reserve Bank Governer who will get the sack if he mismanages the supply of fiat money in our fractional reserve banking system.

    Meantime there is a price war amongst banks and non-bank lenders competing for mortgage business.

    “The reason WHY the world survived this experience was:

    1. There was still plenty of non-OPEC oil that could be brought on stream at that time. eg the North Sea.”

    There is still plenty of non-OPERC oil that can be brought on stream at the right price. Refer previous points that an increased price will do two things

    1. increase incentive for fresh exploration, drilling, processing investment as return will be profitable.

    2. make alternate energies more price competetive.

    Net result – existing Cartel would have to get realistic about it’s pricing structure again, new oil would come on stream PLUS economies of scale would be achieved in non-oil energy supplies. A WIN, WIN, WIN for energy consumers.

    “2. The technologies and patterns of use at that time had been developed in an environment of low cost oil. This meant it was relatively cheap to extract substantial efficiency gains and demand reductions very quickly.”

    Technology has moved on again. If oil prices rise it creates more incentive in all areas –

    1. Transport – Hybrid cars, smaller cars, fuel efficient cars.

    2. Home Energy – Solar hot water, energy efficient light bulbs, double glazing windows, hot water cylinder insulation, heat pumps etc.

    3. Commerce – using landfill methane to generate electricity, micro-hydro on farms etc.

    Net result – Quantity of oil demanded will fall, OPEC has to get realistic about prices again, plus energy consumers more energy efficient & making use of alternate energy.

    A WIN, WIN, WIN for energy consumers.

    “3. The US was still in a very strong geo-political position to lever prices back down fairly quickly, thus minimising the long-term harm.”

    The quickest way to lever prices of any good or service down is to dry up demand. Previous posts apply here – if U.S. consumers feel the price is too high they will demand less. And switch to alternatives – public transport instead of private motor car, solar hot water etc etc.

    Demand for oil falls. Prices are levered down. Same old economics kicking in.

    “None of these conditions apply now over 30 years later. ”

    Every one of these conditions exist in an enhanced way.

    “Non-OPEC production has peaked”

    Only so long as prices remain as low as they are and the world remains over-supplied with fuel as it is at present. If supplies are used up and prices rise, there is an incentive to explore, drill, process etc.

    Would you start up a business producing a commodity that is already in oversupply?

    ,” we are on the law of diminishing returns regarding efficiency gains”

    The cycle will start again.

    ” and thanks to GWB…the US card is both economically and politically more tattered than ever before.”

    Irrespective of what GWB is doing, U.S. consumers will vote with their pocket books, and if oil prices are too high they will look to alternatives, driving down demand, driving down prices….and so the cycle begins again…

    “The point is that I can read the scientific papers with enough skill and knowledge to know how complex the issue is, how much information there is to reconcile and how downright HARD this science is. The problem is that if we were talking about something most people *think* they know all about…the weather. If the debate was say the quantum mechanics of the more esoteric critters in the sub-atomic zoo, the average person would accept that they know nothing, and would not feel the need to contest the results.”

    The reason people need to contest the results of the so called “emerging consensus around climate change” is because the theories are unproven, and the implications of adopting unproven theories as the basis for Government policy around the world are substantial.

    Quite a different situation from the critters in the zoo.

    “Climate is NOT weather. It is like the relationship between arithmetic and complex analytic functions. Just because you can add and subtract, does not make you a mathematician. Lambs freezing in Southland is weather….climate is another 5-8 degC average over the whole globe, during the lifetime of our grandchildren.”

    And whether or not another 5-8 degC happens in the lifetime of our grandchildren is a hotly contested debate, and no person who values life as if freedom mattered should lie down and accept proclamations of emerging consensus from U.N. and U.N. hanger on types like the IPCC when other scientists are questioning the findings.

    “”awash with so much oil OPEC has to price-fix to keep the price at a profitable level for their members.”

    The predicted first symptom of Peak Oil will be sustained price volatility. Exactly as we are seeing. Thank you for proving my point.”

    Peak Oil occuring (if it were to occur) may result in price volatility.

    However, price volitality does not automatically mean that ‘Peak Oil’ as espoused by the doom merchants, is occuring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Clarke () says:

    The point here – and the absolute delight – is that this debate no longer matters. National have never been a party of principle; their policies have always been whatever was expedient enough to get them into power. And the whole bluegreen scenario is National’s leadership (in the form of Key, Brownlee and Smith) deciding that there are more middle NZ votes in being green than in being NeoCon.

