Dunne to chair Climate Change Committee
December 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am by David FarrarNZPA report through Stuff that Peter Dunne will chair the Climate Change Committee. I think this is a very good idea, as Peter will do the job very conscientiously, and his background as Revenue Minister will be helpful when considering taxes vs trading schemes. It also depoliticises it to some degree, and that is welcome.
Related posts:
- Climate Change Bills
- More climate change problems for Govt
- Climate Change ETS Bill reported back
- Contraception to stop climate change
December 9th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Ironic, given the amount of hot air he expelled over the EFA…
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:27 am
I think its a load of feel good wank.
Meanwhile the planet keeps cooling, the ice grows at unprecedented rates, the usual trolls squeal climate change denier without bothering to check one single fact and we plan to give Russia a couple of billionj dollars we don’t have to feel good about voluntering to plunge ourselves into contrived stoneage.
Evidently we have a different concept of what consitutes a “good idea”.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:29 am
From memory he was the Minister for the Environment in the Lange Govt.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Peter will find himself with a dilemma if he receives independent reviews of the science.
Vote:What to do when it becomes clear that climate change is not anthropogenic and CO2 is not a driver?
December 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Lie.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“What to do when it becomes clear that climate change is not anthropogenic and CO2 is not a driver?”
He can catch a lift on one of the flying pigs going past the Beehive.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:48 am
The first step on the path to scrapping the ETS.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
There’s a Climate Change Committee?
Anyway, why would someone who is promising the people of his electorate the biggest pork barrel highway ever, chairing a committee dedicated to reducing carbon emissions??
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Climate Change: It was fine yesterday, it’s p*ssing down today. Let’s set up a committee.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Lets say we accept that mans exhaust fumes are bad, which they clearly are. How does NZ paying money to Kyoto make that better?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
We’re not paying it Kyoto, we’re giving it to the Russians so Putin can do a little more cold waresque muscle flexing.
That way we can feel good about doing our bit… for global stupidity.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
From the World Governments that brought you HIV, SARS, Bird Flu, Global Warming, The Ice age, World Hunger, Depletion of OIL and Coal by 2000, and Y2K.
We now have Climate Change.
Woo Hooo. Paying Money to another Country helps the planet because?
I understand subsidies for clean technology, and tax breaks for economies of useage, alternative power, and re-cycling.
Carbon Emmisions are a GOOD thing. Ask the plants!!!
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
If anyone listens to NewstalkZB, Leighton Smith will be talking to Peter Dunne at 10:30 this morning.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Russel Norman wants Peter Dunne to “think of the effect on the taxpayer” when reviewing Climate Change ideas.
Talk about muddled thinking.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Oh! Global Stupidity. Can we not have that one? We had enough of local stupidity under the commies.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I’d class myself as a “blue green”. I don’t feel comfortable with the more hysterical parts of the environmental movement who love to shout about doomsday scenarios from climate change. But … I also can’t get there on the just-as-strident tones from the other end of the spectrum, the climate change deniers.
I’ve read as much as I can easily get my hands on about this debate, from both sides of the argument.
It’s clear that the earth is warming. It’s clear that the Earth’s temperature does rise and fall over time. it’s clear that at the moment we’re approaching a point where we’re at the top of one of those long-term fluctuations. It’s clear that the causes are complex and our understanding of them is at a rudimentary stage.
Personally I don’t think that any of us know with any certainty what causes the Earth’s temperature to rise and fall. Both the pro- and against- camps can point to evidence that supports their view and which argues against the other camp.
So I think it’s very simplistic for people to argue that there is no such thing as climate change, that it’s not going to become a serious problem, that a simple review of the science by a parliamentary committee will uncover it’s all a hoax. That seems to be very wishful thinking.
What is clear is that **if** climate change is being **accelerated** by human activities then we do face some significant threats to our futures. I think any expectation that a new National/ACT government will magically overturn our international commitments (like Kyoto) is wishful thinking. Our international obligations are clear. We will end up with some form of ETS or carbon tax in order to frame up how we’ll meet those obligations. If we unilaterally withdraw from those obligations it will cause deep harm to our standing with our trading partners.
Certainly we can be more practical and less ideological about how we treat areas like agriculture. But if you think that Rodney Hide is going to magically sweep away climate change then I fear you’re attributing too many god-like powers to him.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am
And there we have, “climate change deniers”. Anyone who wants to see the “science” actually examined.
Its called a smear virtualmark and its from the communist handbook of dealing with oposition.
It is NOT clear that the earth is warming, when the little numbers go down its called “cooling”. Go read more, you seem to have missed a key element.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Leighton Smith talking to Peter Dunne at 10:15 (NOT 10:30) and will be a short discussion only – NewstalkZB.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I am pretty sure we wont be paying it to the Russians as we agreed not to use the “hot air” credits (the ones that arose because Russia’s “today” emissions are less than 1990 because their economy collapsed.
I think my favourite parrt of the current rules is that the government (through Solid Energy) digging up coal and exporting it to China doesn’t count as a carbon emitter but a dairy farm (where the cows eat grass, which grows by absorbing water, sunlight and, you know, CO2) does.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Quite fitting that possum head gets to chair this kangaroo court. What a fucking con, it hasn’t taken Key long to muddy the waters. Politicians are all tarred from the same brush, Key as well as his sidekicks smell money and any concern for saving the planet is window dressing. Be it EFS or carbon trading it’s about the money folks. Key as an x money trader see dollar signs as simply figures to be juggled and manipulated but to the countries producers these dollars are their livelihoods. Dunne says the discussion is over and climate change is real, bullshit, since when has the public of NZ ever been invited to discuss climate change. The politicians have a great fear of any discussion as they might actually have to prove their own stands on this issue, something that can not be done with any great certainty.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Murray … when a group is denying that climate change is happening then perhaps it’s not unreasonable to call that group “climate change deniers”? I didn’t use the term in a derogatory sense. Please feel free to suggest a more appropriate term.
