NZ drops nine places in climate change index

December 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm by David Farrar

This should be a major story that exposes the lack of credibility the Government has on climate change.

An annual index of high emitting countries is published, ranking how well they do on the issue of climate change performance. 50% is weighted on the trend of emissions, 30% on their overall level, and 20% on their policies.

In 2007 NZ was in 22nd place out of 56.

In 2008, NZ has plummeted to 31st place out of 56.

NZ has fallen into the bottom half in the last year. In the same year that Helen Clark declared her vision of being the best country in the world – the first carbon neutral country. The Environment Ministry is all pumped up to spend our money next year promoting these fine words.

Except the substance behind the words is a myth.

Falling nine places is the reality.

Hat Tip: Kiwiblogblog

85 Responses to “NZ drops nine places in climate change index”

  1. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Oh goody another reason to increase fuel, farting and breathing in our quest to save the planet. Wankers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    Its only an artificial index with a lot of subjective allocation of points.

    The bias is seen by the Germans ( who dreamt this up) coming at no 2 !!

    Golly good germany!. up from 4 last year who do they do it.

    You really really hate labours Climate Neutral Policy.
    Only because it sounds a lot better than nationals 50% by 2050 or some such thing to let our grandchildren worry about

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

    Gosh David, I liked it better when you and the Nats were sceptics.

    U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference

    Voice of dissent excluded from participation in Bali

    Written By: Tom Swiss
    Published In: News Releases
    Publication Date: December 4, 2007
    Publisher: The Heartland Institute

    (CHICAGO, Illinois – December 5, 2007) — The United Nations has
    rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to
    present information at the climate change conference taking place in
    Bali, Indonesia.

    The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the
    opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits;
    its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of
    distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the
    United Kingdom, and the United States.

    The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in
    peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s
    alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on
    man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze
    out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the
    claim “the science is settled.”

    James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained,
    “It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices.
    They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is
    necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed
    on the alarmist crowd, they claimed ‘the debate is over’ to serve their
    wealth redistribution agenda.”

    Taylor continued, “For example, ICSC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray recently
    published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves the main claims by
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are scientifically
    unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted
    more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC
    methodology and published Spinning the Climate.

    “Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking,” Taylor
    noted. “He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist theory. And there
    are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason and
    science. All are being censored.”

    Tayor said, “The ICSC scientists don’t agree with the pre-determined
    ‘Bali Mandate,’ so instead of discussion and debate, we get censorship.
    Until the UN rejects the politicization of climate change, their
    reports, protocols, and mandates aren’t worth reading–much less ratifying.”

    The ICSC scientists will be available for advice and counsel in Bali,
    but they expect scientists to be ignored at the Bali conference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. george (398 comments) says:

    This is so funny. Klark looks more and more like a total idiot (as well as a liar, which has been proven many years ago).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ManukauMum (134 comments) says:

    Right, so we are 31st out of 56 “high emitting” countries but we still only produce 0.2% of the world’s carbon emissions!
    There are over 200 countries in the world & last I looked we ranked about 50th per head of population for carbon emissions. We should all adopt the living standards of Chad then the world would not have a carbon problem!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    Excellent progress New Zealand!
    - we should do all we can to combat dangerous global cooling http://tinyurl.com/2xjwma
    - we should pull out of the Kyoto accord after 16 Feb 2008 as provided for in Article 27.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adam Smith (879 comments) says:

    Somebody pointed out that carbon is essential for life and therefore in one sense if NZ was carbon neutral we would all be dead!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    This is set to change in the next few years when labour and the greens bring in their coarbon emmissions trading scheme.

    BTW, who was it that said “climate change is an utter hoax” again? Wasn’t the same guy that tried to pull a swifty on that band coldplay was it?

    [DPF: Oh such blind faith. In eight years it has only got worse. And you are lying with that made up quote. Those words have not been uttered by any MP - it is a fabrication. You are a liar]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Adam Smith:

    doh! I hope you have your face firmly planted in your hand right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Adam Smith (879 comments) says:

    Unfortunately the debate has been captured by “Climate Change’ facists who have in many instances lost all contact with reality.

    Implementing their views would not only cost developed countries growth, and probably in NZ case destroy our economy, it would also prevent many poor countries from improving the lot of their people, thus generating the impetus to major war, in many instances led by impoverished Islamic nations.

    Naturally the Greens and their ilk do not see this.

    There is much that should be done, for example cutting down rain forest to produce the feedstock for biofuels is plain daft. Similarly diverting huge amounts of prairie and farmland in the US to grow feedstock for heavily subsidised biofule is also lunacy. Indeed some scientists suggest that thenegatives of producing biofules, especially the energy and economic costs outweigh the advantages

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    davemc, all you have done is reproduce a press release from a bunch of politically motivated scientists, few of whom have any qualifications in climate science, the :peer reviewed” papers they refer to are ones published by Energy And The Environment, no reputable science journal will have anything to do with them. They’re a pack of flaky wouldbe gate crashers.

