Aufmerksamkeit der Waldbesitzer!
A helpful forest owner has sent me a copy of the latest communication he’s received from MAF – see http://www.maf.govt.nz/sustainable-forestry/ets/ets-advert-lores-web.pdf
It tells land owners that “if you own forest land established before 1 January 1990 you must notify the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of any deforestation greater than two hectares of forest since 1 January 2008.
Failure to notify deforestation of more than 2 hectares by 31 January 2009 may result in the landowner committing an offence under section 129 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002.” The document gives people just a week to do it.
Penalties under that Act include an $8,000 fine for a first offence, rising to $24,000 for a third offence – all for changing the use of just 2 hectares of your own land! ( see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0040/latest/DLM1662698.html?search=ts_act_climate+change+response+act_resel )
Note also, that offences under section 129 are strict liability – that is, you don’t have to have intended to break the law or even know about it. Don’t notify MAF that you cut down a few trees on your own land last year and the little green men from MAF will haul you before the courts. No wonder the design of the MAF document looks like something out of an authoritarian state. It will certainly attract attention.
It does make you wonder though what sort of snooping state Labour’s climate change policies were going to create. Already we know that MAF has taken photos of every property in New Zealand to check how many trees were on them on 31 December 2007 so they can come back later and check later that you haven’t been a naughty kiwi and tried to export a few logs. Trees are now the property of the state!
And by the way, isn’t the Emissions Trading Scheme meant to be on hold pending the Select Committee review? Sounds like someone forgot to tell MAF.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
“And by the way, isn’t the Emissions Trading Scheme meant to be on hold pending the Select Committee review? Sounds like someone forgot to tell MAF.”
Surely you haven’t forgotten your constitutional law, David? Bill of Rights 1688, article 1? Fitzgerald v Muldoon? The executive cannot suspend an Act of Parliament by decree (or press release)?
I mean, I know National has its 100 days of action, etc. But surely you’d accept that Parliament is still sovereign in NZ?
And, without necessarily supporting the policy (I simply don’t know enough about it), felling 2 hectares involves a little more than cutting “a few trees on your own land “. This website (http://www.flatrock.org.nz/forest_related/excerpt_nz_forestry_info_memo.htm) suggests “Good forestry management practice in New Zealand yields 325 trees per ha at clearfell.” If it is correct, then you’d have to drop 650 trees to meet the reporting requirements … not something that might slip the mind, I would have thought!
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
…and the wedge gets knocked one notch further in.
This is actually very frightening. It is also ridiculous beyond belief.
Forest Nazi’s ! Didn’t anyone tell MAF that the socialists lost the election?
Today your Forest; tomorrow your lawn, fireplace, air conditioning,….what is the definition of “freehold land” these days?
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Yeah – Parliament.
They forgot to pass a law putting it on hold.
Oops.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Oh look, the rampant socialist thinks it’s ok. I’m shocked.
Surely the poiont is not whether it slips your mind that you chopped the trees down, but whether you should have to report it to the government . FFS.
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
It’s supposed to read “Achtung Waldbesitzer”
“Aufmerksamkeit der Waldbesitzer!” means something like “the attentiveness of forest owners”.
Sounds like the result of an online translator to me
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Well… This is a change. I was worried that the local Iwi owned the airspace my trees grow in but now I know that the govt own my trees so the airspace is really not important. I’m also worried that radio waves are blocked by my trees – do I need to pay compensation for this transmission disturbance ?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
CraigM,
Still smarting over being caught lying on your global warming post? Let’s hug it out, bitch.
“Oh look, the rampant socialist thinks it’s ok. I’m shocked.”
My post actually read, “And, without necessarily supporting the policy (I simply don’t know enough about it),” … you need to be more attentive to what people actually say.
“Surely the poiont is not whether it slips your mind that you chopped the trees down, but whether you should have to report it to the government . FFS.”
