Nine scientific errors
As many will have seen, a British Judge has found
the Gore “documentary” has “nine scientific errors” in it. No surprise, as Gore is a politician not a scientist. Eight of the nine errors are:
- The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” – but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
- It spoke of global warming “shutting down the ocean conveyor” – the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was “very unlikely” that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
- Mr Gore had also claimed – by ridiculing the opposite view – that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”
- Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
- · The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: “It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from … population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability”
- · Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was “insufficient evidence to show that”
- · Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm”
- · The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult
Climate Change is an issue, but politicians and others often exaggerate the science, and go well beyond what the IPCC has concluded. And they try to make people forget the economics as well as the science. We should be debating whether spending hundreds of billions on Kyoto is sensible, considering that by 2050 it will only reduce average mean temperature by 0.07 of a degree. Any meaningful action has to include China.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: International Politics
October 12th, 2007 at 7:54 am
What’s the ninth?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:00 am
So the government is now killing any new fossil-fuel power stations… to keep LNG out. The best way to keep LNG out is to encourage exploration for indiginous gas, which won’t happen if the government shrinks the market for it in this manner – Kupe was discovered in 1986. It wasn’t developed, because there was no market. In future, there won’t even be any incentive for exploration!
Imagine if, for example, they found oil in the Great Southern Basin. Problem is: It will have associated gas. What will they do with that gas, if they’re not allowed to build a power plant to burn it?
Secondly, 90% renewables is very risky in terms of what happens in dry years – remember 1992?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:03 am
No9 No 9 No 9
Mr Gore’s assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said this was “distinctly alarmist” and it was common ground that if Greenland’s ice melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:06 am
I agree, climate change is a complete and utter hoax.
[DPF: Interesting that Tane is unable or unwilling to actually discuss the issue on its merits, but just seeks to misrepresent people's opinions]
October 12th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I would counsel anyone against conflating ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ with the whole scientific case for climate change. Unfortunately, this is what so many skeptical commentators seem to do, which is a shame as there are several issues with the film.
Having a judge rule that the film contains inaccuracies will likely be seized on by the skeptics as ‘proof’ that climate change is largely baseless conjecture, tarted up by a sad politician. The reality is, as most people accept, that the IPCC opinion is broadly held, and only challenged by very few. The judge also pointed out in his ruling that the film was ‘broadly accurate’ – it is a shame that Al Gore saw fit to sensationalise to the extent he did, but that was the case.
As someone who reads fairly widely, and is pretty convinced by the IPCC position, the Gore film gave me several forehead-smacking moments, where he trowelled on the sentiment, but the science seemed dumbed-down rather than invented. And it seems this is what the judge pinged Gore for – asserting things as fact where they are actually just very sound theories.
Bottom line is anyone who gets their science from movies should probably delve a bit deeper before thinking they have the whole picture.
MrHappy
October 12th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I am intrigued by the fact that the notional cost of fighting global warming via such things as the Kyoto protocol is such that for a fraction of the money we could relocate and markedly improve the living standards of all the people that would be “flooded out” by the predicted (and exagerated) rising waters.
The “Fight Global Warming” thing is more of a religious movement as far as the masses supporting it go. Dare I refer people to Bjorn Lomborg’s many articles about the topic?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:11 am
The reality is, as most people accept, that the IPCC opinion is broadly held, and only challenged by very few.
Actually, that assertion (weel, the assertion of AGW) is based on a study which reviewed the number of peer-reviewed papers published that supported the notion of global warming. That study was around 20 years ago, IIRC.
The study methodology has recently been repeated, and has drawn a very different conclusion.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Mr Gore made one mistake , the shit comes outta his fat gob faster than the side show Clinton act ?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:16 am
“I agree, climate change is a complete and utter hoax.”
Actually Tane, the Earths climate has been changing before you, I or even our very distant ancestors who were banging two rocks together in the hope of cooking the antelope they had just caught rather than eat it raw.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Spam, are you talking about the Schultze paper vs the Oreskes study? There is plenty to talk about on this one, but for a really good insight into scientific opinion on climate change, the Bray/von Storch studies are very fine indeed – Google them for a picture of how scientific opinion continues to shift (towards anthropogenic cause of climate change).
If there is any interest, I can post up some of the conclusions.
MrHappy
October 12th, 2007 at 8:17 am
I am sure most people agree that there is Global Warming.
What is overlooked by the `doomsayers’ is the fact that it has happened since the world began.
That is called Nature!!!!
October 12th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Pathetic DPF -
Who cares if one movies have some scientific inaccuracies, in no way does that undermine the science of climate change
read the IPCC, they’re the world authority on climate science. If you are passably literate and you read the IPPC reports you will realise what a problem this is.
truely pathetic,
[DPF: Sam, sam , sam. Did you even read what I wrote. I actually commended the IPCC work and said what Gore does detracts from the IPCC. And I have actually read much of the IPCC work. Your problem Sam is you are a kneejerk liberal. You can't handle any criticism of Al Gore because you think he is trying to do good stuff, so somehow you think I shouldn't mention the fact a Judge had ruled there were nine significant inaccuracies in his film. And you have the temerity to call it pathethic, when in fact I am the one who standing up for the science of the IPCC. Gore is the one who is damaging the science with his lies.]
October 12th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I wonder if Dear Leader will keep praising the film now it has been found packed full of lies.
Of course, biofuels have there problems too.
They are actually more damanging than conventional diesel and their manufacture pushes up the price of food, and helps cause starvation in poorer countries.
I have blogged on both matters over at http://www.nominister.blogspot.com
But bacl to where I started.
Yes, Dear Leader will carry on praising “An Inconvenient Truth” , after all the promotion of lies is what Liarbour is about.
But it would be nice for some journalist to as Clark about the movie and then dig up some Clark quotes on the movie, like I have done, and then see if and how they might differ.
Words do have a way of coming back to haunt you.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Labour releases a good strategy to encourage renewable energy generation
and dpf comes up with this
October 12th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Robert Owen: In DPF’s defence, it is fairly newsworthy. The trick is, as mentioned above, not to make the mistake of thinking that Gore’s films accuracy has any bearing on the validity of the IPCC position on anthropogenic climate change.
MrHappy
October 12th, 2007 at 8:31 am
While I agree with the view made on the nine points in principle, what scientific kudos or ability does a judge have to pass judgement on ’scientific errors’?
