Warming Projections
March 30th, 2008 at 8:30 am by David FarrarLike a medieval religious zealot, Al Gore claims that those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man are the equivalent of those who think the moon landing was faked. This says more about Gore than anyone else. Scientific debate is in fact the exact opposite of lunatic conspiracy theories.
However while there is a fairly wide consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming, there is still a lot of uncertainity about the speed and extent of this, and especially how nature itself responds to external factors like increased greenhouse gases. We are generally dealing with theories and projections, not measurable fact.
The Australian has an article on the extent of climate change:
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
The view being put forward by Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, seems to be that greenhouse gas emissions do certainly cause warming, but that other weather processes may be compensating and limiting the effect of those emissions.
Hat Tip: Not PC
Related posts:
- Leyland on global warming
- Global Warming on hold until 2015 claim Germans
- Lovelock says global warming slower than predicted
- Not Evil Just Wrong
March 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Pretty easy to disprove Fatty Gore on this: I don’t believe in the AGW religion, but man most definately landed on the moon. Unlike the eco-terrorists, I can wait to be proved right and have no intention of forcing other people into hunger and poverty.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Still now acknowledgment of variations in the energy output of the sun……
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:01 am
gee dpf..!
what if you’re wrong..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: Within the next decade, the extent of warming should be much much clearer. We should aim to reduce emissions, but we should do so on the basis of what science is telling us, not on the basis of hysteria doomsday scenarios]
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:12 am
gee phil, trying to fight off reality again?
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Indeed. I suspect that 2008 will be the year the manmade global warming myth is finally exploded. It is a most interesting artical that one. Especially when you see the danger that the massive beuracracies are in once that happens.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with the facts!
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
“Like a medieval religious zealot, Al Gore claims that those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man are the equivalent of those who think the moon landing was faked.”
but as one of the men responsible for global warming, Gore intends to actually do bugger all about it.
FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE REFUSES TO TAKE THE “PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE”
During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on March 21, 2007, “Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming,” former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” to consume no more energy than the average American household
The pledge was presented to Gore by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the hearing, Senator Inhofe showed Gore a frame from Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” where Gore asks viewers:
“Are you ready to change the way you live?”
Apparently Al Gore isn’t. Mind you, the USA economy could head into recession if he did.
2006 Average US household 11,256 kWh; Gore household 191,000 kWh – old information, I know, but the fact Gore won’t do much about it isn’t: Mar 21, 2007.
Vote:However, don’t worry – New Zealand is going to save the whole bloody world.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sorry to be niggly but this was around some time ago yet nobody took much notice.
http://nominister.blogspot.com/2008/03/hard-data-confounds-theoretical.html
What was particularly interesting is that it was surfaced via that vipers’ nest of greenies, Aunty ABC.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
There is considerable, significant and indisputable warming of every planet in our solar system. Of course, Flat Earthers like Gore cherry pick their ‘evidence’ and don’t even consider the larger picture. And those of us that choose to consider the larger picture are filed in the same section as Holocaust deniers. A great starting point for informed debate.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
People have trouble understanding what some people call conspiracy theories. They are always painted by those who don’t understand the actual arguments that are behind them as “wacky,” because the “theory” conflicts with that person’s world view. So they aren’t objective but instead spend the little time they do spend thinking about it, on coming up with reasons based on their existing world view, as to why it couldn’t possibly be true. Which is of course completely stupid.
Personally I don’t buy the proposition that we did not land on the moon, but I bet that most people who dismiss it don’t know the actual arguments behind it.
The thing that strikes me about AGW is that it’s come from nowhere to, in a few years, dominate the global political agenda. Bit like the war on terror really. One for the left, one for the right. Also the fact that if Kyoto is implemented, it means the biggest wealth transfer in history. No wonder lefties are in love with it.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am
And this indicates that the oceans are not warming, either:
Vote:http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8926a1d3-f43f-4f8b-811d-0a0daa3e1012&k=39580&p=1
March 30th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The view being put forward by Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, seems to be that greenhouse gas emissions do certainly cause warming, but that other weather processes may be compensating and limiting the effect of those emissions.
And therefore industry requires less or no regulation in response to it. In case anyone’s wondering, here’s where Jennifer’s paycheque comes from:
Caltex, Exxon, Shell; the largest forestry company in Tasmania; Philip Morris and British American Tobacco; the Western Mining Corporation. (source)
She may be right, but I tend to take expert opinion with a grain of salt when they stand to lose a lot of money if their opinion was different.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The view being put forward by Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, seems to be that greenhouse gas emissions do certainly cause warming, but that other weather processes may be compensating and limiting the effect of those emissions.
And therefore industry requires less or no regulation in response to it. In case anyone’s wondering, here’s where Jennifer’s paycheque comes from:
Caltex, Exxon, Shell; the largest forestry company in Tasmania; Philip Morris and British American Tobacco; the Western Mining Corporation. She may be right, but I tend to take expert opinion with a grain of salt when they stand to lose a lot of money if their opinion was different.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
This is all good stuff, that the evidence is starting to become more and more obvious (though not yet to the ecomentalists), that the sky is not falling (yet again).
Can someone please persuade the Chicken Littles and “me too” brigade in the National party that getting into the same bed as Al Gore can only lead to headaches (and worse diseases).
This country needs leaders like Mr Klaus from the Czech Republic, who see through the sham of AGW, and say it like it is. And act accordingly. Where are they?
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
If it is always true that science depends on who’s paying the scientists, folks on the global warming grants gravy train are equally suspect.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Thou shalt believe!!
Or be burned at the stake.
The way the global warming fanatics go on, and the way they denigrate others with a differing view (in whatever way) as “deniers” and castigate them for not believing is in my opinion weakening their entire cause. They look like fools, and do their own cause harm, when they will not debate in a reasonable manner and simply resort to personal attack.
I sense this happenning right now and that within some time shortly it will turn into a bit of a backlash wave.
Personally I have turned off the debate becuase of the manner in which it is carried out. My wife reminded me this morning that we missed the “earth hour” thing last night and I said to her ‘who cares, its all a world of fanatics and religious-like nutters anyway’.
Now wait for philu’s dwibble in reply..
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
If it is always true that science depends on who’s paying the scientists, folks on the global warming grants gravy train are equally suspect.
Suspect, yes. Equally – hard to say. Their job is still to be scientists. Marohasy’s job is to promote the views of her organisation’s financial backers. She claims her statements are uncontroversial in the scientific community. That’s fine. I would like to see some scientists in the relevant fields, who aren’t funded by heavy industry, saying what she’s saying.
I’m not saying there are none. I’m just interested in this opinion coming from the mouth of someone who is not essentially a highly paid professional spin doctor.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“She may be right, but I tend to take expert opinion with a grain of salt when they stand to lose a lot of money if their opinion was different.”
Why the hell then don’t you apply that rule to the many publically funded research insitutes, government departments, regulatory bodies, qangos and commissions who promote the climate change propaganda, and their financing throught grants and allocations from government budgets?? I’ll tell you why. You’re a left wing bigot, desperate to attack by any means possible any idea that threatens your political ascendancy.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Here’s another link to the Argo story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Satellite data shows a continued rise in sea levels over the period since the Agro system was deployed of 3.1mm/yr, only a small part of this rise can be explained by loss of ice mass, the only explaination offered for the balance of the increase is ocean thermal expansion.