    Adam, you are confusing “carbon neutral” and “carbon free”
    The move to biofuels has as much to do with the prospects of peak oil as AGW, personally the only way to minimise AGW and civilisations energy demand is to go nuclear

    Roger, why not just admit that after all these years labour has done sweet FA in reducing NZ’s carbon emissions, simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Roger’s an idiot again. Key’s never said such a thing.

    He said Kyoto’s a hoax.

    He’s right.
    It is.
    Deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Adam Smith (879 comments) says:

    Andrew W

    I am well aware of the difference between carbon neutral and carbon free. I was merely being somewhat mischievious in my comment, which was in fact from a comment in a newspaper.

    I agree with you that logic indicates that to deal with AGW and peak oil nuclear makes sense. Indeed if our politicians stopped for one moment to think, they would realise that pushing electric cars and other power uses requires plentiful electricity, given the negative reaction to wind farms and severe limitations on hydro – nuclear is inevitable.

    This will also mean, given peak oil, that many merchant ships will eventually be nuclear powered, either that or we go back to sail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Sorry, DPF, you lost me at “Hat Tip: Kiwiblogblog” – about as likely to inspire confidence as citing David Irving as an authority the Second World War.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Helmet’s an idiot again. Go look it up in the hansard…

    “[Climate change] is a complete and utter hoax.” (Hansard, 10 May 2005)

    [DPF: And you lie again. Do you have no ethics at all? The words climate change do not appear in that quote]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Farrar (1,808 comments) says:

    Craig: I hat tipped them as it was on their blog I first read about the survey. I have linked directly to the source reports in drawing my conclusions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Hansard- John Key “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming and – I am somewhat suspicious of it – is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem”

    Result- Roger Lied.

    The idiot was, I suspect, just quoting the Slandard, which also fucked it up, but we know how mr mason likes to plagiarise, so no suprises there.

    Plunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. helmet (807 comments) says:

    In the same quote, he supposedly states that he’s only ‘somewhat suspicious’ of a ‘complete and utter hoax’?

    That could only make sense in rogerphilipjohnmasonnome land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. pdm (842 comments) says:

    Wasn’t that Bali conference supposed to be a really important gathering. Rudd certainly seemed to think so as I understand he went.

    Parker didn’t go – not allowed to perhaps.
    Clark didn’t go – too scared to leave the country perhaps.

    Was anyone from NZ there??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming-and I am somewhat suspicious of it-is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.

    Ok, so key saw saying that he thinks that the only serious programme to address global warming is a “complete and utter hoax”, because he admits that he is somewhat suspicious of the idea that climate change is even a problem.

    So Key’s stance then – let’s do nothing about climate change.

    Key’s stance now? “I have always been a firm beleiver in climate change”

    hehe – “people, I give you the leader of the National Party, a proven hypocrite and a liar”. Key has absolutely zero credibility. Face it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PhilBest (5,112 comments) says:

    Would all you “Science is settled” types kindly attempt to address the posting at 4.38pm above?

    Regarding emissions targets and the success in meeting them, the elephant in the room that Klark, Mikhail and Co don’t want us to know about is that there is a direct relationship between a nation’s wealth and its ability to meet these. Europeans can AFFORD the latest low emission vehicles, low energy appliances, and more expensive electricity. We can’t. That’s about all that needs to be said.

    Watch, too, the evil, Capitalist, non-Kyoto-signing USA achieve spectacular emissions reductions results in the next few years – BECAUSE of wealth and freedom, NOT in spite of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    Regardless of whether you see Key as a liar, Helmet called you a liar for misquoting Key. And your 6:34 post implicitly acknowledges this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Tina (687 comments) says:

    There is going to come a time when Hulun’s successors will wish she had never heard about a scam called Anthropogenic Glorbel Worming.

    Seems NZ owes over $700 million to the scammers as we speak, recent article in the OZ is projecting it out to billions.

    Enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Nice try to deflect attention from your blatant lie Philip.

    You’re a bare faced liar masquerading as some kind of try hard academic.

    You claim to teach students. I hope they read this shit Mr mason, they’d piss themselves laughing.

    I know I am. I’ve already shot you to pieces today, so now I’m off for dinner, but if you don’t mind me recycling one of your own recycled quotes….

    “doh! I hope you have your face firmly planted in your hand right now.”

    (It must be hard to do though, when your head is so firmly planted up your own ass, ay philip mason?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “DPF: And you lie again. Do you have no ethics at all? The words climate change do not appear in that quote”

    Now according to helmet’s thinking you’re lying DPF – put I wouldn’t put it that way. I would simply say that you got confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    ……global warming/climate change being interchangable…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Fuck off Roger- you’re lying again about what I said. Dumb prick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. pete (428 comments) says:

    <blockquote>DPF: And you lie again. Do you have no ethics at all? The words climate change do not appear in that quote</blockquote>

    Have you issued a correction yet for repeating the Helen Clark/Tax Cuts misquote?