Everyone is taking a scientific discussion and placing it in the hands of politicians, media, lawyers and film.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Words , yes , old Hebrew meaning is “thing” , which makes words things that come back to haunt .
Anybody seen sonic today? I do worry about her sometimes .
Great to see Sam is adding to global warming with getting hot under the collar with David , oh well the hip science global farting is the new age phenomenon.
I have booked me boat trip thru the Arctic with my friend George as he wants the piece of water real bad .
October 12th, 2007 at 8:37 am
This was newsworthy
The polar icecap
The last few decades have seen summer ice shrink by about 0.7% per year.
between 2004 and 2005 it was 14%
October 12th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Dear Robert , don’t worry about the Polar Bears matey, as they have learned to adapt to living on eating plastic bags !
October 12th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Nothing wrong with encouraging renewable energy. Just seems at bit odd that it gets a push now while carbon emissions have increased under the previous 8 years of Labour governments… and, if Gerry Brownlee is to be believed “Under Labour, the amount of renewable energy … has reached an all-time low of 6 per cent, while the amount of electricity generated from coal has climbed from 4 per cent to 12 per cent.”
October 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am
How noble of the supporters of hip science, however, don’t solid energy export West Coast coal to China where global warming is regarded in the same light as the Cheech and Chong movie – up in smoke ?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Ahhh, the National party’s policy is becoming clear – climate change denial via dog whistling whenever you can get away with it; Most likely back room nod and wink deals for cash with big business polluters to leave them alone when in power; and “innoculation” when talking to concerned Joe Public. So, we’ve got the usual Tory Hollow men blend of contempt for democracy, toadying to business with a nice dash of nut-job cheerleading.
[DPF: Sigh another idiot who thinks the term dog whistle is a generic insult for anything he does not like or understand. But is Toms calling the British Judge a nut-job? ]
October 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Nice comment toms , trade me opinion a bit boring these days ?
October 12th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Remind me who said Climate Change/Koyoto is a “complete and utter hoax”
October 12th, 2007 at 8:53 am
You got me Robert, was it one of Helen’s teddy bears ?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“If Bush and Howard got their way, countries would adopt ‘aspirational’ rather than binding targets to fix the problem. ‘Aspirational’ is code for voluntary, and would put progress on combating climate change back by 12 years, at a time when climate scientists say we’ve really only got eight years left to act.
“For John Key to support this stance makes a complete mockery of his previous claim that his party takes climate change very seriously.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:01 am
toms: DPF doesn’t set National policy, and didn’t deny climate change. Maybe you could try responding to the post.
dpf: An Inconvenient Truth is hardly science, I agree. Using it in schools, and treating it as literal truth, is not a good idea. It would be nice if there was a clear and factual documentary that could be used instead.
On Kyoto and progress, what annoys me most is the ongoing flaying of Aus and USA for not signing Kyoto. The point being that both Aus and USA have had reducing emissions in recent years, whilst NZ and many others signing Kyoto have not. Many European countries are clearly not going to meet their obligations under the treaty, and no penalties appear to exist. To the left the style (of signing Kyoto) is far more important than the substance (of actually reducing emissions).
National policy, so far as I recall, is 50 by 50. And a carbon trading scheme. Whilst I would prefer a carbon tax, it is hard to argue that a carbon trading scheme isn’t a perfectly valid response.
Labour, on the other hand, have followed the left philosophy I mention above. Sign the treaty, fail to meet it. Increasing emissions, and screwing up the incentives to various industries such that they are doing nothing on emissions. They have demonstrated no credibility on this issue whatsoever.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Robert, it look like you are trying to quote someone, if you are the least you could do is to post a source.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:02 am
The Judge did not rule on the subject of whether there is global warming or not but on the “evidence” used to provide proof the thesis was valid. In the evidence used in the documentary as proof, nine of the “proofs’ were to be suspect as either fabrications or embellishments of the facts. Lies, dam lies and statistics.
As the nine errors was, in essence, the total argument of the entire film on the scale of global warming it brings into focus what the schools are teaching about global warming. English school now must provide a balanced view of the debate.
Other than the self promotion of Gore, which was by far the most time consuming part of the movie, it was not a documentary, but a good work of fiction for the entertainment industry and a good investment for the financiers of the film. It may get Gore a Nobel Prize and even another shot at being President so from Gores point of view an excellent project!
A friend of mine has found a solution to the global warming debate. As a director of the Flat Earth Society, he maintains that global warming is impossible for obvious reasons. He does not deny that there has been change in the weather, but it cannot be a global issue.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I suspect before too long Russell Brown, another non-scientist, will attack the judge’s credentials or will label him senile. Anyone who criticises the holy grail of the climate change movement is usually labelled a denier (similar to holocaust denier) and is thus treated with the utmost contempt.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:05 am
you are feckin’ kidding with this one..eh..?..dpf..?
are you trying to re-define ‘dancing on the head of a pin’..?
and calling ‘triumph’ just cos’ nobody can be fecked wasting their energies on playing your silly game/comment-magnet..?
eh..?
gizzefeckin’breakhere..!..eh..?
“it can’t be definitely proved’..said the judge..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 12th, 2007 at 9:09 am
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press/releases/john-key-sides-with-howard
October 12th, 2007 at 9:11 am
The polar icecap
The last few decades have seen summer ice shrink by about 0.7% per year.
between 2004 and 2005 it was 14%
October 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
WHo has the better emissions record since 1990? New Zealand (signatory to the Kyoto agreement) or Australia & USA (evil, evil countries who want to destroy the environment to make a few cents?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Phil, I assume you disagree. Well, where’s the proof that the judge is wrong? Try addressing what the judge actually said, not what you think he said.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Phil , sorry to seem argumentative , however I could not understand your previous outburst , are you for or against hip science ?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Pointless argument, sceptics vs indoctrinated blind believers. Neither will convince the other. Both will get sore heads and the brick wall will remain undamaged.
I do note however one thing. The sceptics are sceptical about something different to that which the indoctrinated like to claim. i.e the answer to the question “what causes climate to change?”
Sceptics say “don’t know yet but lets keep looking”
indoctrinated say “it is man and governments need to provide a solution”
It is apparent where the closed minds are!
Move on guys
October 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
One issue i have with 90% of energy having to come from renewable sources is that those renewable sources are so reliant on the weather (Wind, solar, water). One of the major predictions of effects of Global Warming is that our weather will become more unpredictable and more extreme.