Vote:This means we have two sets of information that appear to be in conflict, time will tell.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“This country needs leaders like Mr Klaus from the Czech Republic, who see through the sham of AGW, and say it like it is. And act accordingly. Where are they?”
In countries where people are more awake to where left wing politics can lead them, and where such countries can end up if they swallow left wing propaganda. Mr Klaus knows well the desititution that is the ultimate outcome of socialism. Too many NZers have still to learn what Mr. Klaus has learned. John Key and a large part of the National Party included.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Why the hell then don’t you apply that rule to the many publically funded research insitutes, government departments, regulatory bodies, qangos and commissions who promote the climate change propaganda, and their financing throught grants and allocations from government budgets??
As I said, I do.
I’ll tell you why. You’re a left wing bigot, desperate to attack by any means possible any idea that threatens your political ascendancy.
Redbaiter
Vote:Don’t be a hater
Every day it’s eight or
Nine infantile attacks
Just relax
And be my mate… er.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Whether global warming is real or not, the zealots want us to spend a lot of money to make the inhabitants of developing countries in 100 years marginally better off, and these people will be richer than we are today.
If we’re going to spend the money, then let’s spend it on things that will do the most good.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am
no adolf..you are the one denying reality..
as you have done on the economic meltdown/the iraq war/this..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/what-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-global-warming/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“As I said, I do.”
No you didn’t say any such thing.
Why are the left always trying to label anyone who passionately disagrees with their political policies as “haters”? I’ll tell you, its a handy way of discrediting those people and their questions and views, especially when you don’t have any real answers.
These are the same leftists who often at the drop of a hat will attack and malign a private sector person, and smear their professional integrity, merely for daring to express a view counter to that expressed by their government funded colleagues.
Here’s a fact for you Ryan. The GW scam as propagated by the seat warming bureaucrats at the UN and other publicly funded institutions has never been fully accepted by the global scientific community- government funded or privately funded. Those who say their is a “consensus” are nothing but shameless liars.
BTW, I’m not here to be mates with you Ryan. I’m a truth seeker. Maybe you’re coming to the wrong forum. Try a friendship site.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Baiter of the Red,
Vote:You don’t want me dead.
I’m overjoyed!
Wanna hug you, boy!
Cos of those sweet words you said.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Go away Ryan. This thread is discussing a milestone scientific discovery that will expose the GW scam for the fraud it is. Its not about you.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am
It’s not about me
Vote:(Sans apostrophe)
Said Redbaiter to me one day.
He broke my heart.
Yes, tore it apart.
I love him, but not like a gay.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
OK Ryan. Your poems are clever and funny, but once again, its not about you. This is an important scientific issue, and because it confronts the templates the mainstream media have on Climate Change, it will not make it into mainstream discussion unless the bloggers run with it. It is not right to diminish an important issue with examples of self indulgence. This must be brought to the public’s attention. In the name of freedom. You profess to care about that don’t you? If so, I suggest you stick to the issue, and if you can, refrain from undermining the personal integrity of scientists who challenge leftist dogma merely on the grounds that they have a different source of funds to those who are predominantly pro AGW.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 11:20 am
It depends on what the global warming doubter is actually claiming.
1) that humans have no effect on the environment, or that burning carbon doesn’t heat up the planet
– this is true climate change doubting, this one is actually worse than saying we haven’t landed on the moon. It is more like arguing that trees are not made of wood.
2) that humans effects are not particularly large compared to current cycle
- this one is possible – so its not ridiculous, however one might need to be intentionally not looking at certain evidence. One needs to accept some complex arguments about heat sinks and sun cycles etc while rejecting that the consensus is closer to the simpler theory that arises in (1). Still it’s good to research all possibilities.
3) that it is changing but that it doesn’t matter – the costs outweigh the benefits or that there are other ways to solve it besides Kyoto type solutions.
Vote:– this is a really complex one so you could argue this, and may win.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Love this quote from Jerry York (CEO of Micowarehouse) from a post on Steve Job’s blog. Al Gore sits on Apple’s Board.
But have a look at a subsequent post on the results of that meeting he talked about in the first post.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Well, like I said, they could be right. I’m not saying they’re wrong because they’re funded by heavy industry. I’m just saying that there’s a higher likelihood that they’re tipping the facts in favour of their financial backers, because their job description could be summed up as “employed to tip facts in favour of financial backers”.
Francis pointed out, and I agreed, that “pro-climate change” scientists could be similarly inclined to fudge the facts because of reliance on climate-change grants.
So, where does that leave us? Firstly, with a whole bunch of people who have picked a “side” in the issue along lines of identification with “right” and “left” or “conservative” and “liberal”. In other words, if you consider yourself liberal, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that climate change is a big concern. If you consider yourself conservative, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that climate change isn’t occurring (or, more recently, isn’t manmade).
Then there’s how both of those groups approach the others. There’s the standard “they can’t admit that they’re wrong because they’re bleeding hearts/rich wankers”. Then there’s the theory that the right have been duped by special-interest groups, and the theory that the left have been duped by the climate-change industry.
Anyone who takes a step further and actually looks into the science ends up having an opinion. And everyone with an opinion has decided that anyone whose opinion differs from their own are corrupted by propaganda and therefore aren’t worth listening to.
So, where do we turn? Scientists can’t be trusted because they’re all being paid by someone. Publicists like Marohasy can’t be trusted because they’re being paid by someone. Everyday people can’t be trusted because they’re not scientists, and if they study the science and have an opinion we don’t like, they’ve applied science in some biased manner.
Does anyone see this going anywhere useful?
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Oh Ryan you’re full of lying
Vote:To Red you do attest
The planet she is a warming
While socialism comes a crawling
Deny the truth at all costs
The price you will pay is immense
Higher taxes and charges for Cullen
While those with a mortgage lament.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Two years ago, this would have been written:
In other words, if you consider yourself liberal, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that global warming is a big concern. If you consider yourself conservative, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that global warming isn’t occurring (or, more recently, isn’t manmade).
And now, its actually more likely to be written as:
Vote:In other words, if you consider yourself liberal, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that climate change is a big concern. If you consider yourself a denier, your kneejerk uncritical opinion is that climate change isn’t occurring (or, more recently, isn’t manmade).
March 30th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Anyone else seen Kerre Woodham’s slap-down of Greenpeace today?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/03/kerre-woodham-on-greenpeace.html
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Ryan, there is actually a reasonable way through. Take some steps, that don’t impact our economy much, to curtail carbon emissions. These have other ancillary benefits, such as reducing dependence on oil. So long as they aren’t too expensive they are a reasonable insurance policy. Even a hard-core denier (as opposed to a sceptic) would have to agree that there is a chance that human-caused global warming is happening. And an inexpensive insurance policy is a reasonable thing to have against a possibility.
So, I continue to argue that what we need is a carbon tax that is levied on all carbon content of goods and services in NZ, that is applied to imports (to avoid exporting what jobs we have) and refunded on exports (to avoid impacting our export industries). This carbon tax should be applied to the things that it can be easily applied to (coal, oil, electricity from thermal generation, gas, plastics, timber), along with credits for carbon sinks that can be easily calculated. Things that are hard to calculate and that are largely exported anyway (many farming products) should be exempt. This carbon tax should be offset by a corresponding reduction in income tax, so the net tax take in NZ would not change.
Instead of taxing people for earning income we can generally agree income is a good thing), we tax people for emitting carbon (which we can probably disagree on whether it is a bad thing, but could agree that it is a preferable situation to taxing income).