As for the earth cooling, and the little numbers going down … what I’ve noted is that **both** the skeptic and the evangelists love to very selectively choose the start and end dates for any charts showing temperature change over time. Yes, the last few years have got slightly cooler than the high-point 4-5 years ago. But even a cursory analysis of the temperature movements over time show a series of peaks/troughs, with movements away from that peak/trough for a few years, then movement back to a new peak/trough … not unlike the chart of any share market index. I’m quite happy to agree that the last few years have shown cooling. But I’m very cautious about saying that is a new long-term trend. It could well be that the temperature is just pulling back from an interim high and will go back up to new highs again in 5-10 years. **No one knows**.
The earth has got rapidly warmer over the last 50-60 years. The earth has been warmer again than this at other times in the past. Life did not end when that happened, and so I don’t think it will end this time either. But what I’m saying is that we just don’t know what the future could hold, and so some prudent action seems warranted.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Anyone who is interested can review the TOR for the reviwew committee here:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/7B3B73E3-47FC-456C-83D3-8BA19D6A5BAC/95219/FinalOrderPaperforTuesday9December1.pdf
(sorry if this doesn’t come out as a link)
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Virtualmark, Most people will not realise that the statement is fallacious, because of the massive quantity of propoganda that has been fed to us.
The only reliable temperature stats that we have are the satellite records of the past 30 years. If you look at the mid-tropospheric figures, you will see that the trend over 30 years is a *FLAT LINE*. http://www.junkscience.org
The ground temperatures that James Hansen (of NASA) continues to massage frequently show a trend of increasing temperatures – - – but After Roger Pielke Sr and others did a survey of stations in eastern Colorado and found the vast majority did not meet government standards including the climate stations, Anthony Watts started a volunteer effort to survey US climate stations in the 1221 USHCN network using the governments own criteria on surfacestations.org. About halfway through that assessment, he has found only 4% have met standards and 69% were poor or very poorly sited. All of these factors introduce a warm bias.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:39 am
> The earth has got rapidly warmer over the last 50-60 years.
Except since 1998, as you do acknowledge elsewhere.
> The earth has been warmer again than this at other times in the past. Life did not end when that
> happened, and so I don’t think it will end this time either. But what I’m saying is that we just
> don’t know what the future could hold, and so some prudent action seems warranted
Yes indeed.
The problem is that once we admit that we don’t actually know what causes the temperature to go up and down, we also have the problem that we don’t actually know which actions would be “prudent” and which would just make things worse.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sorry, last URL was wrong – .com not .org.
Vote:Try http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU for the graphs.
Note that the Climate Alarmists have stated that either the lower or mid-troposphere is where definitive evidence for the alleged warming should show up.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
virtualmark when a group of fanatics choose to slap a label of everyone who doesn’t follow their particular golden calf regardless of what that party actually thinks its a SMEAR!
The label climate chnage denier has been slapped on anyone who dares question any aspect of the climate change hysteria.
BTW this is the sixth pass being made on the world is going to end because of the climate since 1903. We’re all going to die ina new ice age, we’re all going to die from the heat, the second ice age is coming, the world is going to become a desert, oh my god the glaciers are going to get us and now we’re back to the seas are rising and its getting hot again.
If you hysteria driven zealots could stick to one story for more than ten years you might look a bit less like a bunch of relgious maniacs following the high prophet of doom de jour. But ya don’t.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
VM, most “deniers” in fact believe that climate varies at all scales at all times, far from being deniers. The real deniers are the AGW mob, they believe climate doesn’t change unless humans cause it, now that’s denial. I think you are wrong in painting all or even most skeptics as denying any human impact, what most I suggest want to point out is the huge, genuinely huge, uncertainties in the existing data and the predictions. The official IPCC line is badly skewed towards alarmism, and it claims a degree of certainty that it certainly lacks. Right now the predictions are based entirely on models, and these models are problematic. They are, despite the desperate denials, hand tuned to produce past coherence with climate, they use completely false parameters in some areas to enable the equations used to be solvable (atmospheric viscosity in particular), and ensembles of the models only are in “agreement” with current trends because the error bars are so wide that +/- 10 C changes would also not invalidate the same model ensembles.
But you have points, there are risks, and these are largely on the side of possible significant temperature increases. What is a reasonable way to manage these risks ? I come round to three major objectives. One is to improve our knowledge of the science, and one key element is take a proper approach to do so. There is a current issue as I see it that the IPCC and related organizations are not doing science but political (and religious like) advocacy. Science has to be skeptical, challenge perceived viewpoints especially where the data is not very good. there are many instances of poor data being massaged to point only one way, and that is a disservice to all. Another is possibly to look at where emissions really come from. In NZ’s case I have long argued that our Kyoto deficit comes almost entirely from the particular accounting rules used, so agriculture as practiced in NZ cannot count any inputs but only outputs. In real life, NZ agriculture is largely a closed cycle of carbon, with some excesses from transportation and the conversion of CO2 to CH4. And that CO2/CH4 change, how different is it to unused land, all decaying vegetation creates CH4, plus, CH4 concentrations are falling gradually and have been for a few years. This way we can address the real problems, not those decided as politically or religiously appropriate. Finally, it strikes me that power generation is a major source of extra carbon, and that we have existing technologies that could, over time, change that. By that I mean Nuclear, and breeder technology in particular. The scale required is massive, something like a nuclear power station per week for many years, and there’s a whole infrastructure to build for the reprocessing cycle, and the attendant security concerns. But if we’re serious, it would work, we know how to make it work, and we could start now. By contrast other renewables like Wind and Tidal will never be anything other than minor contributors. Solar, well, keep the research cranked up and maybe it will contribute in the future.