So if countries like China and US do nothing/not much about their Greenhouse gas emissions and Global warming does in fact get worse with worse weather for us here in NZ – where will that leave us if the weather conditions mean that our electricity supply is comprimised?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:28 am
PaulL has hit the nail on the head. It’s interesting to see the responses from the Labour Good, National Bad crowd though. Their team scores an own goal and they cheer them on for scoring!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Max:
With rolling brownouts, just like before when we were even LESS reliant on renewables.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:32 am
It has been instructive to watch the slow disintegration of the political right’s position on climate change.
1. Global warming, what a hoax, I was out last night and it was freezing!,
2. Ok the earth might be heating up, but it’s an entirely natural process, and for places like Siberia a positive boon. Global warning, bring it on!
3. Ok so human activity is responsible for climate change, and it is going to a disaster, but we can’t do anything about it because, er, China! thats it.
I’d not worry too much about arguing with their current position, in six months it will be
4. Global warming is real, but it’s too late to do anything about it.
How can any of you expect to be taken seriously on this subject, given your track record?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Well that will be good for economy then, wont it?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:35 am
what PaulL said
October 12th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Where do you stand sonic?
1 Is it a proven fact that man’s activities have caused climate change?
2. Does a change in atmospheric CO2 caise global warming?
simple questions that anyone expressing an opinion should be willing to answer!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Max
How can you predict that the weather will become more unpredictable?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Sonic “3. Ok so human activity is responsible for climate change, and it is going to a disaster, but we can’t do anything about it because, er, China! thats it.”
Stop exporting coal to Newcastle oops I mean China – Helen ? Make a stand girl , show some mettle girl , that would be a good starting point .
Forget the fridge retirement village .
October 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am
“truely pathetic,”
What’s pathetic is your left wing group think indoctrination you lemming. The UN (IPCC) is the world authority on Climate Change? That gang of fraudsters, thieves, totalitarian dictators, oil for food scammers, child pornographers and socialists.. yeah right…
This is another leftist lie designed to promote the socialist nirvana of big all-powerful government, and you’ve been sprung. Just as you’re being sprung on all of the other lies that underpin your sick destructive ideology. Socialism is dying. The global warming scam is once of its last grabs at life, designed to keep the corpse breathing long enough to engineer a recovery. Forget it propagandists, socialism is fucked.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Could also ask,
With the change of the descripor from “Global Warming” to the now favoured “Climate Change”, is it going to get warmer or colder?
I need to know so that I can take advantage of the discounts on winter woollies in the spring sales, or should I wait and buy new budgie smugglers in the autumn
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
We will all know the answers shortly when real renewable energy is launched on the world.
Then it may be that the world will have to look elsewhere to find causes for a perceived global warming.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
“How can any of you expect to be taken seriously on this subject, given your track record?”
Coming from a socialist religionist like you, insane evangelists who are exposed daily on here as a liars and a fools, that has to be the laff of the week..
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
David
1. It’s not a “proven fact’ however it is the scientific consensus. You may be aware that even Newton’s law of gravity is still now a “proven fact” as, in scientific terms any hypothesis always remains able to be overturned by new data.
An apple could one day leap back up into the tree.
2. See answer to question 1.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
um..!..max..you left out tidepower..
…wouldn’t tide-power be the most reliable.?.
that’s my personal favourite..
and your ’solutions’..?
do they involve coal-tar..?..perchance..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hooray socialism is fucked , hooray , hooray ……
October 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
sonic, take up writing fiction for a living. oh, woops, i see you already have. as for being taken seriously, actions speak louder than words. our current government is light on the actions and strong on the words. as usual.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Anything useful to contribute ratbleater?’
Thought not.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Here we are swilling around like bacteria in a petri-dish, so obsessed with our limited horizons.
Personally I do not know whether we can establish global warming as a consequence of human activity. In terms of the Earth’s geological history the data we have would be akin to taking a snap-shot of one incident from the last five World Cups and using that to extrapolate the winning score of the winning team in the tenth world cup from now. – And that is probably a conservative analogy.
In the meantime, we reduce it to a petty little game. If you don’t agree with the global warming theory, you are in denial, if you do, you are a fantasist.
One thing I would say is, if we are so concerned with global warming and the ecology – what are we doing to stop say what China is doing to the Yangtse River, other than smootching up to them in the hope they will sell us some cheap stuff?
All we do is export our own pollution, then whine about global warming as caused by ‘others’. Both National and Labour are hot to trot with China. That alone will shit-can any thing the Kyoto Protocol can achieve over the next fifty years.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“Whilst I would prefer a carbon tax, ”
Of course. Idiot.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
sonic – who the fuck do you think you are – bitch !!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
philu – i like the idea of tidal power too (eb/flow and current). under developed opportunity. i have no idea how commercially viable options are but i’d like to investigate this some more
October 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
“Anything useful to contribute ratbleater?’”
Like you would know?? Blinkered and ignorant never see the light of day socialist lemming???
October 12th, 2007 at 9:46 am
and david..in the interests of testicular good health..
ditch those budgie-smugglers..!..eh..?
let them swing free and loose in boxers..!
9if you listen carefully..you’ll hear them crying in joy/delight..
at being ‘let out/free’.
(now there’s a debate to divide the nation..!
eh..?)
the b.s’s vs. the b.x’s..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 12th, 2007 at 9:46 am
The Independent says nine errors – so the Herald runs it.
Two other reports say 11 errors, they appear to have coflated a few.
The actual judgement lists sixteen errors. But read the full judgement here.
The errors begin on p 10.
http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/10/british-judge-f.html
This challenge to Gore’s film is important if only because so many of our own politicians have said they saw Gore’s movie and were persuaded that there was a crisis and we need a crisis response.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I want the govt (or the Nats if they are awake ?) to put some stats out that measure the amount of money we are prepared to waste making a miniscule difference to the so called “problem”. I would suggest 10s if not $100ms for the sake of being seen to be doing something about an issue we have next to no control over. It is a massive diversion and a huge waste of time and money.
I acknowledge the issue but not the perceived extent of the “problem” and we would be far better off putting positive incentives out there to reduce emissions rather than more penalties and taxes. It is a con and as usual we are tackling things arse about face and creating more unnecessary obstacles for ourselves.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Still nothing to say Ratbleater.
Why not take 5 mins and try and come up with an actual point as opposed to your usual drivel about commies and lemmings.