    [DPF: It was not a misquote. One can argue over the context of it, but that is very different to what Roger has done which is actually fabricate a quote entirely by putting words in brackets which were never said]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    NZ would be in a very different situation with it’s net emissions if the labour Government didn’t have such a pathological loathing for rich pricks, in this case the rich pricks that own forestry blocks. Nationalising the carbon credits rather than passing them on to those rich pricks that earned them has resulted in a massive deforestation program in NZ over the last 10 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Notice the difference between Phillip John’s 6:44 and 6:45 posts. Even he realised that he was posting lies – given his weasly-worded correction: “global warming/climate change being interchangable“. This also contrasts strongly with his specific allegation (5:31 post): “BTW, who was it that said “climate change is an utter hoax” again?“.

    Tsk tsk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Helmet, I can admit that I was lazy and misquoted. No problem. What’s important is that John Key has no credibility at all. Bark swear, abuse and break the rules of David’s blog all you like. It won’t change that fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Climate Change (formerly Global Warming) alarmists and the NZ Labour Party
    are marked by many similarities.
    1. The will not debate any opposing messages but ruthlessly attack and attempt to discredit the messengers.
    2. Their policy agendas invariably hurt the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society.
    3. They both encourage the development of costly bureaucracies yet never meet their policy objectives.
    and
    4. They are manifestly hypocritical. ( refer Al Gores Carbon Footprint and Trevor Mallard’s anti-violence credentials)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Reg (544 comments) says:

    PS.
    Sorry I forgot
    and
    5. They both hate Free Speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    Helmet’s an idiot again. Go look it up in the hansard…
    “[Climate change] is a complete and utter hoax.” (Hansard, 10 May 2005)

    This was intellectually dishonest. You claimed to be quoting Key’s exact words. It’s the lowest form of attribution to take someone’s words and recharacterise them in a duplicitious way.

    You should have said:

    [The impact of the Kyoto Protocol] is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so.

    But of course that wouldn’t have helped your argument. By the way, in case you missed it, this thread’s about Labour’s climate change policy. No surprise, then, that you’d try to distract attention away from Labour’s (so far failing) climate change policy.

    And PDM asked above (6:23) how many NZers are attending the Bali conference. I’ve read somewhere that no less than 15,000 “experts” are there, so it’s highly likely that at least a handful of NZers have enlarged their carbon footprints by flying all the way to Bali. Hopefully this crowd of 15,000 turkey gobblers won’t spend a week in plush air-conditioned surroundings (despite the Bali climate) as, of course, that wouldn’t help the environment either. After all, if Jill and Jo public are being asked to make sacrifices for the good of the planet, it’s only fair to expect the same from the globetrotting “experts”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Good Point about the Air Conditioning POC.

    These conceited (relatively rich prickish) (mainly) white European delegates at Bali will insist on a strategy that will seriously hamper the aspiration of poorer (mainly brown) developing nations to ever achieve the comforts and life-style we take for granted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    I’ve got a much simpler definition of Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmist Reg: People who base their view on AGW on politics rather than science.
    Whats really useful about it is that it’s an objective definition; it’s also the definition I use for AGW denialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    So here’s a scientific summary for you.
    http://tinyurl.com/33nsuu

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

    Oh Roger.

    First you can’t get earning comparisons right (before tax, which you’ve still refused to admit was a silly thing to do), but now because you can’t accept Labour has done a poor job with implementing the Kyoto Protocol you seek to attack… National.

    Your credibility is wearing thin, sir.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Inventory2 (9,786 comments) says:

    Helen Clark 1999 – “We will put a stop to golden handshakes.”

    Bollocks!

    Question Time: 14 February 2007

    JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

    John Key: Does she stand by her statement on 14 September 2005 when she said of her then Minister Taito Phillip Field that “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”, or her statement last year on the release of the Ingram report when she said of Mr Field that “the report does not find wrongdoing by Mr Field”; if so, how does she reconcile that with her comments made earlier in the week when she said in relation to Mr Field’s behaviour that it was “immoral”, “unethical”, and “unacceptable”?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Labour Party has been clear all along that the behaviour was unacceptable.”

    Let’s look at the PM’s words – “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”

    Helen Clark – Art forgery, motorcade, pledge card “cancerous and Corrosive”
    Michael Cullen – election bribes, “rich prick”, “scumbag”
    David Benson-Pope – Assault, misleading the House
    David Parker – cronyism, Companies Office investigation
    Trevor Mallard – assault, personal attacks
    Ruth Dyson – Excess Breath Alcohol
    Dover Samuels – Offensive behaviour
    The Labour Party – electoral fraud, misappropriation of taxpayers funds, retrospective legislation, the EFB.

    So, has eight years of Labour “restored public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”, or is Helen Clark a fraud?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    Why have a global warming conference in Bali anyway.