And how much of that is likely to happen ? Not much, not while the religion of AGW holds sway, and the belief that we (the West in general, the USA in particular) must be punished for our sins against the earth. Not while huge swathes of the population are content to be told what they must think and what they must do, and while those who wish to query the orthodoxy are vilified and abused, threatened, and generally marginalised. The term “denier” is quite deliberately used to create the impression of a holocaust denier like mindset. All we can hope for is a little sanity, at least where NZ is concerned.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
“… when a group of fanatics choose to slap a label of everyone who doesn’t follow their particular golden calf regardless of what that party actually thinks its a SMEAR!”
“If you hysteria driven zealots could stick to one story for more than ten years you might look a bit less like a bunch of relgious maniacs following the high prophet of doom de jour.”
Isn’t it amazing how deeply unreflective some human beings are?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Ed,
“…while those who wish to query the orthodoxy are vilified and abused, threatened, and generally marginalised.”
Here’s the problem. There’s a bunch of folks who “query the orthodoxy” on blog posts like this, or websites that are one person jobs. All well and good, freedom of expression, etc, etc. But when it comes to substantiating those queries in the accepted forums of scientific inquiry – published articles in peer reviewed journals – they fail to pass muster. Either this is because of some grand conspiracy on the part of those evil science types who have vested ideological blinkers (really – the science community is part of the great leftist takeover? Even the nerds are corrupted?) or it is because the evidence used to support those “queries” actually isn’t strong.
Bottom line. If your “queries” of orthodoxy are so damning, and your critiques of methodology are so obvious, then let’s see it published in Nature or the like. Until then, you will be marginalised (vilified/abused/threatened is not appropriate) because, well, your views are marginal.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:10 am
My we are impressed with ourselves today aren’t we AG. Seems you’re one being “marginalised” though.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That’s OK, Murray. I’m secure in my own skin.
But thanks for caring.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
AG, you want substantiation from published articles in peer reviewed journals?
Vote:OK.
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”
“Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming.”
Climate Dynamics. (Compo, G.P. and P.D. Sardeshmukh. 2008. Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9).
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming
December 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Kyoto Protocol = Kyoto Suicide Pact
ETS = Emissions Tax Scam
Global Warming = GAF = Global Alarm Fest
Main promoters of this farce:
Al Gore … Carbon credits broker … delusions of grandeur.
Politicians … desire for increased taxes and power over the peons.
University profesors … increased funding and grants …. socialist agendas.
Govt employed scientists … increased funding and grants … need to keep their jobs.
Hmmmmm … does something smell fishy here?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Ross,
Fair call. But see the authors’ discussion section.
“Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006).”
So it’s not exactly a stake through the heart of the theory of AGW – more a cautionary “there may be more going on here than present models suggest.” I’ve no problem with that.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:57 am
AG is a leftist. Thats why he loves the global warming scam. It gives him what leftists always want most dearly. The power to control and the means to steal our money.
They thought they had it all sewn up. Their sycophantic media acolytes ready to run with the propaganda and lies like they always do, and poncing cronyist government bureaucrats with all of the information. Then along came the internet and fucked it all up for them.
Other people had access to the data and could discuss it and talk about it, and it wasn’t long before the left and their media plants were exposed as the liars and cheats and charlatans they are.
So learn from that AG and all you other control freak lying leftist scum out there. You media liars. Your scams won’t work anymore. We know who you are. You’re liars, scammers and control freaks who want to steal our money and build up your power base. We know who you are, we know what your game is, and we’re coming after you. So get used to it dirtbags.
As for Dunne. That oily deceitful toe rag. Here’s his big chance. He could really make a name for himself by standing on principle and exposing the GW scam for what it really is. A cheap leftist inspired fraud. Will he do that? Since when has that weaseling compromising waffling coward ever stood on principle?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Don’t forget journalists. There are now thousands of journalists who are employed specifically to report on Climate Change.
Vote:Check here to see a laughable list of things that they report happen as a result of climate change. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
December 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
RB,
Big people having real conversations here. We’ll play with you when we’re done.
Good boy.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
You’re fairly secure in your negative karma too.
Keep talking down to us though, its bound to work for you in the end, just like it did for Helen… oh wait.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Ross.
Don’t forget boat manufacturers – they’re behind sea level scares.
And astronauts – they need a reason to justify space exploration.
And, oh, I don’t know … what about ski instructors? I’m sure they are in on it too.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
AG (100) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“Until then, you will be marginalised (vilified/abused/threatened is not appropriate) because, well, your views are marginal.”
If my car was missing on one cylinder, being a ‘marginalised’ sort of chap, I’d first check the spark plugs and the points. I guess a more worldly guy like you AG, would rip all the pistons out and check the rings first.
Or would you get AL Gore’s advice?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Sorry, Murray.
I’ll try to use less facts and logic. I can see these threaten you.
But FYI – happy to see HC go. She was past her best.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
WW
But if your car was on fire, would you be checking if the radiator had water in it?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
People, I reckon its time something was done about this Dunne arsehole. If he sits himself on the side of the scammers, we should boys and girls, go after the bastard. Its time this creep was drummed out of parliament. If he sets himself up to propagate the global warming scam, that should be the last straw. Don’t forget, he set himself up as pro-family and then he enabled the Marxist Klark gang. Here, he’s going to go whatever way he thinks will gain him the most political patronage.
Winston is gone. If he can be dispatched, then so can this cynical posturing opportunist Dunne. If he doesn’t stand up for what is right on the Climate Change Scam, he needs to feel the heat. Lock and load boys and girls. Get ready to deal it to this slimy bastard.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Blow the possum head away into political oblivion.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I see on the front of this morning’s Dom Post, an advert styled to look like a yellow sticky Post-It note, saying:
John –
Obama called, looking for allies on climate change. Realized he’d got the wrong number.
Signed, Greenpeace.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Heh!
Vote:Red, we can always count on you to tell it like it is, and to add insulting (but often deserved) adjectives.
Does that count as a considered argument that your opposition will listen to?