As I said I’m not too worried about what the mainstream right sayd right now, the sensible elements are already changing their mind, leaving outright denial to the lunatic frings (as represented above)
Hopefully soon we can have a proper debate about the best way to limit the damage from climate change, without the weirdo’s wails!
October 12th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Look , does anybody else struggle to read what that minto utopia tree hugger silly philly type person writes ?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Proper debate sonic , does that mean we don’t use words like “cancerous ” and “feral inbreds” ?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
sonic,
I have a reasonable background in science, and have not seen sufficient consensus (and certainly not at the level of accepted and unchallenged fact that surrounds gravity) that convinces me. There are enough (much brighter than mine) minds out there who remain unconvinced. Therefore I would be foolish in the extreme to believe something that is still subject to the level of challenge that AGW is.
The proponents havve made a rod for their own back by claiming proofs that have since turned out to be spectacular scientific cock-ups so it seems now to be a case of the convinced running round with their fingers in their ears saying “can’t hear you, can’t hear you”
Still, old clydeside bean you can duck and weave but it won’t make you right.
Never mind tho’, there is a strike down at Ports of Auckland that you can support, the weather up there is fine so joining the picket line will be a goer. Should warm the cockles of an old socialist heart now that the Scottish shipping industry has been substantially knackered.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press/releases/john-key-sides-with-howard
So because Howard and Bush wont sign Kyoto, and Key wont denounce them makes all three climate change deniers? Wow thats weak! You’re not looking at anything other than the signing of a protocol, which frankly will do sweet fuck all to stop or slow global warming anyway. Judge the nations on their actions, and what steps if any they are taking to reduce carbon emissions – not some hallow signature on a document that makes the rising polluters look good.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Oh phil, boxers are soooo awkward at the beach. You never know what will swim up the leg holes.
With global warming the ocean temperatures should make for a much longer summer in the surf. HEH
October 12th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Remind me who said Climate Change is a “complete and utter hoax”
October 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
sonic, there’s no doubt that belching out noxious gas is bad for the environment (hell, it’s pretty bad for this blog..).
the question is the extent to which it is damaging our environment beyond the point of sustainable habitation.
while the outright deniers and the foaming doomsdayers are as bad as each other on this, i’d stop short of saying that the mainstream right are changing their mind. it’s just possible that they’re now being heard above the din (as are with the mainstream left)
October 12th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Bevan there is a concerted effort from the left to demonise Key at the moment.
It is the standard of modern NZ politics as set by the top-people in the job. The treatment of the EB was the starter’s gun. Apparently it is fair game to treat your political opponent like a social pariah, as long as no one complains, for then they ae acused of ‘paranoia’.
Classic blame the victim bullying tactics.
It really is not pleasant to witness.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Hopefully soon we can have a proper debate about the best way to limit the damage from climate change, without the weirdo’s wails!
Funny. For years now, you’ve been saying the debate is over. Parker, that autocratic totalitarian dummy has been at the foremost of absolutely refusing to entertain the thought of any dialogue with opposing scientific groups. Now suddenly, Sonic wants to debate it?? Pffffttt.. Socialists- what fucken spaced out mungbeans they are.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:01 am
How come there’s no scientists on the Klark government’s Climate Change panel?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:03 am
hadn’t forgotten tide power – but i didn’t know we actually had it here in NZ or were planning to develop. Sounds good to me.
As for predicting – any/all of the info i have read about predicting weather changes due to Global Warming uses words like ‘could’ and ‘does not take into account’. To me this means that we should be very careful when making/changing policy regarding using weather reliant technologies. The ‘more unpredictable’ relates to how there is many unknowns for scientists as to the effects of Global Warming long term.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Scientists don’t hang out with deranged lickspittles .
October 12th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Phil, sitting on your nuts whilst wearing boxers can hardly be good for ones testicular health.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Remind me who said Climate Change is a “complete and utter hoax”
And Helen Clark once used the term Post War Iraq – so what?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:07 am
RB – that is a very good question. Who is on the panel .. and why no scientists?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:07 am
“As I said I’m not too worried about what the mainstream right sayd right now”
“The mainstream right”? What’s that exactly? That gang of trembling socialist fuckwits cowed by political correctness and locked into an ideological prison of their own making? The idiots here claiming a “carbon tax’ would be a good idea? The lemmings falling for the commie ruse of using the word “offensive” to describe anyone who holds their political system in the contempt it deserves? I’m not part of any fucken “mainstream right”. You’ll never hold me down long enough to paint the yellow streak on my back.
Crazies to the left of me, wimps to the right…
October 12th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Don’t ignore this part of the article:
“The judge found that the “broadly accurate” film can indeed be screened as long as it is accompanied by material from the climate change-denial fraternity.”
I don’t know of many claims by those who deny GW that would stand up to similar scrutiny.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I cannot believe this , you are telling me that Labour have made all this noise over global warming based on delirious scientific foundations and a movie from some wacko called Al Gore and NO SCIENTISTS are on the advisory board ? Surely this can’t be true as they must have facts to annouce such dreamworld policy ?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:14 am
One remembers back to the excitement of the Climate Change Fraudsters when the Inconvienent Truth was released Here was proof positive of their dire warnings. No body could possibly dimiss the words of such an eminent person.
Now the cracks are starting to appear and the crack pots are being shown for what they are. In some cases delusional but in other cases like our government and other governments smacking their lips and rubbing their hands together at the thought of all the new taxes they can raise and all the more control they can exercise of the lives of their citizens.
Because that is the real motivation Nothing more nothing less. And thats why the Nats arent denouncing the fraud because they hope to benefit from it all well Arseholes all.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=30789
“Thirty-one leaders across business, agriculture and forestry, science and the environment, the union movement, and non-government organisations have joined a high-level group to advise the government on emissions trading and related issues.”
Can you imagine this pack of back slapping jackals, this gang of nomenklatura, this collection of obsessive regulators, all slavering for their piece of the taxpayer provided pie?
My question remains. The blurb claims science is represented. Where are the scientists?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
“the crack pots are being shown for what they are. In some cases delusional”
Try and be nicer to ratbleater GD, he is having a bad day.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Sonic
“um..!..max..you left out tidepower..
…wouldn’t tide-power be the most reliable.?.
that’s my personal favourite..
and your ’solutions’..?
do they involve coal-tar..?..perchance..?”