    I’d have had more respect for it if they had just teleconferenced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Dean:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome’s credibility has long been shot to pieces.
    You clearly didn’t see his claim that Australia’s top marginal income tax rate (personal) is 59% – he was wrong.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/labour_promises_tax_cuts.html#comment-361311

    It generally pays to take Phillip John’s endless supply of “facts” (often disguised opinions) and “figures” (often selectively quoted, or inappropriately applied) with a generous helping of salt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Helmet, I can admit that I was lazy and misquoted. No problem. What’s important is that John Key has no credibility at all. Bark swear, abuse and break the rules of David’s blog all you like. It won’t change that fact

    Rog- you’re a liar. And an idiot. I should hack your blog.

    And who’s got all the demerits? not me mate, not me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. helmet (807 comments) says:

    (I forgot to put quotation marks around philip mason’s ‘apology’ in my last post)

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

    Peak Oil:

    That’s even worse.

    Roger Nome:

    After such credibility problems and getting the facts so hopelessly confused with your own agenda, I would have thought you’d have learned your lesson by now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tina (687 comments) says:

    Seems China’s increase in carbon emissions every 3 months is more than NZ’s total carbon emissions.
    .
    So banning the use of all vehicles permanently and closing down manufacturing industry in NZ will create a 6 week speed bump in the reality of Chinese industrial expansion.

    Seems important to restate that nothing NZ does will have the slightest, measurable effect on atmospheric carbon.

    But go ahead and transfer the $700 million of taxpayers earnings to Eastern Europe….seems about as sensible as anything else in the Alice in Wonderland world of the AGWs.

    When it finally busts the NZ political party in power, giving millions to foreigners and attacking the taxpayers with carbon taxes, will be in just a little trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Tina (687 comments) says:

    An interesting question slightlyright…

    Re the Bali junket…:

    It’s like this…..a Whale Activist can emit all the carbon he wants and retain street cred as long as he doesn’t eat whales.

    A Glorbell Worming Activist can eat all the whale meat he wants and retain cred as long as he doesn’t emit a single gram more carbon than is essential for basic life.

    In this case the GWAs could have done the whole thing via tele conference.

    So now we have a mob of wankers lecturing us about light bulbs while 4 Rolls Royce turbo fans take them to airconditioning that would not otherwise be used…..the list of their carbon sins gets longer…. what about the imported beer made many kilometres from their site of consumption.
    I could go on but you’d get depressed.

    I’m as shocked as you are at the mind numbing hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kiki (425 comments) says:

    Large scale oil exploration in the great south basin, massive coal exports to china and india, conversions of pine forests to dairy and a large increase in fuel use by road vehicles. All on top of a large increase in population driven by migration.

    Helens words verses actions

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Even if Global warming activists were right, NZ’s comparative greenhouse gas production is best illustrated as a little Maori boy peeing in a sewge pond.
    Even if he held his “water” for ever you would still have an ever increasing mass of pollution (and with a very uncomfortable boy)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. helmet (807 comments) says:

    “Helmet, I can admit that I was lazy and misquoted. No problem. What’s important is that John Key has [the most credibility of any politician and Helen Clark has] no credibility at all”

    You’re so stupid Philip John Mason, that you can’t even quote honestly. What a deceitful, lying, lazy little worm.

    If anyone else was a stupid as you, they would have kept hiding behind pseudonyms and then just abandoned them when their credibility got shot to hell, as you’ve done over the last couple of years on this blog.

    It’s clear that you don’t get out much. If you walked into a pub, got caught lying like you have been today, and started calling people names when they called you on it, you’d be spitting your own teeth out on the pavement before you knew what had happened to you.

    Scuttle off back under that rock you crawled out from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Helmet:

    It’s far worse than that. Phillip John contributed to the median income tax debate. Like a black widow spider, he spun furiously against DPF’s analysis that the average worker had fared better under National than under Labour. He even claimed that DPF had “provide[d] no links to his sources, and [gave] no account of his methodology, which means his results [were] dubious at best”:
    http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2007/10/median-personal-income-over-time.html

    No surprise, then, that Phillip John admitted that his own argument wasn’t exactly flawless:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/hooton_on_tax.html#comment-356476
    What was disappointing about our aspiring highly-paid academic, though, was that he put up a dodgy argument knowing it wasn’t exactly flawless.

    So one simply can’t accept his bald assertion on this thread: This [New Zealand's position on the climate change index] is set to change in the next few years when labour and the greens bring in their coarbon emmissions trading scheme. Last time I checked, Phillip John, New Zealand wasn’t the only country introducing a “coarbon emmissions trading scheme” [sic]. And it’s fascinating that what was touted as one of New Zealand’s comparative economic advantage (macroeconomics 101) when I went through university – land-based production – is now destined to be New Zealand’s carbon-sized economic albatross.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Tina (687 comments) says:

    Re UN Bali:

    It’s getting even better.