    Note the date down in your diaries: 8 October 2006 is the high-tide mark for all the climate-denying neocon nonsense in New Zealand. That was the day your own party decided your votes and your opinion didn’t matter.

    National no longer cares about whether climate change is real or not – they have simply bowed to the inevitable and decided it’s an issue the electorate cares about. And by proxy, it’s now an issue National needs to take to heart if it has a snowball’s chance of getting elected.

    So railing against “junk science” is just so much pissing in the wind – the key takeaway messsage is that from now on, National’s policy will look like a cheap plastic Made-In-China imitation of the Greens … and there’s nothing that battler or Redbaiter can do about it. Hell, you two may even be right about climate change … but who cares? Certainly not National.

    So what’s it like to be disenfranchised by your own party?

    - Clarke

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. battler () says:

    “The point here – and the absolute delight – is that this debate no longer matters. National have never been a party of principle; their policies have always been whatever was expedient enough to get them into power. And the whole bluegreen scenario is National’s leadership (in the form of Key, Brownlee and Smith) deciding that there are more middle NZ votes in being green than in being NeoCon.”

    You’re behind the debate Clarke.

    I’ve already in a previous comment on Kiwiblog today answered another person’s query about this, and already outlined that the Don/Nick strategy is to get 2% points off the greens. I have already referred to this as cynical vote grabbing.

    “Note the date down in your diaries: 8 October 2006 is the high-tide mark for all the climate-denying neocon nonsense in New Zealand. That was the day your own party decided your votes and your opinion didn’t matter.”

    The “Bluegreens” led on by Don and Nick who know their political career number is almost up, and by an ex-green MP come National Party member deciding to adopt Green Party Policy has no bearing on either the reality that “Climate-change/Global Warming/Doom” is totally unproven, nor on whether or not an individual persons vote counts for the National Party.

    Judy Kirk knows that every vote counts. Don Brash and Nick Smith know that every vote counts. That’s why they’re trying so hard to take 2% off the Greens.

    “National no longer cares about whether climate change is real or not – they have simply bowed to the inevitable and decided it’s an issue the electorate cares about. And by proxy, it’s now an issue National needs to take to heart if it has a snowball’s chance of getting elected.”

    The 2008 election has little bearing on whether or not long-run climate change/globalwarming/doom is going to occur.

    In another comment on Kiwiblog Clarke I have already outlined that the problem for the right is people thinking in terms of 3 yearly election cycles, while Helen Clark and her ilk think in terms of 30 year time frames to create a constituency for their policies.

    I care little for the short term electoral cycle, and National Party adopting Green Party policy on a short sighted electioneering basis does not prove the theory of ClimateChange/GlobalWarming/ImpendingDoom.

    “So railing against “junk science” is just so much pissing in the wind – the key takeaway messsage is that from now on, National’s policy will look like a cheap plastic Made-In-China imitation of the Greens … and there’s nothing that battler or Redbaiter can do about it. Hell, you two may even be right about climate change … but who cares? Certainly not National.”

    Digger Don will have dug his own grave by the time the ClimateChange/GlobalWarming/Impending doom prophecy is exposed and proven as the hoax that it is.

    “So what’s it like to be disenfranchised by your own party?
    - Clarke”

    Who said the National Party is ‘my own party’ ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    new oil would come on stream PLUS economies of scale would be achieved in non-oil energy supplies.

    Wrong. The rate of new oil coming on stream IS only just compensating for the production declines now occuring in all the major fields. You imagine that somehow there are large areas of the globe unexplored, that there are a dozen other Gharwar’s just lying there waiting to be stumbled over. There is not. Most of the likely places for good oil field have been investigated.

    The cheap, easy low hanging fruit was found first. The rate of discovery of oil reserves peaked around the mid 1960′s, and has been declining ever since. That is a FACT you cannot argue against.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

    Technology has moved on again. If oil prices rise it creates more incentive in all areas

    Again the cheap easy efficiency gains have already been taken. There is a very real law of diminish returns acting here. What you totally fail to grasp is that what you so glibly refer to as “technology” is when you examine it carefully, nothing more than the refined and focussed application of energy. When the energy supply is cheap and effectively unlimited, then technology looks like a magic bean. But when the magic fades rapidly when the energy that is powering the technology becomes scarcer and more expensive.

