This entry was posted on Friday, December 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
I’ve been watching China expand into the Pacific for years and I don’t agree with John Bryan – it’s not principally a game between Taiwan and China, although that’s always been one of the factors. These days however, with China now much more powerful than she was in the early 90’s, it’s evolving into China positioning herself against the U.S.
We’re living in interesting times bwakile, and it’s an interesting question isn’t it, about the FTA. China’s leadership and system of government is totally ruthless, on a par with Communist Russia. Human life to them is worthless.
I used to think that when the Chinese got a TV set in every village, life would change because people would see the goods on the shelves, just like the East used to look over the wall to the West. Then, I thought, democracy would come because, I thought, you can’t have successful capitalism without democracy. Boy was I wrong.
I don’t know the answer to the FTA just like I don’t know the answer to the question about recognising Taiwan. If you operate purely on self-interest then the answer is easy, but if you want to stand up on the justice side, then is it correct to hurt the people of New Zealand, even if you know you’re doing the right thing by turning down an FTA till China cleans up its act or by recognising Taiwan?
Sorry to troll but DPF rarely covers international diplomacy so I take a chance it won’t offend.
I have seen the Chinese make huge inroads into Africa over the last 20 years but have always figured they were after the trade, minerals and resources. They certainly aren’t too concerned with human rights.
Personally, I think that eventually (maybe a thousand years ) the Asian race will dominate the Pacific and the Muslims Europe. They will do it through population growth and money.
Agreed Grant and bwakile – Red China has actively developed its presence in Sub-Saharan Africa in the past five years.
Zimbabwe’s minerals and mining resources are amongst the richest per square kilometer found anywhere, and they are available at a deep discount to the Chinese – who need them badly and who now pretty much dominate this sector in that country.
in 1000 years you wont be able to tell the races apart like that, I wouldn’t be too worried about the racial issue in that time frame.
But at some point in the near future China is going to want to depose the US as world leader – they know the USA won’t like that (it is a massive shock to realize that suddenly you have to cow-tow to some other country when you have had a hundred years of hegemony. So China will want to be in a position to neutralize the threat in all possible ways. China plans its long term strategies carefully and the US doesn’t so I expect China to succeed easily. (then there will be BIG changes).
Tina, I had a quick look through that list of “Prominent Scientists”, I see it included plenty of engineers, economists, microbiologists, botanists, agricultural scientists, philosophers, virologists, public health engineers, agronomists, soil scientists, nuclear chemists, chemical engineers, aeronautical engineers, and even a maleria expert.
It’s like the last stand of a defeated army, throwing in everything available for the final battle, even the engineers and botanists.
I was just thinking Tina that you too could be on a list as a “Prominent Scientist”, after all Owens there as an economist, NZ agronomist Pat Palmer’s there, NZ engineer Bryan Leyland’s there, NZ Philosopher Denis Dutton’s there. Why the hell shouldn’t Aussie/NZer Tina, investment expert, be there? I suggest you talk to Owen, perhaps with his help you can make the next list.
Just as well you also didn’t note the many related science type Scientists , you go back and list all of them and report back.
You might also like therefore to disclaim Gore and entourage on the same basis. Great, you’re making progress.
And Stern you’ll agree is a bit of a joke, being a politicised economist etc.
Must be also a bit of a worry when IPCC reviewers have abandon the cause?
Note you’re not using the “consensus” word much these days Andy?
I’ll give a hint about what I’ve learned from Markets, Andy.
A trend whose premise is false will always be corrected. Lies are not sustainable in a Market as the AGWs will discover.
But enough irrelevancies Andy, the only thing that is important here is to profit from the delusional behaviour…I have that in hand and thanks for asking.
“the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives”
“The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation.
Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives.
The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents.
The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,” the letter added.
[EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]
If you’re still claiming it was written by unqualified scientists I’m going to have to make a list Andy….tho you can save me the trouble by looking at the summary on the first page….looks pretty flash eh Andy?
How many of you guys know about the eminent scientist Frederick Seitz, who resigned from the IPCC early on, starting a petition that is now up to NINETEEN THOUSAND signatures of scientists who are calling on their governments not to buy the damaging and pointless Kyoto measures?
Here’s another bit of information for Andy’s consideration from the Senate Report…
“Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] ”
“You might also like therefore to disclaim Gore and entourage on the same basis. Great, you’re making progress.”
Gore is pretty good on the facts but gives an impression of immediacy that is not consistent with the science to date, however, given recent changes in the arctic, many experts are suggesting that the IPCC may be way too conservative on estimates of future rates of arctic ice loss. Time will tell.
“And Stern you’ll agree is a bit of a joke, being a politicised economist etc.”
I’m sceptical of any economist who makes projections up to 100 years in the future, because of the unpredictability of technological and political change such projections are meaningless.
“Must be also a bit of a worry when IPCC reviewers have abandon the cause?”
The “reviewers” are people brought into audit the reports, some of them, eg. Vincent Gray, have been denialists from the outset.