I continue to suggest that this wouldn’t be a net drain on the economy, and that in many ways it would actually help to grow the economy. It would also burnish our clean green credentials – it would help our exports. It would be politically very saleable, so a party that locks down the details could get lots of votes. It would be likely to reduce our carbon emissions, and it would create an incentive for people to invest in low carbon technologies. A carbon tax provides more certainty of costs and benefits to industry than carbon trading, so there is more opportunity to invest. Finally, it doesn’t create the possibility of windfall profits for traders and speculators, or for incumbent companies, that emissions trading potentially will. Windfall gains are political suicide. Any increase in the price of carbon accrues to the govt, not to entrenched interests, and if the legislation was designed with automatic offsets so that increased carbon taxes automatically came off personal taxes, then it would be political genius.
So, I argue that we don’t need agreement as to whether human-caused global warming is happening. We need only accept that many of our global markets believe that it is, that enough of our citizens believe it is happening to vote for policies that mitigate it, and that there is enough of a chance of it happening that we could take an insurance policy. If we can all agree on that (and I think those are all self-evident facts, but I could be wrong), then it makes sense to work out the most cost effective insurance policy that we can find.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Redbaiter +4 Says:
March 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“She may be right, but I tend to take expert opinion with a grain of salt when they stand to lose a lot of money if their opinion was different.”
Why the hell then don’t you apply that rule to the many publically funded research insitutes, government departments, regulatory bodies, qangos and commissions who promote the climate change propaganda, and their financing throught grants and allocations from government budgets?? I’ll tell you why. You’re a left wing bigot, desperate to attack by any means possible any idea that threatens your political ascendancy.
It’s not occured to you any other reason why all those government funded scientists might be coming up with the same answer?
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I had an interesting conversation with a scientist friend of mine last night who has some dealings with climate related carry on. There seems to be a general consensus that carbon emissions are not a good thing although it is not quite so clear HOW bad. As I understand it carbon is pretty much inevitable in modern society. Don’t get me wrong there are savings that can be made and should be pursued but kyoto is a stupid way of going about it if for no other reason than it is unbelievable that every country will pay its bill in terms of carbon trading.
And don’t forget the myths. Hybrid cars (yet electricity is largely fossil fuel created), “eco” fuels (massively intensive to create and often counter-productive when taking into account the overall carbon footprint), even solar panels until a few years ago (not sure if this is still a case – it may not be) took more carbon to make than they saved in a lifetime and so forth.
As far as I can see the only real solution is to advance the research to capture and bury (ie: return it to where it came from) carbon. Frankly putting cash into this research would have a better pay off than signing up to Kyoto.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I was lucky enough to be in two right places at two right times. In Bali I heard Viscount Monckton report on the work of Australian David Evans (who was there too) which shows that while the IPCC models predict a hot spot in the upper troposphere over the tropical areas the latest satellite measurements referred to in the ABC interview show no such hotspots. This is important because the hotspots should be formed by extra water vapour caused by evaporation from a warmer ocean accumulating up there and generating a positive feedback which reinforces the small amount of warming which can be caused by C02 alone. This positive feedback from water vapour is the theory behind the famous “tipping point”.
Vote:In other words the constant increase of CO2 does not lead to continual warming – it levels out after a while, but the IPCC has argued that the increase in water vapour (which is the major greenhouse gas) then takes over and temperatures soar. This is the theory behind Al Gore’s dreams of destruction.
However, Evan’s observations refuted the models but provided no mechanism – and hence the IPCC was enabled to ignore it –
just as 19th Century astronomers figured out the sun could not be burning or it would have gone out long ago but had no mechanism to explain where the ongoing energy was coming from.
But then I was also lucky enough to be at New York to hear Prof Roy Spencer explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot deal with clouds and rain. So the models assume that the water vapour goes up there into the troposphere and hangs around to cook as all.
However, there is a mechanism at work which washes out the water vapour (as it were) and returns it to the oceans, along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism rather than a positive one.
The mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain!
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Roy Spencer agreeing that he is RIGHT!
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood.
The climate is not sensitive to CO2 warming because the water vapour is a damper.
That is why history is full of ice ages (where other effects do provide positive feedback (such as increased albedo as the ice forms) while we do not hear about Heat Ages.
We live on a benign planet except when it gets cold.
I shall write this up more fully in NBR next Friday but when the AGW theory gradually disappears from the panic pages (remember contaminated soils in Auckland, and bird flu, and the Apple problem etc) remember you read the full story here first.
I can send Roy’s Power Point to anyone interested. He sent it to me personally so I could write it up.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
For interesting current scientific work on Global warming, look at http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm – there are also newer comment backing it up……perhaps there are a lot of “Climate deniers!”
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Yes I read Kerre’s piece in the HOS on Greenpeace, and how refreshing to find some commonsense being written about these shallow publicity seekers. Save the world? Do me a favour. They are more interested in saving their lifestyles by raising money, and employ an army of naive youngsters to sell memberships to an equally gullible public. Greenpeace should be exposed for the self-indulgent institutional liars they really are.
There are far more worthy causes everyone could join that would contribute more to improving lives if they are really driven by altruism.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“Mars’s ice caps are melting, and on Jupiter a second giant red spot, thought to be the result of a sudden warming, is developing. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune’s moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton’s atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C “warmer.” ”
Al Gore denies his excessive use of domestic power is contributing to this, so it must be someone else . . . probably in New Zealand, likely some dairy farmer.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
You go Owen!!!!!! but for fucks sake don’t tell Dear Leader you will really piss her off. I think the left will have to dream up some other bullshit to baffle us with, the arseholes!! and that goes for the National party to, they lack the balls to call a spade a spade. AGW is like a gaint snowball out of control I only hope the sun comes out and melts the fucker.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Hi Owen,
I’d love to see Roy’s Powerpoint. You know where to send it….
Cheers
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
What it is going to take to restore rationality into the political equation is for an established, major booster of GW to recant – that’ll provide a much more interesting “tipping point” and it can’t be all that far off.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Yvette, the claims of warming on other planets is due to solar forcing in rubbish:
Mars:
The claim that Mars is warming appears to be based on a decline in CO2 polar ice
over the last 3 Martian years, I also have seen claims that actual measurements from probes that average temperatures on the planet have risen slightly over the last Martian year.
The problem with using this data is that the time frame being used is too short, if you look at the temerature graph for Earth it is very saw-toothed, a much longer period is needed to show any trend.
It is also ironic that due to a spike in Earths average surface temperature in 1998 due to El Nino, denialists have been claiming that GW on Earth has stopped, while claiming that it apparently is continuing on Mars, both due to changes in the solar output, even though solar output has been steady for the whole period that there have been accurate instrument readings ie. the last 50 years. (allowing for the <1% fluctuation that results from the ~11 year solar cycle.)
Jupiter:
There has been no global warming observed on Jupiter, the claim that there has been is based on astronomical observations of a new major cyclonic system that has formed in the planets atmosphere. There is speculation that this system is large enough to interupt the equatorial-polar gas flow in the atmosphere, causing a warming of the equatorial zone of the atmosphere, and a simultaneous cooling of the polar zones.
Triton:
The claimed warming on Triton is a result of an increase in the moons atmospheric pressure that has been observed, Triton has nitrogen ice caps at its poles and these ice caps are undergoing sublimation as a result of the same process that causes the glacial-interglacial cycle on the Earth.