    Second hand report that apparently the activist attendees are claiming that they have made an arrangement with a connected Indonesian carpetbagger who has promised to plant 79 million (yes) trees as “carbon offsets”…………for 2 cents a tree.

    Presumably the businessman is not an “illegal” logger.

    Will these kiddies ever grow up….I hear you ask.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paul (1,315 comments) says:

    why are the dates so out? How can we be the bottom of 2008 when we are still in 2007??? Still if we are arguing the semantics of the Gregorian Calendar, and National has that most ambitious of goals of 50% byt 2050, how would that pedestrian approach put us at nothing less than bottom of the list.

    Still a policy released part way through this year must have immediate impact eh guys. I’d hate to push you there, your own goals are still 43 years away.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Brain (1 comment) says:

    What a lot of methane’s being emitted on this blog! ManukauMum is right, and so are a few other commentators. Before the end of the world occurs, let’s remember that 98.8 percent of emissions don’t come from New Zealand. All the others are polluting us! Lighten up, folks, and worry more about the rest of the world, and what a few self-righteous politicians are going to cost us as they crusade way beyond their weight. There are some alternative and amusing opinions about this nonsense at http://www.gog.org.nz, under its Environment tag. Kiwiblog is also emitting more than an acceptable level of swear words and abuse for my liking…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    Peak, please keep shredding the nome. seeing someone exposed as an ethically bankrupt liar is positively delicious. thanks for all the work you do to hold him to account

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    What kk said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    Please God don’t let the Opposition ask an oral question about this…Mallardarse will blame our emissions on Erin Leigh…and if that doesn’t work, then it might be Clare Curran’s turn as sacrificial lamb.

    PS Paul – the reasoning was based 50% on trend of emissions, 20% on policies…so they did take into account the long event horizon in slamming the Government’s sorry ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Adam Smith (879 comments) says:

    Re Bali

    Air conditioning is run at low, dress code informal, gestures

    Goff is there now

    Country leaders next week

    Conference runs for several days this week and next.

    I think Helen is going, via Brisbane and her chat with Rudd

    I firmly believe that any solution, must take account of the big emitters by quantum, not % per head.

    Further, solutions cannot protect ‘developed’ and ignore ‘undeveloped’

    NZ does have issues in this area and we need to address them. This why nuclear energy could well assist us in the medium /longterm.

    Hydro for many reasons is not the answer, indeed we must reduce hydro dependence.

    Wind does not provide stable supply and there are other environmental issues

    RE AGW overall

    regarding the impact of AGW it is the subject of debate, for example the various articles in World Economics Journal post Stern. These are reasoned economic peer reviewed discussions.

    It is clear that some organisations and/or countries are seeking to use AGW as means of establishing significant non-traiff barriers to trade.

    HOLOCAUST COMPARISON

    BTW I note that some posters are using the ‘denier/denialist’ description of those who do not agree with them re AGW.

    As pointed out some months ago by a leading UK commentator on this issue, this is an attempt to emotionally equate those who do not subscribe to the argument put forward by leading exponents of the AGW case, equivalent to Holocaust deniers.

    Many AGW proponents adopt an “islamofascist’ position as regards this matter. Failure to agree with them merits ‘degradation at the least, if not metaphorical death’.

    It should be noted that many commentators re AGW accept that there is cause for concern, but have valid criticisms of the IPCC methodology and the conclusions reached.

    It is disturbing that the UN Conference organisers do not appear to accept that there may be counter arguments and/or different views.

    I am always cautious when many of those proposing an idea have a vested interest, eg research funds

    As for the argument that the majority accept the AGW argument, let us not forget that the history of scientific advances is peppered with instances where the lone proponent was proved right and the orthodox majority wrong, or is the world flat, does the Sun revolve around the Earth etc.

    A degree of critical thought is recommended in this . as in everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    say, is there any righteous indignation from the Greens about this? i mean, its right up their alley… or is it so close to home that it hurts (and silence is their best defence)?

    perhaps their power years of baubles and environmental policy botox are finally exposing them as the toothless charlatans that they’ve always been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    KrazyKiwi:

    I’ve noticed that Phillip John/Roger Nome has adopted a more combative stance against me recently, and he’s been fairly personal at times, but I’m not going to be bullied by Phillip John. I guess it’s tough having his statements thrown back at him, and his intellectual dishonesty exposed.

    It might come as a surprise to Phillip John, but I’m not a National good, Labour bad party hack either. I guess it’s easier when you don’t have to peddle a certain line regardless of the political consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    alley — oops :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. pete (428 comments) says:

    DPF: It was not a misquote. One can argue over the context of it

    “Context” is a pretty dishonest way of referring to words cut from the middle of a quote. Changing a quote from “tax cuts are bad now” to “tax cuts are bad always” is a misquote. You can “argue” that point, but you could probably “argue” black is white too.