Or are you just asking those on your side of the argument to get off our lazy bums and do something? (I’m not sure that I could “lock & load”… don’t I need a license for that?)
December 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I think you missed the point AG.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Don’t forget journalists.”
They’re not journalists.
Journalists ask questions. Inquire. Investigate. Probe. The people sitting behind the desks producing most of the stuff that finds its way into the mainstream media are just leftist propagandists who have perverted the craft of journalism into a cynical political scam.
Any real journalists comes along, they won’t get a job. Unless they’re steeped in the ideals of advocacy journalism (code for left liberal propaganda) as instilled in these stupid robots by those indoctrination camps that some have the utter gall to call journalism schools, they’re shut out.
You think a real journalist would ever get a job at TV One? TV Three? Radio NZ? The Herald? The Dominion? Yeah, when pigs orbit the sun piloting space ships.
The perversion of the media into the propaganda arm of Socialist Internationale is the most damaging event that has occurred in recent times in respect of the preservation of our liberty. We must assault their citadels if we are ever to drive the barbarians back. Nothing is more important to freedom than driving the totally compromised mainstream media, full of traitors to their trade, out of business.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I’ve yet to see you use either AG.
The point isn’t all he missed. A diet high in junk science has debilitated his thought processes Web.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
No, WW – I simply pointed out that an analogy is only as good as its presuppositions. Is the earth currently “missing on one cylinder” or is it “on fire”? Again, I’ll take my lead on this from the vast consensus of scientific opinion. You may, if you wish, look elsewhere.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
(I’m not sure that I could “lock & load”… don’t I need a license for that?)
Thanks for the opportunity to refine that. I’m referring of course to the power of the internet. If we harness all of the thought and energy of all of the good people who see through this scam, and use it to focus on getting the odious Dunne to either do what is right or get to hell out, we can do it.
The internet is a powerful source of information. It played a large part in getting rid of Winston. Dunne needs to be dealt to the same way.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“I think you missed the point AG.”
He’s a leftist. Suffering from almost incurable brain rot and with comprehensive abilities that rate about 4 out of 10 (being generous) you’re wasting your time trying to reason with such knuckle dragging ghouls. If he responded to rationale, he wouldn’t be a leftist. If he responded to rationale, he’s be fighting against the climate change scam. He just wants power and to steal our money. They can never rise above that level of thought.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
For the benefit of virtualmark he can, along with anyone else who is interested go to the following link and read about climate change. There has been long and considerable debate about the subject, beginning when it was called GLOBAL WARMING.
There are hundreds of posts, discussions and links.
Of course it has gone from global warming to climate change, a name change coined by the greenies once they realized that they were wrong. Some of them of course are still in denial, exactly what they accuse those from the non warming group to be.
This week fron the good old USA a group are starting a court action to sue Al Gore for being a snake oil sales man. All on the site.
Enjoy the read, should keep you reading till well into the new year.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32&sid=0362fa2bfa5261ffb899d2282403f96a
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
RB
“If he responded to rationale…”
You mean “reason”. Or perhaps “rational argument”.
It’s just I’d hate anyone to think you had brain rot, or comprehensive abilities lower than 4/10.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Ross Nixon and Ed Snack, thanks for your replies to my earlier post. I agree with your general messages, and yes, I’ve read all the same materials and followed the same research.
Please let me be clear … I believe the earth is in a medium-term warming phase. I believe there are long-term global temperature cycles that we don’t understand, but that we can observe in events like ice ages. I suspect (but no one can prove) that **much** of the temperature change observed since reliable records are available is due to these long-term “natural” cycles. But I also suspect, from the scientific research, that in the more recent times there has also been an anthropogenic effect overlaid on top of that natural cycle. The size of that anthropogenic change is very hard to separate out from the bigger trend, but I believe it is real.
But the point of my post at 10:08 was the last two paragraphs.
Whether you like it or not New Zealand has signed up to an international treaty which imposes obligations on us as a country. Yes, technically we could unilaterally wave two fingers at the rest of the developed world and withdraw from those obligations – let’s call that the ACT plan. I think that would be disastrous to our standing in the world and disastrous to our trade. I doubt any reasonable politician would advocate that course of action.
What is possible is that we could adjust & refine how we plan to fulfill our obligations. Like how we view agriculture within those obligations. Whether we send pricing signals to consumers & industry via an ETS or a carbon tax. I think there’s plenty of scope for this parliamentary review to step back from the ideologically pure but practically flawed ETS the Greens and Labour cooked up.
But I don’t think there’s any likelihood that any parliamentary committee is going to advocating back-tracking on our international obligations. No matter how much posters here might want that.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
rationale: a reasoned exposition, especially one defining the fundamental reasons for a course of action belief etc
rationale: noun, – exposition, logic, motivation, philosophy, principle, raison d’etre, reason, theory
Get an education you gape jawed socialist moron.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
An interesting article on the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather?commentpage=1
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Viking2, believe me I read widely on climate change. But, I have to say it’s hard to separate the propaganda from the (very small amount of) material that you can really rely on. And that’s propaganda from both sides. Both sides of the debate have zealots who seem to see this as an article of religious faith rather than a thorny problem that we only partially understand.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
RB.
Yes. If you’d said “a rationale”, you’d have been grammatically correct (though sounded very strange).
And you know how to look things up! Should do it more often.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“But I don’t think there’s any likelihood that any parliamentary committee is going to advocating back-tracking on our international obligations.”
Why not? Our government is sovereign and elected by NZers. We are not governed by any other international entity. The government should do what is right for NZers, and not fellate the crumbling corrupt cronyist commie edifice that is the UN. You’re surely not suggesting that anything the Klark gangsters signed us up to should receive any serious recognition are you?? A corrupt bunch of losers like that?/ Get off the grass. Anything they signed should be ripped up and consigned immediately to the dustbin of history. They were an incompetent bumble fisted politically opportunist embarrassment.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“Yes. If you’d said “a rationale”, you’d have been grammatically correct (though sounded very strange).”
or maybe I should have said “a logic”..???