“Note you’re not using the “consensus” word much these days Andy?”
There’s pretty much a consensus that AGW is happening amongst those involved in researching the science, people like Christy, Lindzen and Spencer are the exception, most on that list are not involved in the research or they’re retired or talking about things outside their field.
“I’ll give a hint about what I’ve learned from Markets, Andy.
A trend whose premise is false will always be corrected. Lies are not sustainable in a Market as the AGWs will discover.”
That’s a lot like science, I agree, except it’s the AGW denialists who have been found wanting on the scientific front both by mainstream supporters and each other:
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski claims the Ice Cores aren’t reliable, other denialists (ones who understand icecores) argue that they are.
Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, claims a “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics.” claims “(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects”
This is known, warming in a greenhouse is a result of warm air being unable to escape.
and “the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly”.
Yet most denialist accept the 33C of the natural GH effect, derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Nuclear Scientist Dr. Michael R. Fox claims “The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories.”
All bullshit, the late Augie Auer once made this exact claim in a NZ Herald article, then later claimed he had be misreported.
CO2 contributes about 20% of the GH effect, Man has lifted atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 35%.
The denialists rely on a huge range of theories and draw a range of conclusions, the theories and conclusions are often mutually exclusive and contradictory; about the only thing they seem to have in common is a belief that doing what the results of the mainstream science calls to be done is, for political reasons, a bad thing.
“But enough irrelevancies Andy, the only thing that is important here is to profit from the delusional behaviour…I have that in hand and thanks for asking.”
Good for you Tina, just don’t go too long on the belief that it’s delusional.
“the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives”
Ah, Tina, you are relying on a Senate minority report, a partisan political document of no scientific merit.
Instead of this focus on the political aspects of the IPCC, try refering to the main body of the report, written by the scientists, if anything the summary for policy makers tones down the concerns of the scientists.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism …” blah blah.
They all get to say whatever they like in Energy and Environment, their problem is that they are so obsessed by their politics they don’t produce sound science. Whenever E&E or any other publication publishes a denialist paper, mainstream scientist point out all the faults in it, it’s hardly surprising that they’re intimidated by the superior science of their opponents, or that they want to whine and blame the refs.
I really dont understand the pacific. Nations give them $zillions in aid, they waste most of it,then they complain that they dont get enough. They want (or seem to) independance, but they dont have enough of almost anything to be independant.
And anyway – as several have commented – they are all going to disappear as the seas rise. The dominant powers in the area will be called upon to save them. The chinese are welcome to a bunch of self opinionated PI’s. But the chinese will put them on the straight and narrow. If there is one thing you can be sure of with the chinese is that self interest is the most imporatnt thing on their list of prioritories. In fact ‘Self Interest’ fills the first 100 spots on their list of prioritories. At spot 101 it says “go back to the top of the list and start again”.
Sigh, Tina, The summary for policy makers is a document with a political input, no dispute.
What happens is a process in which the climate scientist representatives from different countries thrash out a summary that the different government, each with their own agenda, can agree.
The result is that representatives from the US, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries try to water down the summary to suit those they represent, representatives from other countries try to emphasis what suits their own views.
The result is a document that only claims what ALL can agree the science supports, so if anything it is out and out claims by both extremes that aren’t included, the summary tends to be a conservative document.
Yeah, and the UN is a snow-white organisation, there was nothing to the oil-for-food scandal, or the inflating of Aids statistics, or the whitewashing of child sex procurement by UN peacekeeping troops, and they are not inherently biased against Israel, or the US, and their membership isn’t dominated by a substantial majority of non-democratic nations.
And why does the IPCC report process need to be shrouded in secrecy?
At least the Seitz petition is wide open to scrutiny and it can be discovered if there are fraudulent signatures. and it looks like you can’t REALLY make much of a dent in the figure of 19,000 signatories to it.
There is no parallel, Andrew W, between the conspiracy theories YOU list, and the construct being driven by the IPCC, politicians of the Al Gore ilk, and the media. It is a simple fact that most journalists are left wing, and that left wing politicians love to grab power over people’s lives and be seen as some sort of saviour in the process, and that most bureaucrats at the UN love the idea of “one-world” government, and that the UN is riddled with corruption and that frequent scandals occur.
There is no parallel in the moon landing or the twin towers conspiracy theories, to the sheer number of scientists, and very highly qualified and experienced ones at that, who have gone public to protest at the “corruption of peer review processes” and the like, almost always at tangible risk to their future careers and funding.
Note how its almost entirely old, established scientists who speak out? And some of them end up losing their careers. No YOUNGER or freshly-qualified scientist dares to risk their whole future.
Lefties yammer on about “big oil” funding “climate change deniers”, yet the funding of AGW “science”, mostly taxpayer money, exceeds the other by around 30 to one and virtually NO public money goes to the “deniers”, who OF COURSE need to scrape for funding wherever they can get it. One older scientist, Timothy Ball, told a CNN interviewer that he drives a 1984 car and lives in a leaky apartment, thanks to his blacklisting by the “establishment”.