I certainly don’t disagree with tidepower, however – have you heard of the RMA, Foreshore and Seabed and not to mention the Taniwha..? ..Perchance..? Could be expensive……
October 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
casual watcher 9.46 comment
you said what i thought i was trying to say
but you did it 100% better
October 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am
GD: I can only speak for myself, of course, but I was able to distinguish between Gore’s film as a piece of tarted-up science fluff (which nevertheless did a fair job of highlighting a lot of the issues within the AGW penumbra) and the actual meat in the scientific argument, which is tragically much duller.
The film wasn’t really ‘proof positive’ of anything, it was another voice in the media (albeit a somewhat influential one) interpreting the position of the IPCC, and in some places a little too eagerly. If you want the source material, read the boring stuff. If your interest/attention span only warrants a sub-two hour investigation of the whole climate change issue, then watch An Inconvenient Truth/The Great Global Warming Swindle. Just don’t be surprised if you have a bunch of your facts backwards.
MrHappy
October 12th, 2007 at 10:24 am
sonic “Try and be nicer to ratbleater GD, he is having a bad day.”
The shit that flows out of your mouth could generate a wind farm the size of the South Island !!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I see Mr Bore owns heaps of shares in google and has stopped the opposition from running ads opposing his views. Typical lefty suckhole. Even worst this arsehole may receive a noble prize for peace, for fucks sake. Thats like Dear Leader winning a prize for promoting democacry.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Sideshow Bob: Not that I agree with Gore’s actions at all if what you allege is true, surely exercising control over a company you have an interest in is in fact the opposite of ‘lefty’ behaviour – one could say it epitomises the doctrine of private property rights!
Surely if Gore’s detractors felt hard-done-by that Gore was refusing them advertising, they could seek out alternative advertising options?
MrHappy
October 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
So the Labour government taken in by the plausible pseudeo-science of the left decides to “can” all new thermal power stations for at least 10 years.
Thus enabling NZ coal that would of been efficiently consumed at “state of art” low emmission power plants here; to be exported to China and burnt by the worlds fastest increasing polluter.
Makes you wonder whether they really believe in “global Warming” themselves!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:32 am
thanks MrHappy My main point on this matter is and has always been that I am suspicious when politicans and their lackeys support a concept and immediately formulate policies to extract dollars from mine and every other tax payers pockets when I dont see a broad consenus on the topic.
Hell I dont know if Climate Change or whatever its called is all my fault or not. But what I do know is that setting up things like Carbon Trading Markets where the wide boys can strut their stuff sets off alarm bells with me as one who lived thru and survived the 87 crash.
I also respectively sugggest that those on the Left should be giving some serious thought to this. They have never supported the wide boys (and girls) yet easy earner opportunties are opening up for them.
This is not conspiracy stuff but lets face it Have you ever seen a governemnt turn down an opportuntity to raise taxes in a way that condemns those who resist paying them Its pollies Heaven to find a way to do this stuff.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Thus enabling NZ coal that would of been efficiently consumed at “state of art” low emmission power plants here; to be exported to China and burnt by the worlds fastest increasing polluter.
Makes you wonder whether they really believe in “global Warming” themselves!
Oh teh irony!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
“I see Mr Bore owns heaps of shares in google and has stopped the opposition from running ads opposing his views”
Been looking for a reference for that, all I can find is a few nutty US right-wing blogs going on about some of their ads being declined by google, nothing about Gore.
Could we have a reference please?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Andrew W. and other gullible Climate Alarmists,
Well, if you trust the IPCC, an Expert reviewer says “the IPCC is not a regular scientific organisation but one set up to support the global warming lobby at any costs, including the loss of scientific integrity.”
If you want to keep up with the science, follow
http://www.climatepolice.com or http://www.climate-skeptic.com
or read some of these for some background info:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
October 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I say this again…….
We are dealing with a non linear energy intensive life support system. Fucking it up could be very very very dangerous.
Every square metre of the surface of this part the earth is irradiated with around 1800 watts at noon on a clear day. I suggest a finely balanced system like that takes bugger all to destabilize.
Denigrating most of the worlds scientists based on prejudiced views of out-of-touch academics displays a Neanderthal myopia.
All they are saying is we can’t carry on like this. You may loooovvvveee your SUV and energy intensive lifestyle now but it carries a price tag. Deal with it now or the climate will deal to you.
AND before anyone blathers off with inane name calling I am not a leftist or green supporter.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:21 am
“Hopefully soon we can have a proper debate about the best way to limit the damage from climate change, without the weirdo’s wails!”
Who are the most influential people that should be having this debate, Sonic?
New Zealands miniscule position both globaly and in Co2 contribution wouldn’t give them the chair.
The best we can do is chant from the sidelines and hobble our economy.
I’m not suggestion we shouldn’t take some environmental responsibility but let’s have a sense of proportion.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:31 am
“AND before anyone blathers off with inane name calling I am not a leftist or green supporter.”
Yeah right…. You use “we” when you mean “I”.. this is almost always symptomatic of collectivist brainwashing.
You’re an advocate for a scheme designed to promote the cause of big government and insane taxation. Gee, that’s not leftist is it?
You lack critical thinking skills- this is a sign of a recent graduate from the commie indoctrination camps that were once universities and schools. Of course, its quite possible you don’t even know how you’re suffering.
You attempt to denigrate and shut down those who differ with government policy with allegations that they are “out of touch myopic Neanderthals” rather than allowing them room to advance their ideas. Typical Stalinist strategy.
You propound scaremongering assertion that is little more than propaganda “Fucking it up could be very very very dangerous.” This is also typical of left wingers.
Naaah, just like anthropological global warming is an utter certainty, so are you not a leftist. Its all true. The government and those who believe so fervently in government have told us so. ..and government and its agents never lie.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“nothing about Gore.”
Is this the Al Gore who travels by Lear jet and has so many homes and SUVs his carbon footprint is about ten times the size of the average??
October 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
# toms Says:
October 12th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Ahhh, the National party’s policy is becoming clear – climate change denial via dog whistling whenever you can get away with it; Most likely back room nod and wink deals for cash with big business polluters to leave them alone when in power; and “innoculation” when talking to concerned Joe Public. So, we’ve got the usual Tory Hollow men blend of contempt for democracy, toadying to business with a nice dash of nut-job cheerleading.