    The reason people need to contest the results of the so called “emerging consensus around climate change” is because the theories are unproven,

    And you know there are still LOTS of people who think that the Theory of Evolution is “unproven”. Some theories are easy to provide a hard standard of “proof” for. eg at the level of mathematics, or physics it is relatively easy to produce hard proof’s. But as one moves from these starting points, towards the life sciences “proofs” become more statistical in nature. Really all you are doing is mistaking what is a perfectly valid discussion and debate in what is still a hard and rapidly moving subject, for “lack of proof”.

    However, price volitality does not automatically mean that ‘Peak Oil’ as espoused by the doom merchants, is occuring.

    Sighs. Your grasp of this is SO tenditious as to be truly spit-making. There is no “proof” of Peak Oil in the sense you are demanding. There cannot be one. If I claimed one, it would be ipso facto wrong. The scientific method demands among other things repeatibility of it’s “proofs”. Unfortunately Peak Oil, like AGW, is a “one-off” experiment. There can be no predictions, no trials, and no “proofs” in the traditional sense of a laboratory experiment.

    Peak Oil is a prediction based on induction, but the only “proof” that will EVER be available is AFTER the event. Unless you are demented enough to be telling us that there is an infinite amount of fossil oil to be exploited at ever increasing rates…Peak Oil is a logical inevitability. The question is just when. All the current data suggests sometime in the next decade.

    Now please, please go away and spend a year or two educating yourself before just repeating this same tedious disinformation over and over. The possibility of all this being a “hoax” is so remote as to be unspeakably silly. Really you have no idea at all just how poorly informed you really are. Most normal people would have gotten the hint by now…so what the hell is exactly you motive for continuing to muddy the waters as you are?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Clarke () says:

    Who said the National Party is ‘my own party’ ?

    Oops, my mistake. So who is left to vote for, then? Is it the big toss-up between Winston and Peter Dunne, the only two climate change hold-outs in the whole circus?

    And let’s face it, given that Winston is nothing but a populist, he’ll be on the green bandwagon just in time for another round of “you media people mis-quoted me” in 2008.

    That leaves our Peter. Hmm. Didn’t see you as the religious type, battler, but hey, each to his own.

    Digger Don will have dug his own grave by the time the ClimateChange/GlobalWarming/Impending doom prophecy is exposed and proven as the hoax that it is.

    So let me get this straight … Don (who denies climate change) gets shafted by Key/Brownlee (who are prepared to go with the climate change scenario) and …. what? They reverse the policy?!

    It’s widely accepted that both Key and Brownlee have much better political instincts than Don The Dinosaur, so they’re not about to wind back a policy that will get them into power.

    Hence my first point – the debate is over. Nobody cares enough to even visit the denier websites you keep posting – the tyranny of the majority has spoken, and you were in the minority. Move on.

    - Clarke

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. battler () says:

    AttorneyGeneral:

    Your nose is so close to the tree you keep banging that you can’t see the forest.

    When you cut through all the issues and get to the bottom line, the fact is that “Peak Oil” is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is human survival and therefore human behaviour. Which comes down to some basic economic issues.

    People are not really buying “oil”, they are buying an end result.

    For example, when I put petrol in the car, my transaction at that instant us buying petrol, but what I’m really buying is the ability to get from A to B.

    When I buy electricity, the transaction at that instant is paying for electricity which may have involved consumption of fossil fuels. But what I’m really buying is lighting, heat, cooking ability and hot water for a shower.

    How is this relevant?

    Oil is important in so far as it is presently used as an input in these “products and services” which I as a human am interested in purchasing.

    The ‘Peak Oil’ doom merchants are busy telling us the world will end because oil is going to run out within the decade.

    They have got their nose so deep in the tree of “Science” and the latest Greenpeace rag, they can’t see the forest of economics.

    If Oil is “Peaking” then it would become harder and harder for producers to meet demand. This would drive prices up.

    Which directs people to alternatives.

    And for every end product or service that currently involves oil, there is an alternative way of doing things, that will not bring about the end of civilization.

    Humans are not going to lie down and die because oil is getting expensive.