Earth experiences several overlapping wobbles known as the Milancovich cycles, the 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycle the Earth experiences is attributed to these, Triton experience a similar orbital wobble, as do all other planetary bodies in gravitational relationships. On Triton this cycle is only a few hundred years long, at the moment Tritons axil tilt in increasing with the result being more sunlight falling on Tritons poles, increasing the polar temperatures, and releasing nitrogen gas.
Pluto:
Pluto’s orbital period is 248 Earth years long. Its orbit is highly eliptical, Pluto was at perihelion (closest to the sun) in 1989, because of thermal inertia it continues to warm even though it is (very slowly) now moving away from the sun, compare this to how the warmest part of the day is not at high noon here but at about 2pm, or the warmest part of the summer is not at the summer solstice, about june 24 in the northern hemisphere, or December 22 in the southern hemisphere, but rather over a month later.
So how come 3 of these bodies are showing warming, is this a definite trend in the solar system?
Vote:No, there are 5 other planets and many satellites that aren’t showing any warming.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Earth Hour- yeah right.. power usage 5% down in Christchurch but up in Wellington and Auckland. Looks like those who believe in AGW (mostly the mainstream media and brainwashed students) put their lights out, and those who know its a load of crap, left their lights on.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I don’t suppose anyone knows if the full results of this satellite thingy have been published anywhere? Presumably they have if Marohasey claims to know about them…A little telling that she uses the 1998 La Nina spike as evidence that the earth is ‘cooling’ but still…
The news said power use in ChCh was 13%…but power use over the country was above the normal saturday night average. Odd.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
A thought, Owen, does the promotion of Spencers theory mean that you people are (again) moving away from pushing solar forcing and galactic comic rays etc?
I don’t think Spencer ever supported GCR’s but I could be wrong. Ever thought about how you lot always have a new flavour of the month theory depending on the latest new denialist “research” and how it usually has to be abandoned when the research it’s based on is found faulty?
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Is Earth Hour part of the global hip science bullshit package and when does the casino deal in carbon chips on the blackjack tables?
Edit: I have just checked on our Southern hydro lakes and they’re 60-70% capacity and soon as they get below 50% I will cut the cable to north island bastards
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Andrew, “denialist” has all the connotations of heretic and is the opposite of what is needed get to the true understanding of the situation. I think that Kyoto is absolutely the wrong approach, I accept that until we understand the true impact of huge amounts of additional CO2 in the atmosphere we should limit it, so why not tax it at source and use all of that tax on mitigation (ie sequestering, or substitution).
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Better climb up the attic and get my old bike out to run my TV then dad!
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Andrew, does ‘denialist’ apply to everyone who happens to deny AGW or just those who stick to their guns on the matter no matter what? Was it you who was trying to figure out a better name for ‘denier’ (the latter in the first sentence) and is that what you came up with? I just seem to recall…
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I don’t deny AGW at all and neither should anyone else.
AGW = Al Gore’s a Wanker
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
David. you neglected to mention that Dr Jennifer Marohasy is a biased, paid persuader. She is the Director of the Environment Unit at right-wing Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. She is a climate change skeptic, denying that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. She’s not a bad looker, though.
[DPF: And after attacking her, can you comment on her arguments?]
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
owen mcshane..
you never did answer those two questions..
i)..have yu ever received funding/’support’ from any exxon-mobil climate-change denial front-groups..?
and..
2)…how exactly does your training as an architect qualify you to purport punditry in the area of climate-change-denial…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Harpoon, see Ryan Sproull’s posts further up….
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Phil,
I think Owen has admitted that the Heartland Institute paid his fare to New York for their “conference”, and the hotel bill. There were US$1,000 speaker fees on offer… I wonder who paid for his visit to Bali? Heartland again?
Mind you, he’s probably gone to bed, because I’m still waiting to see Roy Spencer’s Powerpoint….
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Even those fuckwits running Air New Zealand surely don`t believe anyone is going to be dumb enough to buy into their voluntary carbon miles bullshit ! The Travelling Public don`t even buy their crap expensive flight food. And as for the Sly City Casino turning its` lights down to “help the energy problem“ the dawks would be better to shut down the pokies to “help the gambling problem“wankers.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:41 am
It’s typical that people cite scientific evidence as substantive only when it suits, or as reid says their reaction to conspiracy theories is based on their existing world views.
Some compare the industry partisans as operating like those who defended tobacco from science. Which may or may not be true.
My own position is that Kyoto policy should be useful and effective. In not allowing for population change based on immigration, it’s designed by Europeans at the expense of USA, Canada, Australia and us. In not including the increasing production centres of the world economy, it also misses the mark. So it’s costly and ineffective in its stated mission.
Regardless of the science debate – what is real, is resource depletion. This could result in substantive change in valuation of essential products in the modern economy and this is where there is a known issue that has to be faced up to. In moderating use of some of these resources we can slow the impact and prepare for it.
As to the world environment – if (as) the glaciers of central Asian mountain plateau recede (as Antarctica is and our own SI glaciers) then water flowing into China will diminish (quite apart from water being taken from farming to supply the growing urban centres). As with the Aswan dam in Egypt (denying water to the delta), this will result in less food production and rising demand for imports (also the issues of animals eating more feed as diets in Asia change and bio-fuels and this while the world population keeps increasing).
Regardless of whether Kyoto is important, or the right way of confronting any real problem, there are major worldwide issues that require focus and some organised response.
Being the independent Green voter, we should applaud Britain’s recent recommittment to use of nuclear power and advocate that Germany and the USA do what France has. As to whether Australia should (and only once they do, can we do the same – by using their area/system of waste disposal) … and ourselves … (the issue for us is industry set up cost and location as well as comparative energy unit cost to new supplementary supply from tidal or gas imports in support of wind power, thermal and hydro). Whether the USA would welcome our Green advocacy of this while denying them access to our ports for nuclear powered ships is another matter.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:21 am
I think they’ve have/should-have better things to worry about, really.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 8:54 am
David,
Re: Marohasy. In the full piece, she runs through a few of the current sceptic tropes – such as “it’s cooling, not warming”, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her views on climate (a look at her blog, which is stuffed with sceptic pieces doesn’t either). The comment about clouds is nowhere near as definitive as she (and Owen above) suggests. Spencer (and others) have been looking for a negative feedback for years, but none has been found – at least, none that the scientific community can make work in practice. One robust finding from the satellite Marohasy mentions: the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has increased in line with model projections (when it gets warmer, the atmosphere can carry more water). That’s a positive feedback.
My advice to anyone who wants to know what’s really happening: watch what happens in the Arctic this northern hemisphere summer, and the consequences next winter. Most interesting…
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:04 am
Marohasy: “What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite,”
Gareth: “One robust finding from the satellite Marohasy mentions: the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has increased in line with model projections (when it gets warmer, the atmosphere can carry more water). That’s a positive feedback.”
These two statements sound contradictory.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:18 am
Andrew, I haven’t seen Spencer’s paper (still waiting for the Powerpoint from Owen
) so I can’t comment on that in detail, but I believe he thinks he’s found a negative cloud feedback in the tropics. That could be consistent with more water vapour – more water, more clouds, higher albedo, less heat in. Like so many factors in the climate system, there are lots of things happening together… (PS: Deltoid deals with Marohasy’s piece here.)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ohhh goody..