Piss off. Self important half educated parasitical socialist idiot. You know nothing.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
COMING OUT: Why I have become a Climate Change Sceptic
Vote:By Dr Doug Edmeades
December 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Perhaps Redbaiter what is right for NZers is to ensure we don’t give our trading partners excuses to erect trade barriers to our products?
Perhaps what is right for NZers is not to do undue harm to our “clean green” reputation that underpins our tourism industry?
Perhaps what is right for NZers is to ensure that the rest of the developed world has cause to trust New Zealand will follow through on our commitments and not back-track after a few years when it becomes inconvenient?
Or is what is right for NZers is to show the rest of the world the bird? Sometime it pays to put the knife away before you cut your nose off.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Piss off. Self important half educated parasitical socialist idiot. You know nothing.”
hehe
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
..and to all of the compromisers who think leftists should be treated with respect and consideration on this and so many other issues where they seek to take our liberty and our property by surreptitious and fraudulent means-
Remember the words of Solzhenitsyn, as he sat in exile with his friends around the campfires in the gulags-
“We didn’t love freedom enough”.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Perhaps Redbaiter what is right for NZers is to ensure we don’t give our trading partners excuses to erect trade barriers to our products?”
Like no nuclear ships you mean??
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
One of the most ludicrous things about all this is, as Bjorn Lomborg pointed out recently, is that we are assuming that “the costs of inaction” are greater than “the costs of acting now”. The fallacy in this, is that even under emissions reduction scenarios that will indeed cost us dearly in economic terms, the actual difference made to temperatures will be so slight even by the IPCC’s admission, that we will STILL SUFFER almost all of the costs associated with “inaction” anyway. In other words, we are being duped. We do not have a choice between “cost of inaction” and “cost of acting now” at all; the choice is between “the cost of inaction” OR “the cost of acting now” PLUS 95% of “the cost of inaction”. In fact, it is not so much a case of reducing the “cost of inaction” by 5%, as it is of merely allegedly delaying 100% those costs by 5 or 6 years.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Redbaiter, I really don’t see how climate change is a matter of left or right. The temperature of the earth isn’t affected by whether Helen Clark or John Key is the PM of New Zealand. If the Nats had been in power for the last 9 years they would have signed NZ up to Kyoto Protocol just like Labour did. It’s realpolitik at work.
Whipping out lines about taking our liberty and our property is just puerile.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“Like no nuclear ships you mean??”
Sure. That’s another article of religious faith enshrined in law.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“hehe”
Well, tell me if I’m wrong, but everything I read from that oaf just seems to drip with arrogance condescension and conceit. All completely unwarranted. Nobody who ever pushed the barrow for socialism has any right to be any of those things. In my mind, they’re on equal footing with the jack booted thugs who bayoneted Jews Gypsies and other undesirables onto the cattle cars during Germany’s supremacy in WWII. Yeah, of course they’re not exactly the same. Slightly more sophisticated of course, but still their actions and words are underpinned by the same mindless allegiance to totalitarianism. They seek to cleanse NZ of “inappropriate” thought and speech.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
PhilBest, I agree. Strikes me the two questions are:
1. Is global warming happening or not? (set aside what’s causing it for now, just is it happening?)
2. If it is then can we sensibly stop it? Or should we just adapt to it?
Personally I’ll be quite happy for NZ to get a few degrees warmer, and I don’t buy the doomsday predictions of tidal waves and ferocious storms etc etc.
I say we should just go with it (global warming), and let’s drink to longer summers.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Possum head – excellent SSB. Nice marsupial theme going on too – I think it’s there to insulate his head from global warming.
He got us more daylight saving. There. I said something nice about him.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“Redbaiter, I really don’t see how climate change is a matter of left or right.”
Well that is merely your sad misfortune, and symptomatic of narrow information channels on the issue. I can only suggest you read a bit further, wake up to how much liberty we have lost under the left, understand how much liberty they wish to take, and inform yourself about the long march that has as its end game a one world government of socialists. The catalyst for this is the UN, coincidentally the same “objective” group pushing for climate change cooperation on such issues as global taxation and enforcement by an international police force. If you can’t see where this is leading I can’t help you I’m sorry.
I could give you a hundred sources, but as they’re out there in plain sight already. The fact that you have not availed yourself of them suggests to me you prefer not to recognize the reality. So go ahead. Drink the kool aid. Be my guest.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Blame the Ohariu Greens – they could’ve done it last month.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/additional-dripping-with-contempt-post-election-congratulations/
Although you probably wouldn’t like the alternative either.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Yeah geez, virtualmark, if the UN, the majority of civilised world leaders, and most of the universities agree that Global Warming/Climate change is an issue, well what further proof could you need that it is all just a socialist conspiracy designed to achieve world domination? Don’t talk to us about “science.” And try to keep up
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
There amount of disagreement on AGW surely indicates scientists do no know what or if warming is taking place and if it is what the causes are. I support trying to establish the facts of what is happening but if the world is warming then adaptation is a must and more/most effort should be applied to this unless/until we can find a reversal method and cool the world as fast as it warmed. In the meanwhile it appears that AGW is being used as a tool to frighten the populace with and have them accept the control(wisdom) of the elite – again. A flat earth was a fact centuries ago and largely supported by the “experts” of the day so perhaps the “experts ” today should consider if their unequivical support for AGW may consign them to same dustbin of Flat Earth Experts!
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Redbaiter, I think you’re the one drinking the kool aid. You seem incapable of seeing any issue on moderate terms, but always through the lens of the extreme right. That’s the part of the political spectrum that spawned the fascists, who were quite dab hands at taking liberty from people.
Go back to what I said … the temperature of the earth will change for its own rhymes and reasons, with nothing to do with the UN, Helen Clark, John Key, Al Gore or anyone else.