Anyone can look into the debate for themselves, and, surprise, surprise, we find that the side that ISN’T being covered by the “mainstream” media,
is the “denier” side. Of course, this term, “denier”, is a classic smear tactic in itself.
I think the best source of information if you want it, is senator James Inhofe’s website.
It is obvious that there is NO “scientific” “consensus” at all, and that there is massive distortions of the truth taking place.
What each individual chooses to believe, says more about that individual’s politics than it does about the scientific realities at issue. It is a waste of time attempting to debate the science in this sort of forum. In fact, it is Al Gore and Co who avoid any public debate like the plague, and on the odd occasion that a debate DOES get held, a casual audience gets swayed more by the arguments of the “denier” side that it HADN’T been getting to hear previously. It is Al Gore, in refusing to debate any of his numerous challengers, and stating Goebbels-like that “the science is settled”, who is the REAL “denier” here – a denier of the truth, or of reality. The man is a danger to humanity.
“I thought President Bush was quite correct in listing his least favorite regimes during his address to the United Nations last week and in trying to ramp up the international pressure on the goons in Rangoon. The governments that he singled out were the uniquely repellent ones that consider the citizen to be the property of the state and the uniquely boring ones that have remained in power until their citizens are positively screaming for release. I do not need to specify these senescent gangster systems individually, except that they all have one thing in common. They are all defended, from Cuba to Zimbabwe, by the Chinese vote at the United Nations.”
Andrew W, I agree that politicals won’t change the process of AGW whether it is occurring OR NOT, but it WILL change whether the facts get through to the public at all, like that that the warming has ceased, or hasn’t followed the predictions of the IPCC’s computer models, or that Solar activity is the obvious driver of the climate that DOES fit the reality, or that nothing humans do in the way of gutting their economies and going back to the stone age would make more than a fraction of a percent of difference.
I don’t believe that you will EVER get the global warming politicians to admit they are wrong regardless of what the climate or the scientists say, and I doubt that the IPCC in its current form would EVER admit it either. THIS is politics at its ugliest.
And what we’re getting now is a whole lot of lies that anyone can dig through for themselves provided a highly political totalitarianism censorship job doesn’t get perpetrated because, you know, the issue is so SERIOUS, so vital for humanity, that we must SHUT DOWN these “deniers”.
No Tina, first to rely on the wisdom of a politician, Inhofe or Gore shows they think the facts on AGW can be determined with political arguments, an insanity equivalent to passing legislation to outlaw the laws of nature when they don’t suit you.
People over at deltoid are saying that once the double counting of names on Inhofe’s list is taken into account there are about 200 names.
Also one of the most prominent people on the list “Dr John Mclean” apparently only holds a B Agr.
You are resorting to the #1 denialist strategy of misrepresentation, up until now you have been happy to simply be a victim of such propaganda rather than a proponent.
The “in the pay of big oil” or “climate scientists are paid to make up AGW” type of attack isn’t something I take any notice of, few successful people sell their integrity for a pittance, most people on all sides genuinely believe in what they advocate, either based on an understanding of the science, or through politically based belief.
I’ve been pointing out the wide spread lack of relevant qualifications amongst the AGW denialists for sometime Tina, I’m stunned you hadn’t realized.
John Mclean doesn’t have the PhD that it is claimed he has – more lies and misrepresentation.
Inhofe has been producing these “reports” for years, they used to be Majority reports until he’s position became that of the minority.
Inhofe’s gospel hasn’t changed the laws of physics until now, I can’t see them doing so in the future, but hey Tina, I admire your devotion to your Faith.
Thanks for the link Tina, these two paragraphy raise a couple of questions:
“The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.”
“But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.”
We know that China has been building coal fired power stations, and that these power stations aren’t clean, they emit a lot of those aerosols responsible for global dimming, which as the article says, cools the global climate.
We know that Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap have been losing mass, melting ice takes energy out of the environmenrt.
And we know that the oceans continue to warm, pulling heat energy out of the atmosphere.
All the best data we have points to the Earth continuing to absorb a net of 2 Watts/m2.
The article describes a “precise balance” that suposedly needs to exist, infact such a precise balance is not neccessary, the temperatures have varied over the last decade (check Mcleans site, it actually does have some good info on it).
Also precise balances do occur in nature, ice cubes melting in a glass of rum and coke will keep the temperature of the drink at close to 0 degrees C, whether the glass is outside on a warm sunny day, or on a cold cold day, whether the glass is full or half gone, whether there’s 3 ice cubes or 6, when the ice is gone (which maybe the case with Arctic sea ice sooner than has been expected) the drink warms quickly.
Tina, I don’t know what the future holds, there are more uncertainties now than there have been for sometime. Anything from a repeat of October 1929 to a new industrial revolution could be around the corner, I have family commitments so I choose to be conservative. Land is the safest of investments, you plan for the future however it suits you, and don’t be so fucking arrogant as to suggest you know what’s best for me.