    Think of rail transport. Originally was Steam engines. People back then could have said “OH the world will end because we will run out coal and won’t be able to run our trains” They could have been so focused on the tree of coal they missed the forest of transport economics.

    Of course we all know that Rail moved to Diesel power and today the earh sill has hundreds of years worth of coal in the ground, long after we stopped using it to power our trains.

    Then people could say “OH the world will end when we run out of Diesel and won’t be able to power our trains” And along comes electrified rail…..

    You could do the same exercise on electricity generation:

    Oh the world will end when we can’t fire our coal power stations….along comes hydro.

    Oh the world will end when we can’t dam up any rivers anymore….along comes nuclear

    Oh the world will end because we don’t want any more nuclear power….along comes wind & solar.

    When you pull your head away from the tree of “Science” and Greenpeace rags and look at the forest of economics and history, you will heave a sigh of relief, and realize that humans have adapted for thousands of years, and a short run geopolitical crises or cartel manipulation of a single commodity does not spell doom for the world.

    So AttorneyGeneral, you can shut down your computer, put your feet up, have a glass of wine and then go and make love to your spouse if you have one.

    Then in the morning, read up on economics and history.

    It might relieve your stress and fears of impending doom and we might see a little less arrogance and sarcasm from you in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. George Darroch () says:

    Just because you deserve a laugh… http://www.desmogblog.com/stewart-and-colbert-slam-the-skeptics

    Very funny stuff!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. AttorneyGeneral () says:

    Oh dear,

    You really ARE more ignorant than I had imagined. Your last post is so full of misconceptions I scarcely know (or feel all that bothered) to respond. It is late, I will be brief.

    Oil is the single most dense transport fuel on the face of the earth. Bar none. There is no substitute. Electricity is NOT a substitute for oil, not in cars, not in trucks, not in ships, nor in aircraft.

    Moreover transport is only about 40% of total hydrocarbon consumption. A substantial amount is uniquely used in many other essential applications. For instance natural gas (subject to it’s own imminent peak) is essential in the production of cheap fertiliser.

    In essence you are positing that the bulk of our current hydrocarbon consumption can be substituted by a mix of efficiency gains, demand destruction, nuclear power and re-usables. Well the numbers just don’t stack up. No matter how you try.

    The evidence of history is that all pre-industrial civilisations collapsed catastrophically at around the time they peaked out their most critical resource. Oil is our critical resource. Uniquely in history we are informed of our ancestor’s mistakes in a manner they were not, this gives us a chance….we may yet avoid the darkest collapse IF we do not act as they did in assuming that tommorrow would always just be a better today.

    A bug culture in an incubator dish is consuming it’s food resource because it doubles every generation. It will consume all the food in 100 generations. Yet there is STILL 50% of the food left, (ie they have only used just half of it)….at the 99th generation.

    The numbers are not the same for hydrocarbon consumption, but the underlying principle is. If we behave like ignorant bugs and blindly pretend that the resource is limitless, or that another dish of it will be magically provided just when we run out…we will richly deserve our fate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. battler () says:

    AttorneyGeneral,

    You really must lead a life without hope.

    PEAK OIL remains unproven.

    But that is still not the real point. The real point is that most humans will not lie down and die. They will do what it takes to meet their needs.

    If oil supplies begin to decline, the market price will rise, resulting in rationalisation of all sectors of energy use.

    Instead of driving cars to work, people will take buses.

    Instead of commuting at all people can tele-work from home.

    Instead of burning gas to heat water they can use solar hot water.

    Instead of transporting food over large miles it can be grown and distributed on a localised basis.

    And on and on.

    IF Oil is a finate resource and it starts to decline, it won’t be “Here today, gone tomorrow”, the producers will know that pressure is coming on because it will be harder and hard to pump out oil easily, and the price will rise, and consumption and behaviour will adjust accordingly.

    Again, people are not essentially buying oil for ships or aircraft or cars or electricty, they are buying the end result which is LIFE.

    FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING.

    If you want to spend your life worrying about a single commodity and then curl over and die if and when it runs out, that’s your choice.

    Personally, I’ll have no problems installing a rain water tank for water, solar for electricity, keeping a house cow for milk and dairy products and growing my own fruit and vege , and then building up localised markets for trading surpluses with other like minded people if that’s what it comes down to.

    I very much doubt that scenario is anywhere on our near horizon, but I’m prepared for it.

    Heck, then I wouldn’t have to commute on a motorway to go into an office full of recycled air.

    I could be outside in the fresh air and sunshine tending my vegetable garden and fruit trees, milking my house cow and relaxing, not stuck in commuter travel worrying about “Peak Oil” and the “Global Warming” hoax.

    Then I could go down the the beach and catch some fresh fish, instead of buying fish caught on a vessel and transported in a truck to a supermarket.

    Chill out AttorneyGeneral, IT’S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. battler () says:

    ok folks, it’s getting late.

    I’m going to make one final post for the night, and this is a serious post.

    And it has a caveat, I do not believe that either the Global Warming or the Peak Oil theories are proven and I don’t think there is any cause for concern in our lifetimes about energy running out.

    However, for everyone who is genuinely concerned about the survival of themselves and civilization in a post-oil world, and would like a constructive idea of something they could do, I have the following genuine suggestion.

    Go to http://www.google.com
    Do a search for WWOOF – Willing Workers on Organic Farms.

    Make the necessary arrangements to take you and your family on a two year sabbatical.

    Arrange to pay any consumer debt off first and then be ready to rent out your house. Make the necessary arrangements for leave with your employer or someone to care-take your business if you run a business. If you are on government welfare you are already set up for this.

    For a small fee you can purchase from the WWOOF people a directory of farms which will provide you with free lodging and meals in return for work.

    I suggest you take one to two years, and plan an itinerary of travelling around organic farms where you can learn some of the following:

    How to milk a cow, produce home made dairy products and raise calves.

    How to shear a sheep, spin yarn and knit garments. How to raise lambs.

    How to prepare soil, plant and tend a vegetable garden.

    How to prepare, plant and look afer fruit trees.

    How to catch, scale and cook fresh fish.

    How to cut wood and do manual wood work and fence building.

    How to collect and store water manually.

    How to maintain a solar electricity system.

    How to maintain a rainwater tank system.

    How to maintain a septic tank sewarge system.

    How to ride and look after horses and stables.

    How to organise a farmers market to trade surplus products with other small producers.

    Spend two years learning all these things.

    You will de-stress yourself from the modern world, learn many things and meet many interesting people.

    Then, if Oil does peak, you will be well prepared to enjoy the fresh bounty of creation in a localised setting post-oil.

    If you’ve read this post and you are still fearful about Peak Oil and Global Warming I wish for you that one day you find peace in your heart.

    Bye for tonight.

    Battler.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. llew () says:

    Will that farm have sky sport & the Rialto channel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. phil u () says:

    do those ‘woofing’ farms have flush toilets..?

    are they graded/rated.?..(smiley/sad faces beside a picture of a loo…?..maybe..?..)

    ..y’know..like caravan parks..?

    and can i take my dogs..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. llew () says:

    Yeah bring the dogs, we may have to eat them if times get tough.

    To stop taking the mickey for a moment, Battler, this all sounds very worthy, and dare I say it, pretty Green!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. battler () says:

    Petrol Prices Cut Further

    02/11/2006
    NZPA

    Shell said on Thursday it had cut the price of petrol and diesel by 5 cents a litre.

    Shell initially announced a 4 cent a litre cut, but BP leapfrogged it with a 5cpl cut and Shell matched that.

    A Shell spokeswoman said falling international crude oil prices and the rising New Zealand dollar were behind the petrol price cuts.

    Prices were cut seven times in as many weeks starting in mid-September. Thursday’s drop means 91-octane is now $1.38.9 a litre, 95-octane is $1.43.9 and diesel 96.9c.

    The price is now only 2c above where it was a year ago.

    Crude oil prices have fallen to $US58 ($NZ87.27) a barrel from a peak in July of $US78.40 in their steepest decline since the Gulf War in 1991.

    Easing Middle East tensions, ample fuel stocks and slowing US economic growth are behind the fall.

    Simultaneously, the New Zealand dollar has risen sharply – up 10 percent since June. It strengthened overnight to a new 8-1/2 month high against the greenback, getting to US67.50c.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. buvrxlg mdvkqea () says:

    msgu karduvxb brxjn clhwoadvp fjiyhce qabpt ivrn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. buvrxlg mdvkqea () says:

    msgu karduvxb brxjn clhwoadvp fjiyhce qabpt ivrn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.