    If you want scrupulous honesty from your commenters, you ought to set a better example yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Pete:

    If you want scrupulous honesty from your commenters, you ought to set a better example yourself.

    Golly, and a good example of scrupulous honesty? Actually, you’re not. To revisit history, DPF posed this question:

    “Tax cuts are a path to inequality They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people”

    Who said this and when?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/who_said_this-2.html

    Three points:

    (1) DPF posted that thread on 6 November. The first comment by Kimble was made at 3:58pm – actually 4:58 pm as Kiwiblog hadn’t yet been updated for Daylight Saving Time.

    (2) It just so happens that National issued a press release at 4:35pm on 6 November: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00087.htm

    (3) This evidence supports DPF’s previous explanation (on some thread or other) that he uplifted the quote directly from another source, and didn’t edit it. Should I believe you or DPF?

    As to context, the full quote:

    Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people

    The bold text didn’t make it into National’s press release (the source of DPF’s post). It’s a matter of subjective opinion whether removing the bold text substantially changes the context and meaning of the quote. Personally, I’d have left the words in and challenged Labour to explain what’s new about today’s circumstances that justifies its new stance on tax cuts – particularly when interest rates are sky-high (given Labour’s usual argument that tax cuts are inflationery).

    But here’s the rub: however you slice and dice the quote, DPF included the ellipsis. It’d have been intellectually dishonest if DPF (a) removed the ellipsis altogether; or (b) like Phillip John/Roger Nome on this thread, inserted square brackets with substituted wording, so as to convey a very different meaning. DPF did neither. Even The Standard understood the significance of the ellipsis: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=643

    So, Pete, can we expect a better example from you next time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    [I'll break this comment up - otherwise, given the multiple links, it goes into the moderation queue]

    Pete:

    If you want scrupulous honesty from your commenters, you ought to set a better example yourself.

    Golly, and you’re a good example of scrupulous honesty? Actually, you’re not. To revisit history, DPF posed this question:

    “Tax cuts are a path to inequality… They are the promises of visionless and intellectually bankrupt people”

    Who said this and when?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/who_said_this-2.html

    Three points:

    (1) DPF posted that thread on 6 November. The first comment by Kimble was made at 3:58pm – actually 4:58 pm as Kiwiblog hadn’t yet been updated for Daylight Saving Time.

    (2) It just so happens that National issued a press release at 4:35pm on 6 November: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00087.htm

    (3) This evidence supports DPF’s previous explanation (on some thread or other) that he uplifted the quote directly from another source, and didn’t edit it. Should I believe you or DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    As to context, the full quote:

    Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people

    The bold text didn’t make it into National’s press release (the source of DPF’s post). It’s a matter of subjective opinion whether removing the bold text substantially changes the context and meaning of the quote.

    Personally, I’d have left the words in and challenged Labour to explain what’s new about today’s circumstances that justifies its new stance on tax cuts – particularly when interest rates are sky-high (given Labour’s usual argument that tax cuts are inflationery).

    But here’s the rub: however you slice and dice the quote, DPF included the ellipsis. It’d have been intellectually dishonest if DPF (a) removed the ellipsis altogether; or (b) like Phillip John/Roger Nome on this thread, inserted square brackets with substituted wording, so as to convey a very different meaning. DPF did neither. Even The Standard understood the significance of the ellipsis: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=643

    So, Pete, can we expect a better example from you next time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Peak – Did we ever get an acknowledgment about the crap he was spinning on WFF outweighing Australian tax advantages either?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Tina (687 comments) says:

    The UN getting even more slimy on AGW?

    Sure.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_claims_drown_in_the_seas/#commentsmore

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    iiq374: Peak – Did we ever get an acknowledgment about the crap he was spinning on WFF outweighing Australian tax advantages either?

    When Roger is being dishonest, he either comes back and claims he made a mistake and that it was inconsequential OR ignores it completely. Don’t expect him to offer an apology or adjust his tone one’s he’s been proven wrong with any form of regularity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Tina, Bolt and Monkton have either lied or cock it all up.

    The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would cause about a 6 metre rise in sea level if it were to occur, the IPCC makes no claim that such a melting would occur any time soon, infact because of uncertainties around feedbacks the IPCC is very conservative about the contribution of ice cape melting to the rise in sea level, the vast majority of the rise that the IPCC predicts this century is through thermal expansion.

    “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).”

    A lie, the IPCC makes no such claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Tina (687 comments) says:

    I’m not so pleased about the 7cm rise.
    It’s all so …..bland.
    And panic can’t be sustained with blandness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Tina (687 comments) says:

    One minute they like the anthro in AGW….. the next they don’t….
    Interesting.

    http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=145245

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. pete (428 comments) says:

    It’s a matter of subjective opinion whether removing the bold text substantially changes the context and meaning of the quote.

    Do you always subscribe to the PC/postmodern idea that everyone’s subjective opinion is equally worthwhile, or just when you’re trying to score a cheap rhetorical point?

    Should I believe you or DPF?