Vote:Climate change is a myth according to the learned postings here.
Pollute away without a conscience, fuck the environment, who needs it anyway.
SUVs should have right of way to those fucking little horrible cars, run them over and their greeny lickspittle tree hugging loonies the inhabit them. Ban the swimmers from the beaches so the superior SUVs ran race up and down the sand (and the river beds). Open fires to heat houses should be compulsory, especially in cities.
And cut the fuckin cable over the straight.. what?, often it supplies power to the South, shit better hide that crap from the ranting dumbfucks or their one comfort in life will be gone.
And not only that… trees emit carbon dioxide (at night)… it’s all those bloody trees fault anyway, cut them down and save the planet.
Power to the people! Eat the greenies!
March 31st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Gareth,
I have three Gareths in my address book, and I am not sure you are one of them so I actually have no idea where to send it.
However, here is my email: omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz so you can send the request to me there.
I have acknowledged that Heartland paid my fare to New York – I don’t acknowledge that I “admit” it. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
Vote:The Heartland Conference was sponsored by about fifty organisations from around the world and they are all listed on the site. None are oil companies etc.
Since then I have given two more papers at three more conferences in New Zealand and all pay my travel etc. That is normal practice.
You may have heard that Al Gore charges for his appearances – $200,000 is the going rate I believe.
The honorarium of $1000 in New York did not cover my expenses “around” the conference such as time before recovering from jet lag.
AS for my qualifications. I started out to be an engineer and passed my intermediate in Maths, Physics, Applied Maths and Chemistry.
Then I switched to architecture and got my B Arch in 1965. I have not been asleep since then. Two years later I got a Diploma in Town and Country Planning from Auckland, then while on Harkness Fellowship, I gained a Masters Degree in City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley, and my thesis was in urban development economics. After I returned to NZ I spent many years managing and funding High Tech projects within the Applied Technology Programme of the DFC. Then in 1995 the Governor of the Reserve Bank asked me to write a report on why housing prices were escalating so rapidly while other sectors were under conrtrol and this brought me back full circle into Resource Management etc. My papers and presentations are focused on housing markets, urban transport etc and junk science in the field of environmental management. The recent housing bubbles have been largely driven by climate alarmism (sustainability and carbon neutrality etc) and hence audiences are keen to hear what I have to say. I am one of the few specialists in this field. And, by the way, the Smart Growth theories are nonsensical even if you agree 100% with the Kyoto protocol. BIofuels are a great example of leap before you look.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Phil I don’t think it really matters if someone is a PhD Architecture or in Ultra-Complicated-Climate-Physics – if their study or methodology is dodgy, then that’s that. Though you do need a relevant degree to actually get something *published*.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Actually, Owen, all you have to do is click on my name, and you’ll be taken to my site, where there’s a mailing link…
I’ll email you direct.
You’ve covered New York. Did Heartland also cover the expenses for your trip to Bali? You didn’t give a paper there, did you? At least, not in the main forum. And I’ve heard that in order to encourage people to attend the various sceptic events, free massages were on offer. Is that true?
“Recent housing bubbles driven by climate alarmism”? Really? Forgive me for my genuine scepticism.
Cheers
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:25 am
mcshane said..
“..The recent housing bubbles have been largely driven by climate alarmism (sustainability and carbon neutrality etc)..”
what absolute utter bullshit..!
the housing bubbles here and everywhere else have been driven by two factors..
one institutional..ie..’cheap money’..
and a combination of personal greed..and fear of ‘missing the boat’..
please do explain/’tell’ to us gape-mouthed ones..just how climate ‘alarmism’ has driven the housing bubbles..?
and you confirm you are funded/supported by climate-change denial front-groups..
(they only ‘support’ you..because you pimp their agit-prop/spin/lies for them..you do know that..eh..?..)
i do however agree with you about (the current models of) bio-fuels..
they are a pox..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and..”..I am one of the few specialists in this field..”
priceless..!!
(and getting ‘rarer’ by the day..eh..?..)
(btw..did you do ‘pomposity’ as a ‘minor’..?..)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Gareth, please explain to us all why it is all right for GOVERNMENTS to be using TAXPAYERS MONEY to fund ONE SIDE ONLY of a scientific argument, and if those people NOT funded by taxpayers money did not obtain funding anywhere else, it would be quite morally OK for them to be forced to shut up shop as a consequence of bureaucratic diktat.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:35 am
“philu”, u a-hole, what is so effing HARD TO UNDERSTAND about the effect on house prices, when the amount of land allowed to be used for housing is restricted to some arbitrary amount that relates to land use at 1950′s population levels?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:38 am
Now, the world’s most powerful computers CANNOT predict every possible move in a game of Chess until there are only FIVE PIECES left on the board. And we’re expected to believe that they can “Model” the Earth’s CLIMATE???????????
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:41 am
If anything, concerns about climate change have put a dampener on the housing market, especially on seaside properties.
PhilBest, Dr. Spencer is a state (US) funded researcher, so are most of the other active scientists who are sceptical of AGW. You seem to be suggesting that the state also fund political lobbyists like Owen and Monckton, state’s don’t usually fund political lobbyists.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:45 am
On the subject of the Left embracing the cause of Climate Change, the FAMOUS Leftist Alexander Cockburn has written a SUPERB essay……….
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=821
Excerpt………
“Here in the West, the so-called “war on global warming” is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; B.A. hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company, which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch.
But what is truly sinister about environmental catastrophism is that it diverts attention from hundreds and hundreds of serious environmental concerns that can be dealt with – starting, perhaps, with the nitrous oxide emissions from power plants. Here in California, if you drive upstate you can see the pollution from Los Angeles all up the Central Valley, a lot of it caused, ironically, by the sulfuric acid droplets from catalytic converters! The problem is that 20 or 30 years ago, the politicians didn’t want to take on the power companies, so they fixed their sights on penalizing motorists, who are less able to fight back.
Emissions from power plants could be dealt with now. You don’t need to have a world program called “Kyoto” to fix something like that. The Kyoto Accord must be one of the most reactionary political manifestos in the history of the world; it represents a horrible privileging of the advanced industrial powers over developing nations.
The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to public light as a shill for two immense power schemes in the state of Tennessee: the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory. Gore is not, as he claims, a non-partisan green; he is influenced very much by his background. His arguments, many of which are based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part of a political and corporate outlook.
In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a young scientist or professor to step up and say: “This is all nonsense.” It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees were to question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to one side and told: “You’re threatening our funding and reputation – do you really want to do that?” I don’t think that we should underestimate the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people’s willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.
One way critics are silenced is by accusing them of ignoring “peer-reviewed science.” Yet oftentimes, peer reviews are nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable, and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers nodded through by experts and others given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it.
Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt like the object of a witch-hunt. One individual who was once on the board of the Sierra Club has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. A series of articles on climate change issues I wrote for The Nation elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found astounding – and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many years.
There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, “Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s,” because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles.
This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer, of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is an element of witch-hunting in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word “denier” to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. “Climate change denier” is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier.”
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:47 am
I did not give a paper at Bali – that was a policy conference, not a scientific conference and I went there to observe just as I went to observe the first Human Environment Conference in Stockholm in 1972. I wrote an extensive report for the NBR and for my mailing lists when I returned. The funding sources were mixed and are frankly none of your damned business.