Your talking about one world government is no better than the Standards obsession with the VRWC.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thanks for that post and link at 1.03, getstaffed. That guy is a brave man, but he is typical of huge numbers of people all over the world.
That hits the nail on the head:
“……the IPCC reports are not and do not represent a consensus of scientific views. They are it appears political documents driven not by science but by politics. This was my ‘nail in the coffin’; this is when I decided too “come out”. If there is no consensus then my opinion is as worthy as IPCCs political opinion.
What I think I am glimpsing at here is a dark shrouded hand which I have seen operating here in our NZ science system since the science reforms of 1990. Science more than ever before in its long and noble history is now captured either by political or commercia
l interests. The very purpose of science – to discover the truth – is under threat.”
HEAR, HEAR.
I have posted a reading list on this subject several times on Kiwiblog. There is now plenty of analysis out there about the way the IPCC came into being. The process of crucial first-level appointments of “lead authors” was captured by Al Gore, James Hansen, Maurice Strong and Bert Bolin. All of these “lead authors” are utterly tainted people, chosen solely on the grounds of their committal to an agenda, they in no way anything like the top shelf of the world’s climate experts.
The second tier appointments, the 2,500 “expert reviewers”, was NOT captured. These appointments were made by the participating governments. Bear in mind though that of these 2,500, only around 300 actually have anything to do with Climate Science, the rest review “impacts”, taking the issue of climate change as a given.
But it is interesting which climate scientists got to be appointed as reviewers 20 years or more ago. Vincent Gray and other “deniers” were evidently regarded by the governments of the day as the most expert people; they are now of course a severe embarrassment to their governments. The idea that the IPCC Reports are “Peer Reviewed” by these people is a lie. A “peer review” means that the input of the reviewers is taken some notice of. When dozens of reviewers raise hundreds of questions and quote dozens of papers and all this gets ignored by the “lead authors”, THAT IS NOT a “Scientific” “Peer Review Process” at all.
These ignored Peer Reviewers have been frantically trying to get heard by the public for more than a decade. Vincent Gray cannot even get a letter to the Dom Post printed voicing his concerns, let alone a fair dinkum op-ed. Apparently people who actually rely on the government for their salaries and benefits, are the only people with any credibility now; the standing that Vincent Gray had at the time of his appointment evidently does not extend beyond the point at which he departs from the approved agenda.
I have had a severe blow to my belief that the media has been losing its ability to put across totalitarian style lies, thanks to the internet and talk radio and so on; when B. Obama was elected President of the USA. The great Climate Change Lie may well be unstoppable.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“but always through the lens of the extreme right.”
This is a completely subjective analysis, and my response is of course that the reason you think my moderate views are “far right” is because you are extreme left, and at a point in time when such views are wrongly considered moderate.
I make no apologies for my stance. I believe that the middle ground of politics has been dragged so far left over the last three or four decades, mainly through the left’s success in marginalizing and demonizing right wing ideas, that there is almost no right wing thought out there. Hence the Nat’s inability to articulate any view that strongly opposes socialism. It is my ambition to change that. It is why I write here, and why I seek the support of others in freeing my country from the cold dead grip of the left.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
PhilBest, re the “Climate Change Lie”. The truth always gets out. Right now I don’t think anyone can say with any authority what the truth is, the science is still just too nascent. But I do believe that in 20-30 years time we’ll have a much better understanding and we’ll look back at this and realise how little we know at the moment.
Like freethinker said, once scientific orthodoxy was that the sun revolved around a flat earth. As I said, the truth always gets out.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“Your talking about one world government is no better than the Standards obsession with the VRWC.”
So what is your view on the formation of a Global Police Group to enforce conformance with UN climate change edicts?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Gee Redbaiter, I must be the only extreme lefty in the country who party voted ACT at the last election then.
I can believe that the middle ground of politics has diverged far away from your views.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Right now I don’t think anyone can say with any authority what the truth is”
Get off the fence waffler. If you had any balls the pain would be killing you.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
“Gee Redbaiter, I must be the only extreme lefty in the country who party voted ACT at the last election then.”
There are plenty of misguided lefties in ACT. Have you forgotten its origins??
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
No, it wasn’t. Flat Earth hasn’t been accepted for somewhere around a couple of thousand years.
You are getting confused with helio-centrism. That was disputed relatively recently. That the Earth is not flat was not.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Redbaiter, my view on the formation of a Global Police Group to enforce compliance with UN climate change edicts is that it will never happen, and that it is predominantly a straw-man conjured by an extreme group in order to wave around as they stridently yell their misconceptions.
There is no legal framework for a Global Police Group. There is certainly no legal framework for such a body to impose its jurisdiction on any sovereign nation.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“but always through the lens of the extreme right. That’s the part of the political spectrum that spawned the fascists,”
You actually have no political idea at all do you know that?? Fascism is big government = the left. Truly traditional right wingers formulated the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Small unnoticeable government but strong on defence. Take your dated shallow European Marxist left wing university lecturer inspired perceptions elsewhere.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Redbaiter. Climate change science is contradictory. There are some studies that support one school of thought. Other studies that support a differing school of thought. If you think that “true” climate change science is nice and tidy and consistent and supports your own narrow point of view then you’re deluding yourself.
Never mix the kool-aid and your meds.
I’m not waffling. I’m candid enough to say that I don’t know what the true science is. And I’m not hooked up on climate change one way or the other, so I’m quite happy to say that **no one** knows what the true science is.
If you are convinced of the truth of climate change then I would suggest that’s a religious faith rather than a scientific belief.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
No, you’re waffling.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“and that it is predominantly a straw-man conjured by an extreme group ”
WTF. Here’s an “extreme group” for you-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/3530607/Lawyers-call-for-international-court-for-the-environment.html
Its going to happen.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Redbaiter. Fascism is characterised by:
1. A strident nationalism (like … the government should do what is right for NZers, and not fellate the crumbling corrupt cronyist commie edifice that is the UN)
2. A tendency to authoritarianism & totalitarianism (“I know best” … and you certainly do seem to feel quite certain you know the truth and the rest of us just don’t see the full picture)
3. An objection to socialism (really, do I need to argue that one?)
4. A view that the state should be a powerful force in the economy alongside small business people, but anti the corporation.
You seem to hit 1 through 3 pretty hard. But I’ll give you that you’re probably more the liberal economic tradition on 4.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
as my grandaddy said Always follow the money Look to see who benefits from the outcome and who suffers.
Well lets look
Governments Up against trying to raise new taxes to fund their waste and stupidity. heh heres a way to raise new taxes and smack down anyone who dares to object “what do you mean You DONT want to save the planet”
Big Business Up against it trying to raise prices and profits. Heh heres a way to do both. Tell the suckers that your products will save the planet and that they must buy them if they are a good citizen.
And the losers Well Ill leave that to you to figure out.
By the way Remember those who said if you sail west you will fall off the edge of the world
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Redbaiter. One QC argued for it. And he got Judi Dench and Friends of the Earth to say it was a good idea. I suspect Gordon Brown gave it the “well, let’s take that one under consideration” as a more politic response than saying “that’s the daftest idea I’ve ever heard”.
I’ll wager you $100 that nothing like this proposal is ever enacted, and that no significant countries agree to come under its jurisdiction.
And I note that no where in here is there any mention of a “global police force”.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ed Snack @10:55. A top post. Thanks.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Murray, I’d really like for you to argue cogently (i) what the true science underpinning our climate is and (ii) your credentials for saying so.
I don’t doubt you have strongly held views and beliefs on it. I just question how they can be based on solid facts when those are in such short supply.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“You seem to hit 1 through 3 pretty hard.”
Go away. You’re a idiot drowning in your own stupidity. I have no time to deal with people so bereft of logic.
Nobody who advocates for small unnoticeable government could ever support fascism. Your attempt to portray me as such is just typical of how the left have stigmatized right wing thought. With your false smears, your kangaroo courts and your propaganda, you are much more a Stalinist than any right winger on here is a fascist.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“One QC argued for it. ”
As usual, all you have left is to descend into idiocy.
http://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&hl=en&q=enforcing+UN+climate+change+policy&btnG=Search&meta=
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Redbaiter, I’m really not a lefty. If I’m to the left of you then that suggests you’re a long way out on the loony right.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I say anyone so desperately dysfunctional in terms of political logic can only be a leftist.
But as I have already said, go ahead, drink whatever Kool aid you want.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Redbaiter. Each signatory to the Kyoto Protocol will enact laws to support their commitments, and those laws will inevitably impose penalties.
But like I said, I’ll wager you $100 that no Western country ever puts itself under the jurisdiction of any “global police force” or global court of the environment.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Redbaiter. Genuine question. Who do you think is to the (political) right of you?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Is it just me or is the sight of Dunne standing up in the house enough to make one feel ill.
I still want to know if that prick has paid back the money he stole from me.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You see, Virtualmark, what happens when you seek to express an “inappropriate” thought round RB and his minions? You get rationale. Lots and lots of rationale.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
AG (109) Vote: 0 7 Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That’s OK, Murray. I’m secure in my own skin.
But thanks for caring.
Snakes like you are never secure in your skin. You are forever changing the skin.
[DPF: Less abuse please]
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
C’mnon DPF … that last one was actually quite clever!
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Not all that abusive either, relatively speaking.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
virtualmark (561) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 5 Says:
December 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Perhaps what is right for NZers is not to do undue harm to our “clean green” reputation that underpins our tourism industry?”
So to look after the presantly failing tourist industry, it’s a good thing to absolutely fuck the agricultural industry. Riiiiight.
The proposed ETS penalties will put a lot of cockies off the land, look it up … $30,000 – $40,000 per year for average farms. It will certainly fuck the limited viability I am allowed to have on my place.
virtualmark again
“Whipping out lines about taking our liberty and our property is just puerile.”
Have a look at General Debate 07/12 and see why I said this:
“It will certainly fuck the limited viability I am allowed to have on my place.”
What were you saying about liberty and property rights again?
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Webwrat, if you look back through this thread you’ll see I hope this climate change committee unwinds the agriculture provisions in the Labour/Greens ETS.
Like you I don’t see the point in fucking over our agricultural industry. Sheep fart. The Greens should just get over it. It was always some sort of religious purity decision by the Greens to put those agriculture provisions in there. Sure, ag is a big portion of our emissions. But it’s really unclear how we can change that. And our trading partners have been having behind-the-bike-shed chats with NZ reps saying that it’s unhelpful for us to set a precedent of bringing agriculture in to an ETS.
What I would suggest though is there could be good value in AgResearch, HortResearch etc doing more research on “low fart” grasses. I know they’re doing that already but maybe it’s an area the Govt could put a little more resource into?
What I meant by “not doing undue harm to our clean green reputation” is that if NZ was to unilaterally withdraw from Kyoto then the fallout from that would really mess with our ability to say we’re some sort of untouched paradise that people should come and visit. Tourism is one of our biggest export earners. Be stupid to mess with that.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Prof Bob Carter had a good article in yesterday’s Dom. Post:
Dominion Post 8-12-08
“New Zealand needs a national climate policy that is built upon sound science rather than alarmism, writes Bob Carter.
Time to take a cool-headed climate stand
All this pain for less than one-thousandth of a degree gain? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model of dangerous, human-caused climate change has failed. Independent science relevant to supposed human-caused global warming is clear, and can be summarised in four points.
Vote:First, the global temperature warmed slightly In the late 20th century and has been cooling since 2002. Neither warming nor cooling were of unusual rate or magnitude.
Second humans have an effect on local climate, but, despite spending more than US$50 billion looking for it since 1990, no globally summed human effect has been measured. Therefore, any human signal must lie buried in the variability of the natural climate system.