    I specifically said he had repeated the misquote. You don’t have to choose one or the other when they don’t contradict. If you go around repeating someone else lies, then it’s your responsibility to correct that.

    however you slice and dice the quote, DPF included the ellipsis

    An ellipsis isn’t a blank cheque. It implies that the elided text does not alter the meaning of the quote.

    Personally, I’d have left the words in and challenged Labour to explain what’s new about today’s circumstances that justifies its new stance on tax cuts

    So, personally, you would have used the quote honestly. But following DPF’s bad example, you’re prepared to defend a dishonest misquote, and question the honesty of anyone that calls you on it. Kind of proves my point about setting the tone of the blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. kiki (425 comments) says:

    get back to the real topic. The southern hydro dams are around 46% capacity lowest since 1992. Are we heading for a power shortage? yes but as we have 1.5 million tons of coal sitting at huntly we should be OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Adam Smith (879 comments) says:

    But will the govt let the Huntly operators burn the coal. Huntly is operated by Genesis a govt owned company. Let us not forget that we are supposed to be reducing carbon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    iiq374:

    Peak – Did we ever get an acknowledgment about the crap he was spinning on WFF outweighing Australian tax advantages either?

    No, Phillip John/Roger Nome side-stepped that debate, by claiming the $70k figure used in the example wasn’t representative of the median incomes. Someone challenged him to crunch the numbers using the median income, but funnily enough, he never got back to us with his results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Pete:

    Oh dear – you’re spinning faster than a spindizzy top. DPF’s previously said he uplifted the quote and didn’t edit it. But he retained the ellipsis. As I said, it’d have been intellectually dishonest for him not to. As I also said, given the time between National’s press release and his blog post, he clearly didn’t go looking for the omitted wording. Seeing as this upsets you so much, perhaps you can be his unpaid blog proofer?

    So, personally, you would have used the quote honestly. But following DPF’s bad example, you’re prepared to defend a dishonest misquote, and question the honesty of anyone that calls you on it. Kind of proves my point about setting the tone of the blog.

    You still claim it’s a dishonest misquote? Gee, we really must sit down and have a chat about academic citation some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Tina:
    “I’m not so pleased about the 7cm rise.
    It’s all so …..bland.”

    Cheer up Tina, the 7 cm was more of Monkton’s fiction, the forecast is actually a rise of up to 59cm, as I said this may be very conservative:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. pete (428 comments) says:

    As I also said, given the time between National’s press release and his blog post, he clearly didn’t go looking for the omitted wording.

    So he made a quite understandable mistake, fair enough. It’s his refusal to admit that mistake that’s the problem.

    You still claim it’s a dishonest misquote?

    I still haven’t seen an argument that it’s not a dishonest misquotation. Claims that it’s “arguable” don’t constitute an argument.

    Which point do you disagree with?

    1. The press release changed the sense of the statement from “tax cuts are inappropriate now” to “tax cuts are inappropriate always”.

    2. The change in 1 constitutes a misquote.

    3. Repeating someone else’s misquote is a mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. pete (428 comments) says:

    perhaps you can be his unpaid blog proofer?

    One of the advantages of an army of commenters is that mistakes get picked up. No point if they don’t get corrected though, is there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Pete:

    We’re not making much headway on this, I’m afraid, and it’s already become a prolonged off-topic discussion. I understand DPF’s fairly approachable. If you’ve really got a problem with his post, then I suggest you email him about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Tina (687 comments) says:

    That’s a relief …59 cm should have them back in the fold….it’s a huge number alright…. and clearly no adaptions are possible except bicycles and organic candles for you…..I’ll stick to the turbo Landcruiser.

    Rudd has already rejected his Bali delegation’s agreement on Aust’s behalf to the 2020 20-40% sting ……he wont let those excitable boys out without supervision again .

    Haven’t heard what the Kiwi marks came up with.

    Swan also confirmed yet again Labor is full steam ahead with the AU$31 billion worth of tax cuts that are bipartisan politics in Aust.

    Maybe we can get some of our comrades to talk to your comrades see if they can help with Cullen and how to get rid of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Peak Oil Conspiracy (2,753 comments) says:

    Tina:

    There’s much more to be said about the ALP’s enlightened approach to economic conservatism:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/12/rich_as_an_insult.html#comment-380085

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Tina (687 comments) says:

    Yeah Peak….

    I’m in Aust, your post is a given here….you have no idea how quickly our newly elected conservative comrades will be terminated if they mess with the maths of Aust prosperity.

    The delicious irony may be that they won’t stray too far from Howard’s economics….but get deep sixed anyway due to reflexive forelock tugging to mendicant one legged aboriginal whales…..where they will attempt product differentiation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Andrew W said…
    all you have done is reproduce a press release from a bunch of politically motivated scientists, few of whom have any qualifications in climate science, the :peer reviewed” papers they refer to are ones published by Energy And The Environment, no reputable science journal will have anything to do with them. They’re a pack of flaky wouldbe gate crashers.

    Andrew, I find your generalization about peer-review process way off the mark. Here are some facts about such process:

    A peer review paper that is being submitted to a lesser known journal and accepted for publication, doesn’t mean that the paper is of less importance because the journal is not well regarded by peers in that discipline. So, by you simply saying that Energy And The Environment is not reputable, doesn’t change the fact that content of a paper is more important than the journal which it has been published in. (You must agree with me here, because I can dig up historical facts about peer review publications from the past and you can see that I am right). Reputable journal is just means that they have published cutting edge material and they are known for it (ie, for consistently producing them). However, it doesn’t mean that an article that appeared in say, Energy And The Environment and not in Nature is less credible. It is not the name of the journal that counts, it is the content of the article that is more important.

    The 2 examples of the most well known historical facts that changed the world in their respective disciplines are:

    The Economics Nobel Prize winners of 1997 (Black, Scholes and Merton – Black died before the award) submitted their revolutionary paper in option pricing to major Economic/Finance journals in 1973 but was rejected. Their paper was accepted for publication in Journal of Political Economy, which was not reputable at the time (according to your definition). Their title is listed below:

    Black, Fischer; Myron Scholes (1973). “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities”. Journal of Political Economy.

    This paper has changed economics forever, since the authors used heat equation from thermo-dynamics in Physics to solve for the close form solutions of their model. This publication puts Physics as a solid foundation for modeling in economic/finance . This model has improved since the first paper appeared, but it didn’t change the fact that peer reviewers in those major economic/finance journals that rejected the Black-Scholes submission didn’t understand the formula derivation in this revolutionary paper. This means that whether a journal is highly reputed or not is irrelevant. What matters is the content (right Andrew?), of the article? So, it is not the name Energy And The Environment journal that matters but the content of articles that were submitted for publication in that journal.

    The other example (just for brief as this post is too long already) was when Einstein published his papers, brownian motion, photo-electric effect and relativity in 1905 , but they were rejected in all major Physics journals of the day, since the idea of length-contraction and time-dilation (proposed by relativity) contradicted the well established Newtonian Physics of absolute frame of reference. Einstein revolutionary papers however were submitted to a lesser known (local only) German journal called Annalen der Physik and were accepted for publication. Einstein papers have changed Physics forever since then and also propelled the Annalen der Physik into a reputable scientific publication, but this was due solely to the contents of the articles they published, not the name of the publisher.

    BTW, I have pointed you out in the past to other data-analytics (numerical modeling) based journals that most climate scientists don’t read or even heard of such disciplines and I can list them here but there is no space. So, the idea or claim that articles that are being published in lesser known journals are not heavy weight as ones that are published in well known journals such as Nature, etc, must be dismissed because it is a misguided attempt to shut down debate on climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Tina (687 comments) says:

    Fala…..I can’t stop smiling…..you’re a good guy.

    But like theoreticians everywhere you seem to have no understanding of the absolute havoc wrought by theoretical economics in the real world.

    Black Scholes derivative pricing was the advantage that Long Term Capital Management hung their hats on.
    One of the originators was a consultant, Harvard economic and mathmetical Phd’s were as numerous as caddis at No-name lake in summer.

    They went belly up to the extent that the US PPT had to finesse liquidity from the major private banks and the Fed (some cynics might say “the same thing”) did all sorts of deals as the gearing from their $6 biilion capital exposure to hundreds of billions of dollars was a risk to the whole system.
    You can trace the effects of that deal in gold price manipulations also.

    Why did they go belly up?….

    Russian debt behaviour outside the the maths of the trading program.

    Did I profit? Yes…thanks for asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    “It is not the name of the journal that counts, it is the content of the article that is more important.”

    A reasonable point Falafulu, where it runs aground is in the derth of good scientific articles around refuting AGW, in any publications.

    All we get in support of the Denialist cause is the sort of gross misrepresentation that Tina fell for above.
    Nonsense claims like: “CO2 only accounts for 5% of the GH effect, or
    the sun has been getting brighter over the last century, or cosmic rays is wat does it, or other planets are experiencing GW, or Man only contributes 3% of the CO2 ,or volcanos have contributed far more CO2 to the atmosphere than Man (ignoring the significance of the 4 billion years that this greater contribution is spread over), or it’s the heat island effect, or I’ve invented a car that runs on water.

    To dismiss AGW two things need to be done, a way must be found to show how increasing GHG concentrations don’t have the effect that theory says they should, and some other cause must be found that explains the warming that has been observed.
    I haven’t seen anything compelling on either point, let alone both.

    Falafulu, You have never come up with someones paper that attempts to refute AGW which itself hasn’t been refuted, the best you have managed to do is to offer Rossow’s ideas on MIMO systems as an alternative to current climate modelling systems, but again there is nothing (as far as I know) in this department that refutes results from current GCM’s results.

    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.