I have rights as a private citizen to travel where I please. I learned a great deal by talking to reps from Africa, Eastern Europe and the Asian nations – none of which was reported on here. It’s called reporting.
The UK based Policy Action and a US Aid group arranged a press conference in the Hotel some of us were staying in which was some distance from the Conference Centre and it was extremely hot and humid and they wanted some “offer” to encourage fold to walk the distance in the heat. The hotel contained an excellent health and beauty spar and visitors were given a voucher worth about $20 to spend as they saw fit in the spa. It was mostly taken up by women. It is called marketing. Have you never been offered free nibbles and drinks at a press conference? This seemed more tuned to the local environment – but no doubt your colleagues have twisted this simple gift into something pornographic and twisted.
I suggest you read the just released Wellington Regional Policy Statement esp pages 4 and 5 and see how many policies towards High density, public transport, compact urban form (all the ingredients of housing bubbles) are based on “sustainability”, carbon neutrality, renewable energy, energy efficiency and so on. Smart Growth has always been a dumb theory posing a solution in search of a problem. Over the last years the problem has been climate change – albeit layered on all the old stuff which has been around since the radiant city. Certainly in the US the biggest bubble was in California which has also been the most enthusiastic promoter of climate to justify their “sustainable urban forms.” We are just completing the research to show the correlations and I hope to present the final paper in Houston in May – provided I can get a sponsor to get me there and back.
Vote:I gave the draft in Wellington on Thursday. smart Growth proponents consistently claim that high density households in the centre of cities have the smallest carbon footprints and hence suburban and rural residential living must be banned. (See the ARC.) Unfortunately, the Consuming Australia report (meant to support these claims) found just the opposite. Spacial determinism is just as ill informed as the old architectural determinism. Spatial determinists believe our location determines our behaviour. In reality our behaviour determines our location.
And the most sustainable (ie adaptable) housing is low density framed housing surrounded with a bit of land. We grow our own vegetables and make our own olive oil, and grow truffles, and have retrofitted solar water heating and of course we treat our own sewage and collect and treat our own drinking water. We raise our own ducks and hens but the Smart Growth people insist that my lifestyle is unsustainable and I must live in an apartment and ride on trains.
Go figure.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Andrew W Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
March 31st, 2008 at 10:41 am
“If anything, concerns about climate change have put a dampener on the housing market, especially on seaside properties.”
And the multi-million-dollar California beachfront Condo that Al Gore has just bought a share in…………….?
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Phil, are you jealous of Gore’s wealth? us free marketers are supposed to cheer on those who are successful.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Many of these alarmists are telling us “what if……..?”.
Well, what we DO know, is that meaningful CO2 abatement measures WILL have catastrophic impact on the world economy. But we actually DON’T even KNOW whether increased CO2 and global warming is harmful or BENEFICIAL, all we have is theories one way or the other, with those that theorise for catastrophe telling us that THEY are entitled to the sole benefit of the doubt.
The increased CO2 causes increased plant growth (the effect is ALREADY as high as 7%) and consequently increased “greening” of the Earth, visible from outer space long since. “What if” we ended up causing catastrophe economically by measures that averted something that would have been wholly beneficial? I think that people are going to wake up and lash back at all this madness once their power and their petrol tank bills go up by stupid amounts on the back of the Kyoto requirements.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Do you grow truffles, Owen? We might have something in common! (And you won’t find me disagreeing about the positives of a rural lifestyle).
Your funding to Bali is only an issue because you have repeatedly claimed to have never received funding from oil companies for your views. Heartland have, of course, been recipients of oil money…
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
I forgot to write; you can read my first paper directly linking the sub prime crisis to climate alarmism at:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/images/heartgaspf.pdf
The old law of supply and demand says that when you make it more difficult to subdivide and build at the waterfront the price of the existing lots go up. People with any measure of common sense are not concerned about sea levels which may rise or fall a foot or two over two hundred years. In many (maybe most) parts of NZ the tectonic plate is rising faster than the sea.
Vote:Ever wonder why the Government’s idea for a football stadium on the waterfront was not on Gore’s 6m stilts?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:08 am
RE Oil Company funding.
I have been lying for years.
Vote:I won a Harkenss Fellowship (The Commonwealth Fund) back in 1968 and of course the Commonwealth Fund was set up by the Standard Oil Mobil family. The Harkness family were also the major funders of Yale University.
Shane Jones is also a Harkness Fellow, and so is Wilson Whineray, and so is Professor Beagle, and so was Alistair Cooke.
We are all the beneficiaries of Oil Companies. So what?
Harkness also funds the New York Ballet Company.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:10 am
RE Oil Company funding.
I have been lying for years.
Vote:I won a Harkness Fellowship (The Commonwealth Fund) back in 1968 and of course the Commonwealth Fund was set up by the Standard Oil Mobil family. The Harkness family were also the major funders of Yale University.
Shane Jones is also a Harkness Fellow, and so is Wilson Whineray, and so is Professor Beagle, and so was Alistair Cooke.
We are all the beneficiaries of Oil Companies. So what?
Harkness also funds the New York Ballet Company.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Owen, sorry but to me there seems to be a disconnect between the presentation you link to above and reality.
The world has seen considerable economic growth over the last decade, this has largely been fuelled by cheap oil, much of the cash from this economic growth has found its way into the property market, creating a bubble in that market in which asset prices have moved ahead of returns.
Vote:Over the last two years the price of oil has climbed by about 40%/yr, this has meant extra costs being passed through the economy, reducing peoples purchasing power, savings ability, and discresionary spending. Not surprisingly it has also caused a downturn in property markets, with the observed results.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:32 am
PhilBest, you may have missed this point above as I added it to a previous comment:
Vote:Dr. Spencer is a state (US) funded researcher, so are most of the other active scientists who are sceptical of AGW. You seem to be suggesting that the state also fund political lobbyists like Owen and Monckton, state’s don’t usually fund political lobbyists.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Andrew,
Vote:I do not know your field of expertise, but I can assure you there is hardly an urban economist who does not recognise that the housing bubbles in the US states which have had them, (and most have not) have been driven by constraints on the supply of land.
If your arguments were correct then all States would be equally affected. Canada for example has hardly had a bubble at all except in Vancouver.
And when we examine what has driven the constraints in recent times we find that “sustainability” (code for climate change) is the main driver.
When Left Liberals like Paul Krugman and Libertarians such as Randal O’Toole agree, something must be going on.
LIke all human responses (especially those of the Urban Romantics who dominate the young profession) the arguments are complex and convoluted. Central planners have always hated private motor cars because they make people harder to plan. And trains have always had Romantic appeal. I am not at all sure that our current planners really believe that climate change will make private transport “unsustainable” but they find climate change a convenient excuse to impose minimum densities in places like Orewa which would be higher than central London. They claim we need these densities to support public transport – which will save the planet and so on and so forth. As I say, their excuses have changed over time and if climate change goes out of fashion they will come up with another one. Obesity is already in the wings.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Owen, the South Waikato town I live in has been affected, even though there has been a static population and no changes in the district plan for decades, here we have seem house prices double over the last 6 – 8 years. Tauranga was affected, even though there seem to have been few restrictions on new subdivisions and an explosive population growth. If changes to policies on subdivision were the cause the variations in council policies across the country would reflect this.