Third, we live on a dynamic planet; change occurs in Earth’s geo-sphere. biosphere, atmosphere and oceans all the time and all over the world. No substantive evidence exists that modem rates of global environmental change (ie ice volume) lie outside historic natural bounds
Last, cutting C02 emissions, be it in New Zealand or worldwide, is likely to result in no measurable change in climate, because extra increments of atmospheric CO, cause diminishing warming for each unit of increase; at most, a few tenths of a degree of extra warming will result from a completion of doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial time.
These facts notwithstanding, the Clark government wormed its C02 taxation bill (euphemistically termed an Emissions Trading Scheme) through Parliament just before it lost power, based on two spurious grounds. It presumed, first, that dangerous warming caused by human emissions is occurring, or will shortly occur. And. second, that emission cuts will prevent significant amounts of future warming. There is, therefore, now a dramatic disjunction between scientific reality and the stranglehold global warming alarmism has on planned New Zealand climate policy.
Current public views about climate change are based upon 20 years of promulgation of dangerous global warming by what has become a hugely powerful coalition of self-interested groups and agencies. The previous New Zealand government did not possess a national climate policy; instead, it relentlessly promulgated an imaginary global warming policy based upon sub-prime science, sub-prime economics and sub-prime politics.
In dealing with the certainties and uncertainties of real climate change, the key issues are prudent risk assessment and adaptive response. As is the case for other unpredictable, unpreventable natural planetary hazards, policy to deal with climate change should be based on adaptation to change as it happens, including the appropriate mitigation of undesirable socio-economic and environmental effects.
Trying to “stop global warming” by limiting carbon dioxide emissions is simply an arcadian fantasy, since making deep cuts to New Zealand’s emissions would at best help to avert or delay future warming by less than a minuscule one-thousandth of a degree.
New Zealand needs a national climate policy that is rooted in sound science, sensible precaution, prudent risk assessment, and efficient and effective disaster relief. The ball is now in your court. John Key and Rodney Hide.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2008%2012-08%20RMC%20in%20DomPost.jpg
December 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Virtualmark , why is NZ the only country to have animal emissions counted as carbon emissions when our pastoral agriculture is far less intensive then many overseas countries?. Could it be the socialists wished to please their political masters, the far left in Europe and that bastion of all things left the UN, what else did they have to offer? New Zealand has been sold down shit creek for forty pieces of sliver, the bastards who signed us up to this little con should be shot for treason.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
As Prof Bob Carter commented in his excellent NZone interview last April, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU), the last government’s insistence on including agricultural methane emissions under its Kyoto obligations was regarded with complete mystification by overseas observers, given that it was not a requirement and that world atmospheric methane levels have been decreasing for the last 10 years…
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Side show bob … nah, I don’t buy the grand global socialist conspiracy theory. I think the Kiwi Greens are ideologically wound-up enough to want animal emissions in there all on their own without needing to do it just to please people in other countries.
Our Greenies don’t need any other weirdos to egg them on, they’re quite happy being looney all on their own initiative.
Vote:December 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
AG, although I realize that you are quite secure in your beliefs, having been told on good authority that they are correct, I will bring up three minor examples that perhaps might resonate if you wish to think for yourself for a change. The examples aren’t particularly original, but they do offer some illustration.
Firstly the old Alfred Wegener plate tectonics story, in short. For some years, despite the fact that many geophysicists were interested in the “continental drift” idea, nobody published anything in the professional journals that supported the idea, and there were no major conference addresses or such. There was no mystery cabal suppressing the theory, no political desires to suppress the idea, so why ? So important ideas, later shown to be correct, can be entirely unrepresented in the professional literature for some period.
Secondly let’s mention Chris Landsea. Chris resigned from his role with the IPCC because the political summary provided (the one you and all the journalists read and quote from) deliberately misrepresented the scientific evidence. Landsea was THE hurricanes expert, and there is no reasonable analysis that shows that world wide hurricanes (or their regional equivalents) are increasing in frequency or intensity as claimed. That is not what the TAR summary claimed. There is direct political interference in the science, and yet I would wager that most people (like you) simply believe the statements about increases in hurricanes. After all, they wouldn’t lie to you would they ?
Thirdly, and my old favourite, paleoclimatology. Really, you should look at what passes for evidence about the “unprecendented” nature of the current climate. Would you believe the “hockey stick”, that a few bristlecone pines in the Sierras “globally teleconnect” to the “world climate field”, even though they don’t reliably correspond to local temperatures ? What if you took those records out, or better, replaced them with updated research (and what is more, far better research, the originals were used to “prove” via a peer reviewed paper, that the abnormal growth was directly in reponse to CO2 fertilization and not temperature), guess what, no more hockey stick, even when you take the unique statistical treatment into contention. So why, you will ask, is this not in peer reviewed papers. The answer is, some of it is, but sadly the new data is not available to “casual researchers”, on legal advice the original PhD submission is unavailable to the public. I, for one, wonder why the data is so dangerous.
VM, humans have been affecting climate in many ways for probably over 5,000 years, maybe longer. Land use changes have had undoubted short and long term affects. Some of these are observable today and are often confused with the general AGW hypothesis. Examples are Mt Kilimanjaro, where the reduction in glacial volumes is far more consistent with reductions in precipitation resulting from deforestation on the Eastern side of the mountain, and similar changes in Cloud Forests in central America, where again deforestation induced precipitation changes are often ascribed to temperature changes. NZ’s climate has undoubtedly changed because of land use changes as well, although I doubt that we have reliable means of describing the changes in detail. One modern impact relates to what is commonly known as UHI, or Urban Heat Island affect. this is suprisingly large, an Australian paper calculated changes up to 8 degrees C for larger cities, and the approximate relationship was based on log population, with the effect noticeable down to quite small places, 1,000 people or so. That paper did not deal with the variances over time, but as places grow the impact should be measurable.
Vote:December 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Fight fight fight.
Vote: