Working together on climate change
The suggestion of a common or harmonised carbon emissions trading scheme with both Australia and NZ is to my eyes a good one.
Australia is our largest trading partner, and having us implement such a scheme without Australia doing similar always risked increasing their relative advantage over us. If Clark and Rudd can give priority to have a harmonised scheme, this should be beneficial to both countries.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Australia, carbon emissions trading, Climate Change, Helen Clark, Kevin Rudd
February 28th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The suggestion of a common or harmonised carbon emissions trading scheme with both Australia and NZ is to my eyes a load of feel good wank.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Great idea but oooopppps…. the world is getting colder although carbon admissions are skyrocketing.
http://www.tbr.cc/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Remember those fast disappearing snows of AGW fame?
Well cheer up idiots.
Wait I forgot, more snow is also a sign of glorbell worming.
Damn.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/kilimanjaro_defies_profit_of_doom/#commentsmore
February 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Boy I wish you guys would keep up. It’s no longer global warming it’s climate change. That way if the planet cools or heats up those idiots from the Gore camp can still claim the moral high ground.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Sorry Adam you’re right. Whats more there it’s a booming industry. Lets hope the whole thing is exposed as total nonsense before we committ ourselves to any more economically damaging policies.
In the mean time could someone please keep a log of all the doomsday predictions made by Al Gore and others on the pseudo-scientific bandwagon so we can remind them in a few years time when they would rather forget.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Follow the money Always follow the money And where does it lead Some bastards stealing even more outta my back pocket based on………………………….. well based on their opinion. Its a rort a scam a snake oil salesmens heaven.
Because by the time the bastards are proven wrong the moneys gone from my pockets They have spent it and they wont even say their sorry.
They will then find a way to blame me for the whole disaster.
They remind of those who persecuted the so called witches in the Middle Ages. Evil nasty bastards all.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
harmonised carbon emissions doesn’t sound good, maybe they should call it co-ordinating carbon policy.
From Colin’s link: “Darn it 2007 looks to be the coldest year in the last 100 years.”
Wrong, the end of 2007 and last month were unusually cold but the whole of 2007 wasn’t:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/#more-556
The Claim of those supporting the IPCC position is a slow warming trend with short term variation around that trend and an increase in the number of extreme weather events.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Andrew, why trust Tamino? He appears to be an anonymous blogger who tells lies. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2807
February 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
If the fucking clowns that govern us, both NZ and Aus were to halt all exports of coal from today to China then surly we would be saving the world from those nasty carbon emissions. We should then expect the rest of the world to be paying us for saving their butts because of our noble sacrifice. What’s the bet our leaders don’t have the bulls as they know they are so full of it. But these same arseholes have no problem sticking their stinking hands in our pockets and telling their populations that we are fucking the world. God these people give me the shits.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
This is the original.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
And there’s progress everywhere.
“The Claim of those supporting the IPCC position”
Remember when they were scientific facts by scientific consensus, it only seems like yesterday.
Apparently Al Gore’s film was just a tale to scare the children for political purposes, naughty Al.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“He appears to be an anonymous blogger who tells lies.”
Well here’s the GISS data for Cobija, and yep, it goes up to 1988, if there is other data after that date Tamino wouldn’t be in a position to judge it.
Tamino is simply combining the global data from three recognised sources, you can run around and check it yourself at those sources yourself if you think he’s misrepresented them.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
February 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Yeah as mentioned, a load of feel good wank.
We should burn our own coal rather than be the hypocrites of the century. We’ve got 10,00 years worth, it would revitalise the rail and mining industries and take away the danger of blackouts and cold lattes in Auckland… aww crap.
Oh well do it anyway.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
SUCK ON THIS:
“CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time” by Zbigniew Jaworowski
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
February 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
ABSURD. “Working together on Climate Change”, just as the whole edifice of lies is crumbling before our eyes.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Alces link above refers to links suggesting scientists believe that the sun is entering a phase similar to the
Maunder minimum, such claims are untrue, all that is being said is that the start of the next solar cycle is a few months late, this isn’t unusual since the cycle length varies anyway:
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/
February 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Phil, I spent some time addressing that link with it’s charges against ice core sampling methods, historic CO2 readings and other issues over the last few days here:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/02/08/the-roots-of-denial/
Sorry, I’m too busy to go through the whole thing again.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
It’s a very good idea to harmonise with Australia because Rudd is not dumb enough to impose silly costs on his country. Consorting with him might tone down the Labour/Green hysteria here.
But whether she likes it or not, Clark should be working with the group of countries that are looking for solutions, not claptrap.. and they are Oz, Canada, US, India, Japan and China.
JC
February 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
It’s as simple as this, Andrew W., what any “scientist” says about his “research” is far more likely to be a reflection of his/her politics than scientific objectivity.
What I say, is that I smell a rat when the POLITICIANS and the BUREAUCRATS give us some extreme statement like “There is a scientific consensus….” when there is NO SUCH THING.
Initially I suspected that there were some brave contrarians speaking out. Now I believe that there is an outright majority of scientists with the relevant qualifications, who do NOT agree with the extreme political stance of the IPCC and the politicians that are hand in glove with it. I believe that politics has co-opted a minority of scientists in the first instance, and through control of funding of institutions, are shutting down opposition with straight-out totalitarian type tactics. New scientists are being brainwashed into the program, and the “contrarian” professors have mostly been “moved on”.
So you are right, you would be wasting your time, but so would I be, in trying to convince each other of the “science”. But if you support “science”, you should NOT agree with what is being done to the “science” profession right now, on this issue.
You scoff at “untrue” claims of scientists whose specialty is Solar Cycles and Maunder Minimums, yet if ANY science is “settled”, it is THAT science, which goes back decades, and goes back long before there was any politicisation of this particular discipline.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“You scoff at “untrue” claims of scientists whose specialty is Solar Cycles and Maunder Minimums, yet if ANY science is “settled”, it is THAT science, which goes back decades, and goes back long before there was any politicisation of this particular discipline.”
You misunderstood me, here’s an email from Ken Tapping:
“Hi Tom,
Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.
It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.
It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Regards,
Ken”
******
What was “untrue” was the media claim that Tapping said he thought we were heading for a Maunder minimum.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
There is no doubt that ideology can and does affect the prespective of scientists from both sides of the debate on AGW. That is why it’s so important to stick to the numbers and not to give too high a value to numbers that only show a small part of the picture, one swallow doesn’t make a spring and one cold northern winter doesn’t end AGW.
You put up links trumpeting the recent arctic ice increase, but such and increase happens every northern winter! The only scientists who appear to be surprised by it happening this year are those who refuse to accept AGW.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
So I take it Andy W has wiped Al Gore from the list of AGW notables.
Every day AW makes progress.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Every day AW makes progress.”
You must be new here. It’s the same old perspective that I’ve had for years.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
DAVID said “The suggestion of a common or harmonised carbon emissions trading scheme with both Australia and NZ is to my eyes a good one.”…….But we should not leave our newest and most heavily promoted free trade partner out in the cold. I’m sure CHINA would love to form a trio.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“those idiots from the Gore camp can still claim the moral high ground.”
If you really believe the whole climate change “theory”stems from people’s desire for “the moral high ground” then you have your head up your arse (or you have something up it.) These people are concerned that the large-scale industrial emissions over the last 200 years have drastically damaged the atmosphere, and are concerned that this could have lasting consequences for the future of life on earth.
(Of course those people who make a living from these industries don’t want to hear about that, and don’t want you to, but I dare say that doesn’t flash across your mind as you lap up the “there is no such thing as climate change” stories as gospel…)
Whether or not they are right, scoffing at them from a point of more-or-less ignorance (or with the benefit of having read a few selectively-chosen editorials and blogs on the subject) makes you look like a bit of a cunt don’t you think?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
You’re too modest Andy.
I’ve seen “scientific consensus” and even “deniers” disappear from your lexicon.
Ahhh, for those far off days of yore when the science was “settled”.
Here’s a shocker hot off the press.
Note the idea that the scientist involved now thinks it’s ok to “talk” because she hasn’t got to watch her funding.
It gets better.
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
February 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
There is no scientific consensus on this issue (much as the politicians would like one), but it really doesn’t matter whether humans are causing climate change or not, effective government policy would be the same each way.
If we are causing climate change, we cannot stop it. No-one expects China, India and other increasingly industrial countries to stop burning oil and coal. CO2 emissions will increase, climate change will occur, we will have to deal with it. To deal with it we will need to be self-sufficient and have a strong economy (you can’t do anything without money).
If we are not causing climate change, it is still a good idea to be self-sufficient and have a strong economy.
So good government policy would promote local efficient industry, rather than discouraging it like Kyoto does (and sends it off-shore to contribute to the Asian haze). This would reduce emissions from electricity (NZ has mainly renewable electricity as opposed to much of Asia), and transport. It would be good for our economy, giving us the money to deal with the effects of climate change, and mean we are self-sufficient so can survive any future climatic changes, (and wars) well. This is a win-win policy.
Ruining our economy to buy funny money (Carbon credits) is a feel-good policy that won’t help us cope with climate change, and is a complete waste of money if it turns out that climate change is a false concern. It is a lose-lose policy.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Thank you for your kind comments Alces, I’m sorry to have to disappoint you but “AGW denier” is a term I’m happy to use and still do, if I haven’t in this thread it’s simply an oversight.
“scientific consensus” isn’t a term I’m inclined to use though I may have at some stage, the reason I’m not inclined to use it is because getting the science right is more about quality than quantity, whose right won’t be determined by popular vote, but by the physics. My view remains that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are qualified to comment on AGW accept that it’s occurring.
“Settled”? I don’t think I’ve ever used that term.
“Here’s a shocker hot off the press.
Note the idea that the scientist involved now thinks it’s ok to “talk” because she hasn’t got to watch her funding.
It gets better.”
Well for you it actually gets worse, did you actually read the article? she was being critical of both sides for getting to carried away by ideology and too emotionally tied up:
“The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
I don’t know which side had the “fossilized brain” and which was “the Gang of Five”, both sides were acting badly.
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both.”
“flawed data sets” refers mainly to denialists (thought I’d correct the earlier oversight), “imperfect models” refers mainly to alarmists.
Did you miss this bit? Simpson says:
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
As I read it, in the article Dr. Simpson is sceptical of the worst scenarios portrayed but accepts that we should act with caution because if they’re right, we could soon be in big trouble, her position is almost identical to my own, she accepts that we are changing the atmosphere and the environment with uncertain consequences.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Andy, it’s going to get harder to keep your spirits up on AGW as real scientists speak out when they aren’t dependent on govts that require a particular line for funding.
“Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.”
She is an AGW skeptic not an equal criticiser, read it again.
Not one of your IPCC buddies.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I’ve been through it a dozen times, It’s clear her primary criticism is of the intransigence and vitriol from both sides in the debate, she is sceptical of the catastrophy scenarios implied by Al Gore. But is certainly not a denier of AGW.