Vote:Instead we have seen across the board rises in property values. It’s people with money being prepared to buy property because of the expectation of future tax free gains.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Where there is a significant difference between countries is here:
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax
March 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Lying for years, Owen? Surely not. But you (and the NZ CSC/ICSC) are receiving a significant amount of assistance from the Heartland Institute to put your views forward. That speaks for itself.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Philbest, as for ‘benefits’, I would go there http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
did someone fart..?
oh no.it’s just vto..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Modern markets are linked and if prices go up in the Auckland region these increases spill over to surrounding regions because the people in the waikato can read the newspapers and also people start to migrate from unaffordable markets to more affordable markets and the extra deman pushes up prices and this is particularly true since 1994 or thereabouts when the inclusion of Subdivision in the RMA suddenly meant it took months or years to bring a new lot to market compared to a few weeks when subdivision was dealt with under the LGA.
Vote:Tauranga may not have a single metropolitan urban limit but the whole region and especially the Western Bays is committed to Smart Growth ideology and of course he coastline and the hills provide an MUL of their own.
The difference between say NZ and the US on this matter of local variance is that if you migrate from San Francisco to Houston (which they are doing in droves) the Houston market can respond immediately because it has no land use zoning at all. Hence Houston was able to absorb over 130000 migrants from New Orleans in one year with hardly any impact on house prices.
Imagine Auckland coping with that. We would still be trying to get the first lot through the system. Just ask the Maori at Te Arai point.
In New Zealand the general rules are the same everywhere and the retirees in the small coastal towns object like hell to anyone coming to join them.
By the way, the relocation bonus from moving from San Jose (silicon valley core) to Houston was $US1,000,000 last year. Guess where the new generation of silicon valley entrepreneurs are heading? I know, I have spoken to a few of them – and the stats reveal the obvious. US$1,000,000 is a nice piece of seed capital to get you ready for venture capital.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
and owen..dissembling/obfuscating about your sources of ‘support’..is a bit..um..!..’tacky’/credibility-sappping….
eh..?
shall we give you a new nickname..?..owen (exxon) mcshane..?
how much ‘support’..in total..have you received from these ‘front groups-that-aren’t-front-groups’..?
over the years/decades(?)..
y’know..!..a ball park figure will do..!
eh..?
(y’know owen..just a different letterhead/organisation name..
isn’t quite enough ‘distance’..
eh..?
so..that ballpark figure..?
(just so we can make up a price-label for you..eh..?…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The Heartland Institute has paid my fares and accommodation to a conference just like a host of other organisation have done and continue to do so.
Most conferences I attend are dominated by civil servants from Wellington or from local bodies. They have had their fares and expenses paid and of course they are paid out of taxes and rates.
The people who directly or indirectly fund me are spending their own money using funds which have not been taken by force.
Many civil servants come up to me afterwards and say “thank goodness you have spelled that out – I agree totally but could never say it if someone like you doesn’t say it first .”
I do not take money from government agencies because they corrupt.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Owen, except that there has been a house building boom over the last few years. That’s a clear indicator of greater demand rather than restricted supply being the driver for house price increases.
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Owen, I think you need a blog of your own to explain all this urban planning stuff that keeps coming up every time you post at Kiwiblog. Kinda like Gareth’s page!
Vote:March 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
He does:
Vote:http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/
March 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Like me, he has to drum up readers…
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
It’s in KAIWAKA??
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 9:06 am
Andrew W, miss my point about al Gore’s condo, why don’t you? YOU were talking about the value of beachfront properties falling because of sea level rise alarmism. I pointed out that Al Gore had just invested heavily in a beachfront Condo. Isn’t this just a tad ironic? How the hang do you turn around and make this observation into an issue of resentment of the fact that Al Gore is rich?
You actually raise a point here, that shows up the hypocrisy of the kind of people who support Al Gore. Alexander Cockburn at least deserves credit for his consistency. It is incredible how many leftwingers who detest fat-cat yuppies getting rich by playing markets and the like, admire Al Gore.
OK, you mention that there ARE climate scientists funded by government who are not on board the “consensus”. OK, there might be exceptions. But excuse me, it is a bit rich to use some rare exceptions to deny that government funding has been forcing compliance with the consensus on the part of the scientific community. SOME of the older, established scientists actually HAVEN’T been sacked. But you name me ONE YOUNG, NEW-RESEARCH individual funded by government who is working against the consensus.
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
Here is Roy W. Spencer, since you mention him: “The Sloppy Science of Global Warming”
EXCERPT:
“While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper…………..
……………it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.
The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.
While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.
About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of cooling…or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.
Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people aren’t allowed to.
It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.
I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.”
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am
Do read Roy Spencer’s entire article, everyone…….
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 9:30 am
philul
Vote:The short answer is none – unless you include my Harkness Fellowship which you won’t of course.
You are simply beyond reason.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Why is it important who funds the scientist to do *good science* (as in asking open ended questions) as long as it is of a publishable/peer reviewed standard??
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am
PhilBest, sorry, I still don’t get what point you’re trying to make about the condo. Are you sure it’s beach front?
“But you name me ONE YOUNG, NEW-RESEARCH individual funded by government who is working against the consensus.”
Smart young researchers will be working to refine our understanding of the science, not working to some political agenda as you suggest some should.
You will be aware of the threats to his employment that Hansen faced when his research results didn’t suit some politicians?
That article makes it obvious that Spencer is more intent on refuting AGW theory than objective assessment of it.
Here’s an interview with Monckton for your edification, the belief by denialists that their back of the envelope calculations are useful in refuting AGW seems quite common:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
And I really doubt one young scientist could be beavering away refuting every paper/report on atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, climatology, palaeoclimatology etc…!! It’s a bit much to ask don’t you think!? One aspect of these fields, like taking issue with someone’s comparison of optical and microwave remote sensing of cloud water content or some such thing maybe…
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 2:32 pm
farrar, as primitive as it may seem,
Vote:i am not sure about the moon landing at all,
farrar yous a person awarded MQ,
who understand computer,
and they just donts not even america have proper computer in 1970
April 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Re Roy Spencer: It’s worth noting what he said (in a news release from his university here) when the paper Owen’s referring to was published:
“The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming.”
Seems he’s a bit more modest about his finding in scientific circles than he is at sceptic conferences.
One paper does not make a paradigm shift, however much you might wish it. Other researchers will be looking at the data, working through the issue. If they confirm the “cooling mechanism” Spencer’s found, then they’ll start to see if it works elsewhere. And then, and then… in other words the normal working of science. Meanwhile, I suspect the planet will carrying on absorbing heat.
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh, come ON, Al Gore buying a beachfront Condo in California, and the irony isn’t OBVIOUS?
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Gareth, it’s not like ONE SCIENTIST, Roy Spencer, has done a paper that covers SOME OTHER DRIVER of global warming other than the AGW theory. There are literally dozens. What Spencer points out, too, is that there is NO paper on AGW that has DISPROVEN “natural causes”.
Andrew W, it’s not like you need to keep on refuting Lord Monckton or one or two lonely contrarians. There are various lists of hundreds of qualified scientists. We have had this debate over and over. The biggest petition I have found (and linked to for your benefit before) is NEARLY TWENTY THOUSAND SCIENTISTS calling on the US Government NOT to ratify Kyoto.