BIG BUSINESS POLLUTERS.
what a complete and utter knob you are Tom, Tory contempt for democracy! Twat, it is not the nats trying to ram through the EFB.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:54 am
BB – let him go. he is comedy gold. as someone asked yesterday, is toms planning a national tour? where can i buy tickets?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Of course the judge also agreed with some aspects of the film, including:
‘That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emission of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.’
‘That global temperatures are rising and likely to continue to rise.’
‘That climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked.’
‘That it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts’
It should be no real surprise that Al Gore presents his version of the facts in the film as he is trying to paint a very clear picture of the consequences of climate change.
His selective use of facts, his ignoring opposing arguments and his presentation of the worst case scenario should all be techniques familiar to regular reads of this blog, as DPF also uses many of these same techniques.
The main difference between Al Gore and DPF is Al Gore has changed world opinion, won an Oscar and will probably win a Nobel Peace Prize. DPF (to his credit) has created a popular right wing web site that is the de facto National Party mouth piece on the internet.
Compared to Al Gore I guess DPF still has a fair way to go.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
But dont forget RedBaiter, he buy’s ‘carbon credits’ to do all this. So he can pollute all he wants!
October 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Auntie Hellen obviously believes Al Gore. Now, Auntie tells me that in the best interests of the country I have to buy a new fridge (can’t have 2), buy a new car, use bio-fuels (no-one can tell me what nasty effect that will have on my new car), can’t have a large telly, reduce my power and water usage……. etc etc.
Bugger moving to Australia – Zimbabwe and Mugabe would be a lot less dictatorial!!!!!!!!!!!
October 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Don’t let the airport door hit you on the way out Nat Girl!
October 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Lance,
Your words..
“…….We are dealing with a non linear energy intensive life support system.”
Very true, but it is also multivariate, non linear, and has a polynomial expression with historical evidence of random cyclical variations.
“…….Fucking it up could be very very very dangerous.”
Very true, but extremely difficult to do. So puny are human efforts to create green house gases using oil stock when compared to the effect of water vapour – that the amount of CO2 methane and industrial pollutants is not relevant.
Having said that there are good economic grounds for conservation of oil and most efficient use of alternatives to oil. Certainly renewable energy sources should be advanced but your extravagant use of VERY VERY VERY dangerous is blind.
I would be interested if you had a balanced opinion as to the likely time interval before we could measure whole of global warming by simply walking outside in a non urban area.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
RB
You are wrong, wrong and wrong again.
You attempted profiling is not just off the mark and 100% wrong. Quite a laugh really.
I also don’t believe in carbon credits, I think they are a bullshit excuse for not dealing with the problem.
I am a National party voter. I do not have a degree.
I work with energy systems and came to these conclusions pretty much myself before I saw the international scientific community speak out.
And you consider a high energy system like our biosphere safe to mess with??????
Then of course there is the high minded response of calling climate change ‘pornography’… now THAT’s leftist propaganda techniques.
Did you actually understand anything I wrote? You seem to have completely not addressed any of the points. This is usually what Sonic does.
You aren’t Sonics schizophrenia ‘other’ personality are you?
October 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“…buy a new car….”
Wonder if the wife will fall for that one…
“Honey, I need to buy the latest 2007 Lancer, so we can do our bit for global warming”
October 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“I am a National party voter.”
So in respect of whether you’re a leftist or a rightist- this means what???
“You seem to have completely not addressed any of the points.”
I don’t see that you made any points. You claim the sky “could” be falling “if’ humans don’t change their ways. That’s an opinion. Not strictly a point.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Global warming.
1. A carbon tax isn’t a cost on NZ so long as it is offset by reduction in income tax. It pretty much falls on the same people. A well designed carbon trading scheme can be shown to be economically equivalent to a carbon tax. Hence why we need a National govt – they will actually offset the tax impact, and they will design the trading scheme properly. For those who think that putting a price on carbon will be an additional economic cost, you are wrong.
2. Signing or not signing Kyoto is irrelevant. Actions matter. NZ signed and took no actions, Australia didn’t sign and did take actions. Which would you prefer? Leave off blaming other countries for our woes, and deal with our own backyard – what is NZ going to do about our share of emissions?
3. China has bigger problems than climate change. Sure, in the future climate change may kill some people, but in general seems more likely to create diffuse inconvenience for a large number of people. People in China are dying from pollution today. Is it any wonder that they have other things to worry about? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html
3. Whether climate change is happening or not is irrelevant. The political center has moved, something will be done. The only remaining choice is what, whether it involves massive govt wastage, whether it is effective, and whether it has significant negative impacts on the economy that weren’t necessary in getting the targeted abatement. Get on board, or let the history professor design this for us.
5. RB – thanks for calling me an idiot. Any analysis or thought going to happen there? Care to refute my points?
October 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
David Baigent: “So puny are human efforts to create green house gases using oil stock when compared to the effect of water vapour – that the amount of CO2 methane and industrial pollutants is not relevant.”
Water vapour is a feedback, increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere, a warmer atmosphere supports more water vapour.
CO2 is up 35% through Man’s efforts and is likely to rise much further
October 12th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
“Don’t let the airport door hit you on the way out Nat Girl!’
Now be nice now Helen and do watch for wind turbulence in all this silly weather we have been having lately dear sonic thing .
October 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“1. A carbon tax isn’t a cost on NZ so long as it is offset by reduction in income tax.”
It is. It causes carbon fuel sources to be unnecessarily expensive and therefore is a dis-incentive to exploration or development of these sources of energy. The true economic cost of this anti-market idiocy is yet to be calculated, but, if this lunacy is proceeded with, it will have massive effects on living standards.
“what is NZ going to do about our share of emissions?”
One sixty second puff from a decent volcano anywhere on earth will cancel out any effect that might arise from NZ’s contribution to GW. Madness.
“Sure, in the future climate change may kill some people, but in general seems more likely to create diffuse inconvenience for a large number of people.”
The view that climate change, even if it is occurring to any significant degree, is a problem, is unproven. Increased global temperatures could well bring an overall benefit, as they have been known to do in the past.
“3. Whether climate change is happening or not is irrelevant.”
Jezuz…!! ..and you’re surprised I view you as an idiot? Why???
October 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sorry RB the AGW debate is over. Your irrational and incoherent rants aren’t going to change that fact.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Sorry RB the AGW debate is over It is?
How come so many comments on this thread then.
Actually the “Climate Change debate” is a meaningless as the apocryphal “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” theological debate of medieval times.
The whole thing is a mass delusion based on faulty premises which is being exploited by the ruling socialist classes to control the masses and keep them in poverty.
Can anyone tell me what the optimum climate for the planet is supposed to be, when it existed and how we get back to it and maintain it there?
Somehow I don’t think the answers lie in forcing us plebeians to fore go our Plasma TVs.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
RedBaiter. If we increase the cost of carbon-based fuels and decrease other taxes, the average person is no worse off. If they then shift their consumption towards non-carbon fuels, they reduce their tax. Explain the economic cost to me?
Volcanoes. The volcano happens anyway. NZ’s emissions are over and above what was otherwise happening, we can reduce them with little economic impact. Why wouldn’t we?
On your last comment, did you actually read what I wrote, or just quote a small section out of context? Care to address the point instead of ranting? Do you accept that this is going to happen, and that if National don’t implement it then we’ll have Cullen implementing it? And that Cullen is far less likely to properly consider the economic impacts than a National government is.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Explain the economic cost to me?”
You couldn’t have read what I wrote. Are you claiming there is no economic cost to disincentivising research development and exploration relating to carbon based fuels like coal oil and gas. Try it dreamer. You’ll be run down by the alternatively fueled bulldozer of reality.
“Why wouldn’t we?”
Because there will be economic cost.
“On your last comment, did you actually read what I wrote,”
Yes, but I doubt you could have. To state, after all the fucken measures that you and other believers are recommending that “whether its happening or not is irrelevant” is lunacy. It isn’t happening. Even if you want to think it is happening, there’s nothing to be done about it. To go to all the trouble of mountains of legislation attacking freedom and choice, another fucken layer of interfering busy body anti-individual bureaucrats, and to attempt to interfere so extremely and so destructively with market forces merely because something might or might not be happening is just absolute fucken lunacy.
..and since when has Nationals policy that “we better implement this policy or Labour will do it worse”??? If that’s so, then they’re even far more fucken gutless and useless than I already consider them to be.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“Can anyone tell me what the optimum climate for the planet is supposed to be, when it existed and how we get back to it and maintain it there?”
There is no optimum other than that which existing species have adapted to.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“There is no optimum other than that which existing species have adapted to.”
So what’s the fucken drama?? Nonsense anyway. Species die out has occurred frequently in history. Its part of the cycle.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
David B
No I don’t know the time intervals but my personal belief is once we get melting of major ice cap areas and such, sufficient to be noticeable to even the skeptics then it may already be too late to do anything about it.
I know that is a (semi) circular argument.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is closer to the analogy of a patient with type 2 diabetes. If noticed early on the first signs are elevated blood sugar readings but there is minimal outward signs of serious health deterioration BUT to wait until there is obvious nerve damage, ulcers, kidney failure would be extremely self destructive when corrective action earlier on could have prevented or considerably delayed such problems.
I also don’t agree that human influence on the atmosphere with CO2 emissions is puny compared to water vapour in the air as once again the interactions are probably non linear.
BTW
Personally I think 10litre SUVs in an urban environment suck. But that’s a judgment call
October 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Roger Rabbit pops out of his hole and bleats “Sorry RB the AGW debate is over.”
The farmer give the rabbit two barrels and everybody laughed .
October 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Limited comprehension skills again RedBaiter? I guess I should expect that.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
ROCKETMAN…..The case before the Judge was to decide whether the film shown to all English schoolchildren was true or false. He found it manifestly false and unbalanced. English law forbids onesided political indoctrination of schoolchildren such as we have in New Zealand. To be balanced in England the GORE film should have been followed by ‘The Great Global Climate Swindle”. If New Zealand had the type of Governance that allowed the free interchange of opinion such would also be the case here….You may be right on the comparative achievements of GORE and DPF but the latter clearly has the greater integrity.
October 12th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Sorry RB the AGW debate is over It is? How come so many comments on this thread then.”
Um …. because people like D4J and Redbaiter exist perhaps?
October 12th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Ross, I missed your comment at 10:51am (it was probably held for moderation due to the 21 links you had) If you want to discuss the science of AGW seriously you should try using science sites, you probably don’t realise it but there are a few sceptic sites that do actually attempt to use good science to refute AGW. They fail but at least they give it a go, unlike the political sites you link to, whose claims have all been dealt with previously all over the web including in comments on kiwiblog.
October 12th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Baxter: “The case before the Judge was to decide whether the film shown to all English schoolchildren was true or false. He found it manifestly false and unbalanced.”
The link DPF provided: “Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported “by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”
Perhaps you were reading another ruling Baxter? The Judge ruled that Gores film can be shown to school kids, I am certain that he would not allow the swindle film to be shown, because nothing in Swindle is supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Bahahahahahahaha you climate denial idiots! They just gave Al Gore the Nobel peace prize. Whats that I see on David Farrar’s face? Heaps of egg???
October 12th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Breaking News: Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize for 2007
In acceptance speech tell DPF to ‘go to hell’
October 12th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
D4J:
Damn – that’s actually one of the funniest things I’ve seen you write.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
TomS:
More illiterate lunacy from TomS. What’s global warming got to do with peace?
October 12th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Well they gave Henry Kissinger one as well.
Let us again reflect on the wisdom of DPF:
“I actually commended the IPCC work and said what Gore does detracts from the IPCC……… And you have the temerity to call it pathethic, when in fact I am the one who standing up for the science of the IPCC. Gore is the one who is damaging the science with his lies”
The Nobel Committee trembles…..
October 12th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I’ve never liked the crap Gore is spouting. If is something we can do about the changing climate and not change irrecognisably as a civilisation his scaremongering is likely to wear out public opinion before any real decisions could be made. Too scary, too irresponsibly alarmist.
Add to this Gore claims to buy carbon credits personally but was actually investing in his own company that exists solely to make money handling carbon credits in a fabricated industry.
I agree with very little that the Bush presidency has done, but I do agree with their rejection of the Kyoto Protocols. Any system that sees NZ who is 90% dependent on hydro power buying carbon credits when the US who is 80% dependent on coal (and far, far large rthan us) is selling them is broken.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:43 am
What NIH said just now, but heres some more food for thought.
If you saw the Live Earth concerts lately and wondered why Al didn’t come on stage with his usual sweaty shirt (yes I know its a small detail). It was because he and the organisers instructed the air conditioning to be switched on to full. Add that to Gores private jet trips and his house that leaves an enormous carbon footprint and you have a guy who is giving the environmental movement a very bad name.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I’ve just followed up on my 9.51pm comment. It seems that, as I thought, the Nobel Peace Prize has been extended beyond its historical roots (in a way which, to my mind, demeans the honour):
Source (dedicated to PhillipJohn/Roger Nome – there’s life outside Wikipedia after all): http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22575451-601,00.html
October 13th, 2007 at 3:28 am
An apple could one day leap back up into the tree.
This has to be the most blatant, preposterous, overwhelmingly stupidest defense of science I’ve ever seen. I mean, think about what you’re saying next time, foo’.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:45 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
October 13th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Closed knowledge systems are religious in nature. It’s no wonder all the fundies is continually cross-reference the Bible. Like ice melting, one day everything that can be cross-referenced will have been cross-referenced.
Fortunately for science, the apple could jump back into the tree. That is the curved nature of space and time. It takes a closed-system mindset that has reached complete entropy to assume otherwise. Hence the phrase “open your mind”.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:53 am
all the fundies do is*
October 13th, 2007 at 7:05 am
An apple could one day leap back up into the tree
If that ever happens we will probably have more pressing issues on hand
My prediction for global warming is that some time in the future the sun will expand and fry the Glorious Peoples’ Republic of Earth.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Could someone – anyone – please answer the following question?
“If we have declared the natural methane emissions of ruminants to be greenhouse gases to be paid for by carbon offset trades, then on what scientific ground have we excluded all the CO2 emitted by the 4 million people, and other animals such as dogs and cats, inhabiting New Zealand?”
Please put your brains in gear and count to ten before answering. But I really do want an answer for a paper I am writing.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Methane is about 20 times as powerful a GH gas as CO2
Mathane is a large contributer towards NZ’s GH gas emissions.
CO2 emissions through human and animal respiration are relatively insignificant.
Plants taking in carbon as CO2 that is converted by animals to CH4 is a net increase in GH gases.
Plants taking in CO2 that is released as CO2 is not a net increase in GH gases.
We can’t survive without breathing, just as we can’t survive without water, it used to be, and hope it still is, that you didn’t need a water right to take natural water for drinking, just for irrigation and other nonessential purposes.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I think there’s scope for credits to be created by reducing the emissions of activties (like Rover exhaling), so to some degree those things are counted.
The rationale that I’d run with (if asked to justify it) would be that the trading regime is targetted at the margins and dogs-cats-people are a the baseload. Another argument could be that there’re are strong economic incentives to increase ruminant emissions so a countering incentive is required. With you, me and the goldfish there’s no incentives on us driving our emissions higher.
Miss your columns in the NBR btw Owen.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
MEthane is declingin in the atmosphere and there is no evidence that there are more ruminants in the world today than before industrialisation. Eg the 60 million US cows displaced 60 million US buffalo.
Meethane is only a large percentage because there are so few people here. Count the cows in India.
NEt increase in GHG compared to what? Cows have been belching methane for millions of years. What’s new?
Our CO2 is not insignificant. A family emits about as much CO2 as a car per year.
Or so NASA told me about 12 years ago.
We seem to target any activity which generates wealth.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I still write in the NBR every other week.
The last two from my weekly CRMS digest.
Item Two: NBR Column on “Followers or Leaders”.
The NBR review essay “followers or leaders” which deals with, inter alia, the food mile argument, begins:
“Our leaders have long been enthusiastic promoters of New Zealand as a leader in world opinion.
But they normally refer to political opinion. We may well be trend-setters in giving the vote to women, cradle to grave welfare, and even in rejecting nuclear weapons, but when it comes wealth generation they tend to enthusiastically adopt the opinions of others, even when those opinions are obviously contrary to our national interest.
For example, we were happy to be “Britain’s foodbasket” even while Britain was clearly preparing to enter what is now the Economic Union. Looking to other markets in the Pacific Rim, or looking to diversify beyond commodities, was almost an act of betrayal. … ”
The whole review essay can be read here.
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=1898
The Centre does recommend the book “Moveable Feasts” – especially to anyone in the food production or export/import business.
Item Three: NBR Column on Nationalisation of Private Land by Stealth.
This column, with the long title, “We looked up to the Environment and when we looked down the land was gone!” deals with the insidious seizing of private land or private rights in property, and begins:
“New Zealanders have responded to the collapse of the Great Socialist Experiment with some ambivalence – to say the least.
The vast majority of those millions of people who suffered from the socialist experiment – in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Cambodia – cannot put the dreadful memory behind them fast enough. After the Berlin Wall came down, new governments rushed to privatise their failed state assets, and their people rushed to enjoy the fruits of market-led democracy.
But here in New Zealand we have an ongoing love affair with the socialist dream. Terms like “market” and “privatisation” are guaranteed to scare the horses – or at least the donkeys. …”
Read the rest here.
http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/316NationalisationbyStealth.pdf
This column struck many chords and the Centre is receiving many “case studies” or “horror stories” which all add grist to the RMA reform mill. Councils consistently refuse to recognise that if they have not consulted with individual landowners, prior to seizing any of their rights in property, they have inherently failed to meet their cost and benefit obligations under section 32. If they have not consulted how can they have assessed the costs to the owner?
If you would like to receive my Digest email me at omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz
October 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
We’ve been here before Owen
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/12/slaughter_the_cows.html#comment-264131
October 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“MEthane is declingin in the atmosphere and there is no evidence that there are more ruminants in the world today than before industrialisation.”
True – this is due to the decrease/drying up of tropical swamps that have been major methane emitters in the past. Of course this is being caused by global warming (more Net GHGs in the atmosphere). o yeah it’s an interesting point, but doesn’t have any baring on the AGW (non)debate.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
““New Zealanders have responded to the collapse of the Great Socialist Experiment with some ambivalence – to say the least.
The vast majority of those millions of people who suffered from the socialist experiment – in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Cambodia”
For christ’s sake Owen – for the millionth time – The third way doesn’t equal Stalinism – in fact it’s more right-wing than any National party was during the 1960s and 1970s! Step back and get some perspective man.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I noticed someone above mentioning CO2 to oxygen conversion.
Before we go down that path, 80% of the oxygen processing on our planet is done by algae.
Still, I’d like to see most natural environments preserved.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Lance said…
Then of course there is the high minded response of calling climate change ‘pornography’… now THAT’s leftist propaganda techniques.
It is from here at BBC, Media attacked for ‘climate porn’