My sole point was that the demand isn’t quite as onerous as DPF makes out, and the chance of accidental non-compliance perhaps not as great as he fears. But as for the overall justification for the policy, I’ll repeat again in capital letters so you get the point: I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS TO FORM A JUDGMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Even you should get that.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Achtung, achtung. trees are sacred?
Tell that to the dairy business.
The ETS is a crock of!
It has been quite cold to-day in Northern England.
Moreover the Artic has had its biggest ever freeze over for decades.
And all the MSM can talk about is the Antartis which is at its normal ice carving state.
These lazy bastards never go to these two regions in the middle of their winter do they?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“And all the MSM can talk about is the Antartis which is at its normal ice carving state.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16460-even-antarctica-is-now-feeling-the-heat-of-climate-change.html
Warning: Contains references to science. May cause cognitive dissonance amongst certain readers.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
oh look property theft on socialism’s watch. Who would have guessed?
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
MAF need to include a swastika in their logo I’m thinking.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Time the Govt. got its shit together and did something, anything would be good, better than partying hard at Ratana.
These guys are rapidly becoming an abject failure. Nothing from the action man and worse English is exactlywhat we said he would be i.e. useless and stuck in the past. Just about time for another election.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The persistant failure of both the seas and temperatures to rise certainly seems to have resulted in some cognitive dissonance amongst certain readers who wouldn’t know science if they woke up with it.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“The persistant failure of both the seas and temperatures to rise”
Source, please. Otherwise I’m calling you a liar.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Dam some arsonist set fire to the trees and burnt the entire lot out, what ever shall i do.
Fail law is fail.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Go fucking measure the Pacific dickhead.
Not one fucking milimetre!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
AG ; one little warning. Don’t mistake my not wanting to waste time answering your one eyed close minded approach to life, with me hiding from you.
And I would thank you not to call me a liar, unless you are prepared to do so to my face. In which case feel free to post your address. I’ll tolerate being disagreed with, even being proved wrong, but I won’t tolerate being called a liar.
I tried yesterday, more fool me, to have a decent debate in an adult fashion. Go back and read your posts, You got nasty and personal, just like a petulant child who doesn’t get his way.
You are one eyed, miopic little fuckwit with whom I have no further wish to debate. I’ll keep an eye on your posts and if you ever, ever, concede or even consider that someone elses opinion just may be worth considering, then perhaps I’ll talk to you again.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Murray – you are a liar.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-4K6CPTC-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5919d49e5d02d69d8c4d0a8b5957a61e
“The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising. We expect that the continued and increasing rate of sea-level rise and any resulting increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme sea-level events will cause serious problems for the inhabitants of some of these islands during the 21st century.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“And I would thank you not to call me a liar, unless you are prepared to do so to my face. In which case feel free to post your address. I’ll tolerate being disagreed with, even being proved wrong, but I won’t tolerate being called a liar.”
Best, then, to carefully check your claims so that you don’t post untruths. Otherwise it’s easy to, you know, be mistaken for something you clearly think you ain’t. And decent people in adult debates admit when they are wrong. If you can’t do this, then I agree there is no further point debating. Kisses!
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
AG – my cell # is 021 830664. text me your home or office address. I’d like to return the kiss.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Dam you two, i really don’t like saying this but, the internet is not serious business, go take a walk.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
That would be:
Government funded ‘New Scientist’ then?
Having been diving in the Maldives four times, and having seen the water lap the beach, and foreshore.
Name me just one island that has been swamped by rising sea levels? Go on AG.
There are some atolls that are very close to oblivion on your estimates.
Last nigh on the BBC there was a munchkin that suggested that the Antartic was going to totally melt and raise sea levels by between 60-70 meters. He actually meant centimeters, but not just as exciting.
Wanker.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
CM
Oh, grow up. This is a blog site with robust commentary. If you can’t take the heat without having to playact at being Charles Bronson, then you need a new hobby.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
AG there is no such thing as global sea level. It is a statistical artifact.
Sea levels around Tuvalu are falling as they are in most of Europe. At the Southern end of the UK sea levels are rising faster than average because the land at Scotland is rising faster than average and so the UK is rotating around an East West Axis.
Similarly in NZ. Whether sea levels are rising or falling or stable depends on where you are.
Measurement is the key.
Actually the fact is that the measuring stations in most of the Southern Hemisphere show no overall pattern of rising seas and certainly no dramatic increase in the last fifty years.
Tuvalus problems with sea water incursions are caused by their own mismanagement of their reefs and their lands.
But it is much easier to blame the rest of the world.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I thought you were making a pass at me. I really do want to return the kiss.
me thinks it is you who needs to stop taking himself so seriously.
But ok, let’s play nice. We obviously have a 180 degree different view on pretty much everything and that is just fine by me.
Seriously, I KNOW I make mistakes but don’t ever say I’m deliberately lying. And AG, no matter how clever you think you are, no one is ever 100 percent correct on everything. A little humility goes a long way towards humanity.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
AG, the Antarctic isnt warming as reported.
All they have done is find some new statistical methods by people who arent statisticians .Its the Hockey stick all over again. But of course no mention of the increase in Antarctic sea ice.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
CM
“Seriously, I KNOW I make mistakes but don’t ever say I’m deliberately lying. And AG, no matter how clever you think you are, no one is ever 100 percent correct on everything. A little humility goes a long way towards humanity.”
Agreed. And apologies for letting matters escalate out of hand … but I stand by my general point: if you make claims, you need to be able to back them up. I endeavour to do that with all my posts. And if you fail to do so, then make a mistake which you do not subsequently acknowledge, it is not unreasonable to attach the term “liar” to you. It may not be a deliberate lie, but the effect may be the same. And it’s effect that matter, not intentions.
With that in mind, Owen … I’d like references please. Because these studies disagree with you.
Bruce C. Douglas (1997). “Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination”. Surveys in Geophysics 18: 279–292. doi:10.1023/A:1006544227856.
\ Church, John; White, Neil (January 6, 2006), “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise” (pdf), Geophysical Research Letters 33: L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, L01602, http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf, retrieved on 13 October 2007 PDF format
“Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”. in Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
jacob van hartog
I keenly await the publication of your refuting article in Nature … ’cause you’ve got the evidence to pass peer review, right?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Wait let me check here, you allowed to gob off at me but I have to go visit you if I wish to return the favor?
Is you brother bigger than mine as well?
Fuck off noddy.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Do whatever you want. That’s the beauty of individual freedom.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
” an offence under section 129 of the Climate change response act 2002″
How bloody ridiculous, we create a piece of legislation for something that does not exist, what next?, the “Easter bunny protection act”.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
AG
Do you really believe that CO2 levels as a result of human activity are the key (most important) factor in climate change?
Do you really have such a big ego that you think the effects of human activity can accelearte and slow down natural climate variance that has been occuring for billions of years – even before people turned up on this planet?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
When I was a kid, the summers were longer and hotter — I’m sure of it
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
aardvark
I had occasion to visit one of my old primary school halls a few years back. It too was bigger and more impressive when I was a child.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Fascist fucks, I do hope the civil servants of MAF fame are part of the great exodus of civil servants spoken about in a previous post.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
AG , Nature doesnt allow rebuttal articles.
Anyway its the scientific version of Readers Digest, as a commercial venture the editors rewrite the scientists work to fit their maximum length. Like any scientific journal they have published rubbish and falsehoods and rejected major discoveries.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
AG heres the nature article summary.
Doesnt mention AGW at all.
“Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.”
Seems to be ‘regional changes in in atmospheric circulation’ are behind the very slight increase.
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“How bloody ridiculous, we create a piece of legislation for something that does not exist what next?, the “Easter bunny protection act”
I had to make an application years ago for an ‘air discharge consent’ under the RMA. Although the activity could have produced discharges we had to prove it would not – and then apply for the consent.
This sort of BS has been happening for years (RMA =1991)
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
AG
The linked article was all about global sea level rise and made no mention of specific locations I mentioned.
Do you recognise that sea level on the Bay of Plenty are actually falling as the tectonic plate grinds it way over the Pacific plate?
Dr Kear, ex director of the DSIR gave magnificent evidence to the Council Hearing which wanted to extend the “no build” line inland to protect dwellings from future inundation showing how there was no such risk.
Last I heard they had rejected his evidence as expert witness territory because being a property owner he had a conflict of interest.
AS if the consultants who do all this work for Councils around the country had no conflict of interest!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
The Americans now recognise that farmed pastures are carbon sinks and the range lands are already selling their carbon credits on the market.
They ignore the belching ruminants and agree that well managed top soil sequests carbon while we ignore our topsoil and perennial pastures and include belching ruminants and assume that turning trees into pasture is a sequestration deficit whereas it may well be a gain.
But as we all know – the science is all settled.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
On hold?
Two words (and one joining thing): Fitzgerald v Muldoon.
[DPF: Yeah, fair point. I guess National forgot to repeal it under urgency
]
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Burt asks me “Do you really believe that CO2 levels as a result of human activity are the key (most important) factor in climate change?” Insofar as the vast weight of serious (ie peer reviewed and published) evidence supports this hypothesis, then yes. You seem to think it is impossible simply because it sounds unlikely. But so did the theory that the earth was round, that it went round the sun, or that tiny invisible microbes are the cause of disease. The question is, what is the evidence? And the evidence is stronger that this is the case than not.
Owen … you may recall that it was YOU who claimed there is no such thing as “global sea level”, and thus no evidence it was rising. I provided evidence to refute this. As for Tuvalu, see my post at 12:34 pm. I have no idea about the Bay of Plenty, but fail to see how this really is relevant to the general point.
Jacob … I provided the link solely in refutation of GM’s claim that the Antarctic was not warming up. I didn’t claim that the article said AGW is the cause of that warming. But at the least, you must admit it is evidence that the globe IS warming … now the question is what is causing this. And again, the evidence best supports the AGW theory – unless you can provide a better supported cause. And feel free to publish this cause and the evidence for it in a different peer reviewed, reputable scientific journal, if you feel Nature is below your status as a thinker.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
AG.
You mentioned you have a 6 month old? – pretty soon he/she will be singing along to the kids programmes on telly. Here’s one that was a favourite amongst many kids.
http://members.tripod.com/tiny_dancer/one.html
read the words AG – get the hint!!!!
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
AG when it comes to sea levels, anthropomorphic generation of greenhouse gases plays only a small part, if it plays one at all. From the USGS:
“During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists.
“Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level.”
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
AG
Sea levels…. well given we have only been able to measure sea levels with any form of accuracy in the last few decades (from space) and given that land is continuously moving (sinking in one locale and lifting in another) I can’t quite see how we can draw any conclusions about sea level other than it is what it is. Furthermore given land is solid rock floating on molten rock when land sinks in one place, loosely speaking, it lifts somewhere else. One plate sinking under another causes one bit of land to sink while another is pushed up – so lets get serious and admit that drawing conclusions about sea level is like rearranging a pile of rocks in the bath and claiming that rearranging them didn’t impact the water level but rather it was a result of the beads of sweat that dripped off my forehead due to the exertion of moving them.
CO2 is an interesting beast, increased CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are what glasshouse growers artifically create to promote more rapid and vigorous plant growth which has the effect of soaking up the CO2 and producing lots of oxygen. Additionally CO2 suspends in water, more so when the water is warm. This is why as things start to cool the CO2 level increases. But hey, lets not confuse physics and biology with politics.
Temperature graphs
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Sun spot cycle graphs
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06mar_solarminimum.htm
Additional sun spot cycle reading
http://cseligman.com/text/sun/sunspotcycle.htm
CO2… I won’t argue it’s a factor, but that’s what it is – a factor. Humans are not in control of the climate and if it’s changing due to the biggest factor (the energy levels from the sun) then attempting to control human behaviour to change the climate is folly – good marketing, but folly all the same.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
doooh – missed a key word….
CO2… I won’t argue it’s NOT a factor, but that’s what it is – a factor.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
AG
Re: Sea levels, my grandmother (before she died) talked about the swamps surrounding Napier city before the big shake in the 30′s. Interestingly my grandmother didn’t claim the sea level dropped after the earthquake but rather she acknowledged that the land lifted.
Geologists discovering Napier a few thousand years from now might conclude that sea levels use to be higher and that it appears they fell quite drastically over a short period – they would be wrong.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Oh, also.
Roll up, roll up – buy your 1.9 hectare forestry blocks here. Each block individually titled and vested in a trust….
The law of unintended consequences will strike again, lawyers will make a fortune splitting up larger blocks and establishing seperate legal entities. Timber prices will rise and this will impact housing affordability.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:38 am
What’s with the (bad) German? I thought we’d passed the Monty Python era, or do all German phrases still evoke imaginings of a totalitarian state? And in any case weren’t the Nazi’s generally PRO industry/business?
January 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Burt,
“CO2… I won’t argue it’s not a factor, but that’s what it is – a factor. Humans are not in control of the climate and if it’s changing due to the biggest factor (the energy levels from the sun) then attempting to control human behaviour to change the climate is folly – good marketing, but folly all the same.”
Yes – the precise problem is that human beings aren’t in control of the environment, but their actions influence this. Why should this be so impossible? We’ve done quite a bit already!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon
“The Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) or wild pigeon was a species of pigeon that was once the most common bird in North America. They lived in enormous flocks and during migration it was possible to see flocks of them a mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long, taking several days to pass and containing up to a billion birds.[1][2]
Some estimate that there were as many as five billion passenger pigeons in the United States at the time Europeans arrived in North America.[3] Others argue that the species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, but their numbers grew when devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases led to reduced competition for food.[4]
During the 19th century, the species went from being one of the most abundant birds in the world to extinction.”
And I’m sorry, but your claims about solar activity/sunspots are plain wrong. Even the first two sources you cite demonstrate this – there simply is no correlation between NASA’s sunspot cycle and the temperature change graph. Look at them again. They just don’t match.
Further reading, if you genuinely are interested in this issue:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
“Despite these problems, most studies suggest that before the industrial age, there was a good correlation between natural “forcings” – solar fluctuations and other factors such as the dust ejected by volcanoes – and average global temperatures. Solar forcing may have been largely responsible for warming in the late 19th and early 20th century, levelling off during the mid-century cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980).
The 2007 IPCC report halved the maximum likely influence of solar forcing on warming over the past 250 years from 40% to 20%. This was based on a reanalysis of the likely changes in solar forcing since the 17th century.
But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).
Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun’s ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.”
January 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Check this out for a true assessment of what little remaining credibility the GW myth enjoys.
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
You commie control freaks/ leftist scare mongerers/ funding obsessed “scientists” are all sprung. Give it up.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Umm … the economic crisis has caused the US population to focus more on their immediate concerns regarding jobs and living standards than the environment, therefore GW is a myth? Your logical reasoning once again amazes me … just not in a good way.
By the same reasoning, of course, the fact the libertarians only got 0.05% in the 2008 election proves that they (and you) are completely and utterly wrong about everything that they (and you) say. It must do, because truth ultimately depends on what people think is important and relevant right here and now. Right, RB? Right?
January 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
AG proves again that leftists have comprehension skills that are barely better than those of week old road kill. GW, the disaster that is going to end the world unless we take action, rests at the bottom of the list of concerns. Meaning that people don’t buy the scare mongering. Not any more.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
And Redbaiter once again proves he can’t string an argument together over two consecutive posts, making one wonder whether this 15 year old remembered to take his ritalin today.
Here’s my very, very simple question, RB. Is the truth or falsity of a claim dependent on how popular/unpopular it is at any given point in time?
January 24th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“Here’s my very, very simple question, RB.”
A question that is 1) based on false premises and 2) has no relevancy to what I have posted so far on this issue. Let me try once more, with patience rapidly running out, to explain the point to you-
GW is presented by its believers as a cataclysmic event that could spell the end of life as we know it. If people bought this argument, the issue would be top of the list. Its at the bottom. Meaning people do not buy the scaremongering.
What relevance does the question “Is the truth or falsity of a claim dependent on how popular/unpopular it is at any given point in time?” have to this point? The question you should be asking is “Do people believe the scaremongering of the global warming scammers?? The answer, if one looks at this poll, is an emphatic ‘no’.
The issue is whether people believe your scaremongering. Not whether majority agreement means something is true or not.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“The issue is whether people believe your scaremongering. Not whether majority agreement means something is true or not.”
Not so, RB. There are 2 different issues here:
(1) Is AGW real as a matter of fact? This is an empirical question, best answered by the scientific method. And the science is very strongly in support of that hypothesis (as you tacitly admit, having shifted your usual line of argument on this issue).
(2) If AGW is real as a matter of fact, why aren’t people (at least in the USA) more worried about it (or, rather, seeing it as an immediate policy priority)? There might be a number of reasons for this. It might seem too big a problem. It might seem too distant a problem. It might seem like someone elses problem. It might be that they’ve been mislead on the evidence for the problem, and not think there is one. Who knows?
Now, you somehow suggest that because of (2), (1) isn’t relevant. This is like arguing that so long as a family doesn’t know or care their house is burning down, then they won’t get burned by the fire. But the real world has a funny way of getting its revenge on those who try and close their eyes to it …
January 24th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Yawn.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Oh dear. Having lost the argument, RB needs a nap. Sleep well, little ‘Baiter, and dream of lots of lovely, lovely freedom.
Mind you, 5pm is very late for someone of your mental age…
January 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Having lost the argument”
Always amuses me the way leftists see nothing incongruous in appointing themselves as umpires at the same time as they contest.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Well, if you can answer/rebut my post, then do so. Otherwise, if it looks like a loser, writes like a loser, and quacks like a loser …
January 24th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Yep, the science is settled alright. So much so that nobody knows what to expect. Must be all that extensive
politicspeer review process that got it soooo wrong!January 25th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Hey people, the sea has always been clear of ice in northern Arctic reaches in summer. That is where the the famous North West Passge was supposed to lurk. Even nuclear subs surfaced there once. In the frigid fifties. Just because atlases colour these bits in white doesn’t mean it is iced up. Wake up prats. Further………. if you look at the world and look at the small white bits at the poles, how the hell is that small bit going to flood the whole sea and all the oceans several meters, get real. Over the whole world! Is that not pencil envy taken too an extreme. Wake up crap flingers.
I am not a party pooper or a wowser but has it never occured to the learned that the carbon locked up in coal and oil, maybe diamonds, (unless of meteoric origin), was blowing around in the atmoshere at some time in the past. The earth did not end then, the sky did not collapse.
The simple fact is that some less than scrupulous scientists & researchers have found a virtual avalanche of gravy and are busy enriching themselves at the same time as gaining perverse pleasure from scaring the rest of us. A power/ego trip. About funding.
This has gained traction with the always unprincipled political types who know that success lies with frightening the world, creating a calamity, and then solving it.
If the problem was real and these spitlickers wanted to solve it properly, they would encourage the planting of trees. But it is not real and one can’t fix the unbroken, so that is why the NZ Govt has mulched huge acreage of young trees. In most dictionaries this is called hypocrisy.