That smart arse journalist you link to goes on about Monckton thinking he’s right when “2500 peer-reviewers” can’t be wrong, yadda, yadda, yadda. TYPICAL. What is utterly dishonest about this over-used and abused argument, is that literally HUNDREDS of the 2500 DISAGREE OUTRIGHT with the IPCC final report, while the vast majority actually made very little comment, and as few as 50-60 SUPPORTED IT IMPLICITLY. THIS is why Dr Frederick Seitz resigned from the IPCC, saying: ” I have NEVER witnessed such a disturbing corruption of the scientific peer-review process”.
What I mean about research funding, is that scientists researching DRIVERS OF GLOBAL WARMING OTHER THAN Anthropogenic CO2 have been and are on a hiding to nothing where government funding is concerned.
“Climate Skeptics Reveal Horror Stories of Scientific Suppression”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Now, have I ever linked to THIS before:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
“Forecasts by Scientists, Versus Scientific Forecasts” By Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong. READ IT.
Kesten C. Green lives in Wellington. Yet another case (along with Vincent Gray) of a guy who is internationally famous in his field being ignored by the NZ media.
The point THESE guys raise is that the IPCC report is NOT a forecast according to every fundamental PRINCIPLE of the scientific profession of FORECASTING. One of their points connects exactly to Roy Spencer’s point above, that it is one of the FOUR MAIN REQUIREMENTS of forecasting, that it is WRONG to change models to fit PAST DATA and use THAT to forecast the future. Spencer’s point about variables being interpreted as positive feedback when actually negative feedbacks could be responsible, shows us that these “forecasting” boffins know what they are on about……..
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Gareth please:
Vote:That paper you refer to covered in the press release was published in July 2007. It is now April 2008.
The paper presented at the Conference is not yet published (as of today). That is why I have only referred to his verbal commentary and the PP in my NBR article (also not yet published.) The whole point of the presentation to the NY conference is that the question he asked then has NOW been answered.
Phil Best:
You will be pleased to know that I am working with Kesten Green, WIllie Soon and Ross Armstrong to carry out an audit of the forecasting used by MfE in preparing their advise to decision makers relating to Climate Change. We hope to produce a template that many groups will be able to use to audit forecasting on a host of environmental issues such as pollution of the Gulf, death from vehicle exhausts, death from open fires, risks from contaminated soils, radiation risks etc. We expect financial forecasts to be audited (and they only go out a few years) and yet scientific based forecasts are not given the most basic audits. When I audited the ARC report claiming there were 7000 contaminated sites in Auckland city the results were so damning that the ARC actually pulled in the real experts and the revised figure is now six or seven sites. Not six or seven thousand – six or seven as in fingers on the hand.
First I have to raise the funds and have 15,000 towards a total of 65,000.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Phil: The Armstrong paper is meaningless, because he’s applying the wrong tests. Climate models are physical models (ie, they calculate the physics going on in the atmosphere – same equations as weather forecasts, fundamentally), so they are not altered to fit past data. Incidentally, no climate modeller makes forecasts – they make projections, because there are multiple factors that can vary outside the response of the climate system – such as emissions growing (or falling) because of economic growth, or lack of same, or volcanic eruptions. The IPCC says, “if this happens, then this is likely”.
Owen: Well then, an unpublished (and therefore not yet peer-reviewed) paper proves even less. Let’s see what the scientific community makes of the work before we go getting all excited, shall we?
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
PhiBest.
What you describe as “a beachfront Condo” is located in the St. Regis tower at Third and Mission streets in San Francisco, about half a dozen blocks back from the water front.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/08/al_gore_buys_san_francisco_con.html
Once again you have been the victim of denialist lies.
“There are various lists of hundreds of qualified scientists. We have had this debate over and over. The biggest petition I have found (and linked to for your benefit before) is NEARLY TWENTY THOUSAND SCIENTISTS calling on the US Government NOT to ratify Kyoto.”
You’re refering to the Oregon petition, you claim these scientists are “qualified” qualified in what exactly? All that was required to sign the petition was a Bachelors or equivalent in science, of whom there are millions in the US.
“literally HUNDREDS of the 2500 DISAGREE OUTRIGHT with the IPCC final report” – a flat out lie.
“while the vast majority actually made very little comment,” – so if a physicist writes a paper that fails to endorse Einstiens relativity he is assumed to not accept it – THATS EXACTY THE LOGIC MADE IN THIS CLAIM. Most scientists involved work on their little part of the problem, if they were motivated to comment in a scientific report on the wider picture, which their individual contribution was only a small part their objectivity would be in question.
An analogy, if an engineer is building a part for a car, eg the head light reflector, would you expect him to be able to make a useful comment on the sum of everyone elses contribution?
“What I mean about research funding, is that scientists researching DRIVERS OF GLOBAL WARMING OTHER THAN Anthropogenic CO2 have been and are on a hiding to nothing where government funding is concerned.”
Utter crap, there are many drivers of climate change other than anthropgenic, these are all actively researched because understanding them is essential to modelling climate change – THEY NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MODELS FOR THE MODELS TO WORK.
soory about all the shouting but as you say, we’ve covered this ground before and you don’t seem to have heard me last time.
Vote:April 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
mc shane said..
“..The short answer is none..”
you received money from heartland..heartland are a front group..
wtf..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Gareth, what have the climate modellers been doing for the last ten years, every time their models are proven wrong? They look for factors they must have omitted, find one that could account for the difference between their model’s predictions and the real outcome over the PRIOR period, and redo the model setup, and call that “the new enhanced model”. Where have YOU been, and how do YOU think the modellers have been operating if this is not it? And as both Spencer and the Forecasting specialists above point out, this is very very error-prone.
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Andrew W, you don’t seem to be bothering to read the stuff I am providing links to for you. OF COURSE other drivers of climate need to be researched so that they can be incorporated in the “models”. But it is absurd to deny that research funding has not been massively biased in favour of the AGW research.
As for YOUR assertion that it is a lie to say that hundreds at least of the 2,500 IPCC reviewers disagreed with the report……….
READ THIS:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc-reviewers.pdf
“Examination of the Responses to Reviewers comments of the IPCC WG1 Report”
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
And THIS:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
The whole thing is a massive RORT, man, and if you’re in on it and behind it, you’re part of the next great anti-human movement to cause disaster for mankind………
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
…And the winner, with 1878 comments is … VINCENT GRAY!! Second place, with a comparitively poultry 689 comments … GOVERNMENT OF THE USA! Third place, with 362 comments … GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA!
Pat Michaels (46), Ross McKitrick (37), Stephen McIntyre (113) were also-rans.
Phil, those are comments by reviewers of the IPCC report, reviews are people and governments who ask to be reviewers.
The vast majority of reviews were NOT questioning AGW!!! They were asking for minor changes to the wording.
I’m not going to bother going through the whole list but there will be quite a few other denialists on the list.
Phil, once again you have been deceived by the lies and misrepresentations of your denialist bretheren.
Vote:April 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
What Andrew said…
Vote:April 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Oh, so “2500″ reviewers, representing a scientific “consensus” is not a lie, when that number, by your own admission, includes at least some that YOU name as flat-out denialists? And none of these people have a valid point?
They are NOT just asking for changes in wording, either, matey.
And what about the status and the connections of the IPCC lead authors, eh? What a stink forever emanates from the UN. Shades of the Oil-For-Palaces-For-Saddam bribes and kickbacks scandal.
Here is an even fuller analysis by John McLean once he’d had more time:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html
Sorry, but anyone with their own brain who does their own research DOESN’T HAVE TO BUY this ALL-TIME SWINDLE.
Vote: