ETS and Climate Change
As I am travelling, I have not yet had time to read through the detailed documents on the ETS changes, and agreement with the Maori Party, or the stolen/hacked e-mails from climate change scientists. So I am not yet in a position to give my take on both of them.
Ian Wishart has a detailed post on the stolen e-mails. Again I have not had time to read them myself, and check for context – but there are links to the originals, so people can do so.
The Beehive announcement on the ETS agreement is here. I imagine it will be passed into law by the time I am home. If the changes are not passed, then the status quo of Labour’s ETS will come into force next year.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Climate Change, ETS, Ian Wishart
November 24th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Here’s a detailed evaluation David, it’s a crap bit of legislation based on a crap premise that is calculated to have crap result.
You don’t get yourself out of a recession by bulk funding Neo-Soviet Russia in exchange for a load of feel good BS.
This is the smacking legislation V2.0 and it is going to kill Key the same way the Bradford anti-democracy law killed Clark (and isn’t helping Kwey either).
Thats your context.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Crap legislation? Check
Nutter tilting at windmills (stolen emails = much ado about nothing)? Check
SNAFU.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Is there any reason to link to what Ian Wishart says apart from being able to say “Here is a convenient summary of all the incorrect interpretations”?
Does anyone really take a thing he says seriously?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Just the people that keep putting his books at the top of the best seller lists even though they never get reviewed by the MSM tommy.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ian Wishart has a detailed post about (Surprise!) the hypocrisy of the left. Yawn…
November 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Where is the cost benefits analysis?
Is key rushing this to avoid ACT’s ficsal responsibility bill?
Why the rush? What’s in it personally for Key/Smith? Will Key’s [substantial] Bank Of America investments benefit from this: Bank of America Announces $20 Billion Environmental Initiative? (note this includes carbon trading of the type that the great profit Algore (All credits be to Him)™ is living the high hog on)
What’s the legitimacy of the science on which the need for an ETS?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
But the new ETS is manipulated to the point that it does not even achieve it’s purpose, it offers little to no incentive to reduce emissions due to the intensity based credit system – coupled with the two for one credit accounting… Thats not even looking at the concessions given to Iwi.
Ian Wishart thinks climate change is a big conspiracy and everyone is out to get him. Can anyone take his opinions seriously?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I note our local rag has not put out one article on these emails while running several about the drongos from the Nats and the sellouts from the Maori Party and the fucking ETS. I will be writing a letter to the editor pointing this out but I doubt these religious zealots will print it. God I’m sick of these governments that push “we know best agenda’s” and their arse licking lackeys. For what it is worth I will never vote National again.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Don’t believe it because Ian is saying it. The scientists convict themselves by their own words in their own emails, and the story is worldwide. Former warming advocates in the Washington Post and New York Times are now switching their views – and that’s only some of them.
TVNZ news has at last caught up with it this morning. About time!
November 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
SciBlogs also have some basic coverage.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Arguments should be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their source.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:36 am
OK guys, I’m going out on a limb here, cause I know it’ll be ad hominem time again, but here goes:
Few of you may know there’s a very contested bit of (potentially world changing) science still going on that used to be called “cold fusion”. Now there’s a lot of scientists ripping out each other’s guts in that field, if you’re curious have a look here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET33Cdfkj5.shtml
Nothing, absolutely nothing, of that kind takes place in this “AGW” debacle. I think a relevant question is why?
The reason is in my view that AGW provides an enormous opportunity for political mischief and, has in fact been created for that very purpose. Now that these emails are showing very clearly that the ordinary scrutiny (see above) is not taking place at all, that fact must be hidden from view, and all politically expedient measures must now be rushed through globally before the whole house of cards collapses.
On the small NZ scale, Key/Smith are complicit in this scam. Now it’s easy to call Wishart an idiot, but I’d like to see one of these leftists and fawning National supporters to actually argue with the issue here, instead of only displaying their ignorance.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:40 am
This is a much bigger problem than the ETS (which was an untested risk anyway) – the bastardisation of the ETS.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:40 am
dimmocrazy – because the environmentalists don’t want it:
Plentiful energy beings personal independence and these nutters want the reverse.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am
ps, John Key is getting some quite negative comments on his Facebook today re: the ETS, Maori deals, Climategate etc.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am
You can draw a parallel between the infamous EFA and the dreaded ETS.
Both were pushed by majority blocks under urgency, both were divisive pieces of legislation that deserved robust discussion, instead of the secretive approach used by their authors.
You could expect it from socialist Labour, always determined to stiffle debate, but Key and the National Party should know better. Shame on them.
The Prime Minister has sold out to Maori and has played a very poor, almost incompetent hand in all this. He should be told so by his MPs, but of course he won’t. The pack of weasels we called National Party MPs have no desire to neither challenge nor correct Key’s terrible mistake.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“Arguments should be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their source.”
You lost Ryan? This is kiwiblog, the source is only consideration.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I resigned my membership of the National Party of NZ today.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:50 am
On ya swift.
Now all we need is a political party that has the silly concept that their job is to REPRESENT the interests of the pople that vote for them and we’ll be laughing.
[tumble weeds]
November 24th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Are they Catholics Murray?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Slight correction Manolo – for all her faults, Clark didn’t use urgency to pass the EFA before the end of the 2007 Parliamentary year.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“Swiftman the infidel (95) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I resigned my membership of the National Party of NZ today.”
Of course you did.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
“..Arguments should be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their source…”
really sproull..!
you get todays blinding-hypocrisy-award..
rip..?..anyone..?
and really..!
just before copenhagen…
we get this ‘expose’..
(which..i repeat..alters not a jot the overwhelming science/melting ice etc etc..)
thiis is just climatechange-denial 2.0..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2009 at 11:02 am
No Pete, they just have half ball shapes where their legs should be and they wobble a lot… but don’t fall down.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Human Global Warming is a fiction.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I just feel ashamed i helped sway people to vote for National they are nothing but liars, so much for the fucking tax cuts and Pay parity with Australia aye?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The NZ Herald final has a story on the AGW fraud, mentioning the New Zealand links:
NZ climate scientist falls victim to hackers
We can all be thankful that Helen Clark was booted out of the country.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Won’t be voting National again.
What’s the point? We haven’t changed government….
November 24th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Where did he say that?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The article doesn’t seem that damning of Salinger.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Dear Dr Mapp,
It is with the greatest regret that I wish to resign from my membership of the National Party of New Zealand as my family can no longer financially afford John Key.
I would be most grateful if you could arrange for my name to be removed from the list of members and your mailing list.
Best wishes,
(name deleted)
November 24th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I await the breathless indignation at the hacking of emails given the precedent set on here with regards to the Brash emails. It has been made abundantly clear that you believe the theft of emails deserves much greater attention than the contents.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:19 am
ETS – short summary.
It is a rort to get us to pay more tax and will increase the amount of greenhouse gas produced worldwide (just like when the UK introduced an ETS). It is a planet killing piece of crap legislation that is going to cost us $millions upon $millions. The only good news so far is that it is being to be watered down so that in effect it will now cost about the same, but kill the planet at a slightly slower rate.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am
The only good bill would be one revoking the previous ETS and replacing it with nothing. National is saddling NZ with an extra $110billion of debt and an number of other costs in order to combat an imaginary problem invented by some less than reputable scientists with an agenda. Smith and Key want to think they’re leading the world, but it is patently obvious that no other country is going to follow us while we turn our economy in to a replica of Haiti’s. The ETS would never pass a cost benefit analysis since it is all costs without any benefit what so ever. And those costs are enormous.
I’m ashamed to call myself a National supporter.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I say lock em up garethw, and lets SEE it reported loud and poud on the MSM along with the text of the relevent emails just like they did with Brash.
Meanwhile I’ll publish a book base on them and you’ll tell us why thats all ok.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“The ETS would never pass a cost benefit analysis since it is all costs without any benefit what so ever”
What? Show me what cost the ETS imposes over our signed-up, legislated and bound Kyoto obligation? It doesn’t impose costs, it allocates an existing cost to particular sources- in the case of this ETS, it puts all the cost for that firmly on the taxpayer and nowhere near it’s source. Nice one.
If we had no ETS then we’d just have to pay the Kyoto obligation anyway.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
When they publish a book about it and their associates run for parliament i’ll give a dam about being a hypocrite Garreth.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Not quite following that last sentence, sorry Murray, but if you are arguing for full disclosure of all these stolen emails then I’m with you mate =)
November 24th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Helen signed it, she can fucking pay it. I’m a conscientious objector in the war on climate change.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Don’t fucking call me mate. It ain’t going to happen.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“If we had no ETS then we’d just have to pay the Kyoto obligation anyway.”
Or abrogate the treaty by not buying credits. I’m Ok with that, we wont be alone and we were dumb to sign.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Ha, this turned weirdly aggressive rather quickly!
Just trying to follow the point here re stolen emails and their contents. I’m all for full disclosure of who stole them and the full contents of what they got so as to understand context and the agenda of the “thief”. In both the Brash case and the East Anglia case. And in the interests of consistency, I suspect everyone here would be the same, yes?
And the ETS cost stuff is pretty straightforward – we signed Kyoto, we have to pay the liability that has created. If you hate the fact we signed Kyoto, or prefer a different mechanism to pay for it, then go for it – but the fact so many people claim the ETS is creating all the cost is a disappointing lack of understanding.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am
KiwiGreg, that certainly would be one option. I’m interested in the “we won’t be alone” bit – who is going to renege on their Kyoto obligations? Just haven’t heard any commentary on that.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Gareth,
Couldn’t the people whose emails were stolen provide the context for the highlighted sections?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@Murray
Actually Shipley signed it under the fourth National government, later ratified by Helen Clark under the fifth Labour government. I commend the fourth National government for taking the first steps in the right direction for action on greenhouse gas emissions.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I have the impression that Canada, and possibly Germany have not bought into the Carbon Tax or ETS scam, yet.
A free trade agreement between non-scammed nations could be a goer.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“who is going to renege on their Kyoto obligations”
Good Point Gareth we are in the pickle on that, sad state of affairs binding a sovereign nation like that but here we are.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Certainly Ryan, I’m happy for Brash/East Anglia to reveal context.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Re: dodgy emails liberated from the now-discredited Climate Research Unit…these weren’t “hacked”, they were released by a concerned “whistle-blower” within the CRU.
Edit – thanks to Nicky Hager for clarification of this delicate point of difference
November 24th, 2009 at 11:54 am
It actually IS enough…
I can handle the usual bumbling incompetence and general fuckwittery we have had in politics in NZ for the last 20 years.
Almost.
Well actually, no I cannot.
But race based politics and our rush to third world status with the unjustifiable and evangelical ETS despite science & sense really is terrifying. We are moving from squandering the incredible opportunity which is NZ, to outright destruction – rather than our usual general soporific sheep munching in a paddock decline.
It actually IS enough to make you vote Libertarianz.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’m all in favour of the Government doing absolutely nothing on AGW.
No need for an ETS, no need to pay anyone for bogus carbon dioxide credits, no need to restrict the building of coal fired power stations, and no need to subsidise the construction of rubbish wind turbines through State controlled power companies at the consumers expense.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Fuck, I really wanted John Key to be one of the first politicians to jump up and scream the “emperor has no clothes” in regard to
Global WarmingClimate ChangeGlobal Cooling, but sadly no.November 24th, 2009 at 11:59 am
>who is going to renege on their Kyoto obligations
Who is going to fulfill their Kyoto obligations? Has any country paid billions of dollars to another to buy carbon credits? If so, who and when?
All European countries, the US, and Japan subsidise their agriculture. Are they actually going to continue these subsidies while placing trade sanctions on NZ’s unsubsidised agriculture if we didn’t (essentially) tax our cows to pay for emissions? Similarly, Germany subsidises coal mining. Is Germany going to continue to subsidise coal mining while banning imports from a NZ powered mainly by hydro power?
It’s a fantasy.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Starting to get less emotional, more detailed analysis of the email leak.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I would say I’m sorry to all those Nats who are regretting their votes… but I said it all along and you still didn’t vote ACT to give National and Key their backbone. Don’t want to hear any b.s that ACT wouldn’t have had done it differently, as we all bloody well know we have fought this stupid ETS from day one and campaigned furiously against it.
If we had a few more percent to work with there would be a lot more sensibility going on…… but hey, come to ACT and we may be able to salvage something in 2011.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Ross, just FYI, both Canada and Germany have ratified Kyoto.
Canada hasn’t done anything to meet those obligations, and is facing a massive bill come the end of the period. One they will have to pay.
Germany has actually heavily reduced emissions, and is operating under the EU ETS I believe.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I watched again the story on TVNZ and they don’t really go into any depth. They mention the hacking of the emails, they give a response by Salinger basically trying to defend himself, and they go on to have more stories about Antarctica shrinking and another story about how we’ll need ‘one and a half worlds’ if we’re to sustain what we’re doing now.
Spin, spin, spin.
They never mentioned the damning contents of the emails at all (which is what they should have done to let people judge for themselves). They stuck with the facts that emails had been hacked, sceptics had seized on some of them, a response by Salinger.
It’s soft reporting.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The UK has massively reduced their CO2 emmisions, but I think that has mainly been from the fact that their economy and industry is sinking.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Now don’t get me wrong I am not a GW believer but if we have to sign something to be a good world citizen then we should do it immediately AFTER China, India, USA, Australia et al sign.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I note Key and Smith in the papers today just referring to New Zealand ‘playing our part.’
Never mind the science, it’s about keeping up appearences!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
LORD LAWSON CALLS FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CRU DATA AFFAIR
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 23 November 2009
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/137-lord-la … ation.html
In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the GWPF, has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:
“Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.”
“There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”
Lord Lawson added:
“Since the CRU is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and is part of the University of East Anglia, we should call on Edmund Wallis, the chairman of the NERC and Brandon Gough, the Chancellor of the UEA, to jointly commission an independent inquiry into the revelations, including, of course, their veracity.”
November 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Germany has actually heavily reduced emissions, and is operating under the EU ETS I believe.
Of course Germany has heavily reduced emissions – in 1990, the benchmark year for emissions, East Germany still existed with its filthy smoke stack industries still intact. They have since gone to the wall but their demise counts as reduced emissions for the new reunited Germany.
Germany is really happy to sign on to Kyoto and the EU ETS as a result – hell for them it is money for jam and it disadvantages their industrial competitors like Great Britain to boot.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Fletch – and at the same time, TVNZ was reporting this morning that Antarctica is melting, and that seas will rise by half a metre – over the next 1000 years!! That’s right – a rise in sea levels of 0.5mm/year!
November 24th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
FFS, Wishart also believes in creationism. He is right up there with George Bush and WhaleOil in the race to be worlds smartest man.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Viking2
Well, that would come as no surprise. Lawson is akin to Monckton. Literally – they are related as well as both being potty peers who deny anthropogenic climate change.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“FFS, Wishart also believes in creationism. He is right up there with George Bush and WhaleOil in the race to be worlds smartest man.”
One thing for sure is that he is a lot smarter than Al Gore unless you count being a wealthy fraudster as smart.
When it comes to science Al Gore is an ignoranus – a stupid arsehole.
Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees
November 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Still pushing the anthropogenic barrow huh Toad. You might have heard but your buddies are a bunch of charlatans and have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
^^^ Useful comment. Two thumbs up.
Not.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Is this the story you’re referring to Inventory?
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/east-antarctic-ice-began-melt-faster-in-2006-3173712
I think you’ve miss read it – or it was miss reported, the original versions talks about the loss of the entire East Antarctic ice sheet within a thousand years, that means about 6 metres SLR.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Actually they reduced their emissions whilst their economy was growing, between 1992 and 2004 they reduced their emissions by 5%. Thus they hail themselves as enviromentally responsible. However they increased their carbon footprint by 18% over the same period, by getting more of the stuff they consume to be produced with the emissions occuring elsewhere. So the UK calls themselves enviromentally responsible by instituting policies that kill the planet 18% faster. Its a sham.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7536421.stm
November 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Why are Nick Smith and John Key wasting their time on the ETS instead of dealing with the terrible threat of ManBearPig, “half man, half bear, and half pig”, who roams the Earth and attacks humans for no reason at all?
I’m being cereal!!
November 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Interesting, Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails
The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
OECD rank 22…
Similarly, I’m working up a program to defend the country against the threat of unicorn attack. It’ll be a bargain for $50 billion… less than half the cost of an ETS. The precautionary principle demands that we do something to protect ourselves against the threat of rampaging unicorns. There are also benefits in terms of foreign policy, since my scheme will ensure that foreign countries won’t enact trade sanctions against NZ if their citizens were attacked by unicorns while holidaying in NZ.
Like global warming, the evidence for unicorns is entirely faith based. However, we unicorn believers don’t waste time forging data and manipulating statistics to “prove” that unicorns exist and are dangerous to humans.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
The sea level rise isn’t quite working for me. I believe reputable scientists have been clear that that Greenland and Antarctic ice that isn’t already floating, won’t melt any time soon – most of it is in places that have temperatures well below zero, so a couple degrees warmer won’t melt them. I quote from wikipedia:
“As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia; therefore it is likely that they will not, through melting, contribute significantly to sea level rise in the coming century. They can, however, do so through acceleration in flow and enhanced iceberg calving.”
If that did all melt (remembering everyone thinks that to be exceptionally unlikely), then:
“If small glaciers and polar ice caps on the margins of Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula melt, the projected rise in sea level will be around 0.5 m. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet would produce 7.2 m of sea-level rise, and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would produce 61.1 m of sea level rise.[13] The collapse of the grounded interior reservoir of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level by 5-6 m.[14]”
And, finally:
“Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century.”
In other words, if water is 1 degree warmer, it takes up a bit more space – same as train tracks expand on a hot day.
Long story short, we’re expecting 19cm to 58cm rise by 2100, by the IPCC estimates. And I suspect the lower end of that range is more likely. The world won’t end with a 19cm sea level rise.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
There is another existing cost that is involved.
We signed up to Kyoto to avoid paying the ultimate cost of unmitigated climate change $A trillions = cost at death of planet multiplied by the probability X of this occuring due to global gas emissions. Our signing up to Kyoto does not magically make this cost go away, the cost of damaging the planet still exists.
What Kyoto does is set up a cost of failling to meet emissions reductions (that on their own scale are not nearly enough to save the planet) on production occuring inside NZ, this cost is estimated in the range of $B billions.
The problem with a regional ETS (EU or UK or the Kyoto Annex I Club) is that in each instance it increases X (it increases the amount of global greenhouse gas emissions) by shifting emissions from local production to imports from outside the Kyoto area. Kyoto and its derived ETS are costly failures because they increase cost $A much more than they reduce cost $B.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Actually have had discussions with economists about the worth of an ETS where they can only justify it by making the cost of climate change = $zero. Basically the only way you can economically justify an ETS is by denying that climate change exists.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I seem to recall from chemistry y-y-years ago that water is unique in that it contracts as it warms from 0deg up to 4deg whereupon it starts to expand again. The reverse is also true, which is why freezing water expands to crack solid objects – bottles, rocks, roading etc.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The most worrying thing to me about all this is not the appearance of collusion between these top AGW scientists and IPCC lead authors to suppress information that is not helpful to their cause.
Its not the appearance of collusion to delete emails and data that doesn’t support their position.
It’s not the gaming of the peer review process to ensure that slack methodology passes muster.
Its not even the discussions around how to subvert the Freedom Of Information Act.
The worst thing is that they appear to have been using data in their climate models that DOESN’T use real temperatures from 1961 onwards.
Shall I repeat that?
The models this whole hypothesis is built on don’t appear to use real life data from 1961 onwards
Un-fucken-believable.
I don’t know whether it’s a scam or not but most of the climate research being done today is based in part, at least, on these models and the conclusions they reached.
The most complete temperature data we have is from the mid 70’s on and it’s not being used.
Still at least 100mb of documents to come.
There’s going to be some serious dead rat eating to come on this one.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Call me a denier if you will, but I don’t believe in unicorns, except for the one that Barack Obama rides.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
getstaffed: yes. But I think most of the water in the world is above 4 degrees, else the fish would die. If I recall that same schoolboy physics correctly, since water in the 0-4 degree range is less dense than water 4 through about 10 degrees, it rises to the top. Which is why fish can live in a frozen river – the coldest water is at the top, the water at the bottom is usually around 4 degrees.
Having said that, I’m not a big believe in thermal expansion causing a lot of growth in sea level – water has a massive specific heat capacity, it would take an enormous amount of heat to warm the entire ocean even a single degree. I suspect that we’ve seen some rise in sea level from the shallow bits of the ocean warming up, but that the deep bits aren’t going to warm any time soon.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Brian Smaller 2:37 pm,
Unicorns:
There are (were) unicorns, Brian.
And I think the above description of them would be a parallel of what the ETS will do to this, and other nations.
If the ETS comes in in full force then it will “eat up the nations … and shall break their bones … and pierce them through with his arrows.”
November 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
So John Key was right. The climate crisis was a hoax. The lead climate scientists of the hallowed IPCC have been hoist by their own explosive words and found to be liars and fraudsters (Hollow Weathermen, you might even say.)
No surprises there. What surprises me is this…
Despite the hoax now having been proved, the carbon trading scam based on that hoax – a scam that will needlessly cost every New Zealander thousands of dollars a year – is now… being rushed through under urgency?
And to smooth the path of that hoax-based scam, the Nats have bribed five tribes with what seems will eventually cost us something like two billion dollars?
In the (vain) hope that it will feather their electoral nests.
This can’t be happening.
Dear Nats, for whom I was once proud to work…
Is there not one among you with the conscience and courage of a Derek Quigley or a Marilyn Waring or a Mike Minogue?
Is there not one among you who will put your country first and stand up and cross the floor like any decent and honourable MP should?
For years, you have been inundated with emails endeavouring to educate you on the truth of the climate hoax. And for years you have done nothing but stick your fingers in your ears.
‘See no evil, hear no evil.’
Well now the evil has been laid bare. Over the next few days, each of you must ask yourself this question:
“Will I be part of it?”
November 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“The problem with a regional ETS (EU or UK or the Kyoto Annex I Club) is that in each instance it increases X (it increases the amount of global greenhouse gas emissions) by shifting emissions from local production to imports from outside the Kyoto area.”
Yes the theory of carbon leakage is relatively clear, so do you agree that we need to, eventually, get to an all-gases, all-sectors, all-countries approach?
Also, do you have any empirical research as to the actual effects of carbon leakage?
November 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
so..to kkk…the ets..is a ‘unicorn’..
and therefor proof positive of biblical scrawlings..
utterly..utterly..brilliant..!
(fairly bloodthirsty..your god..eh..?
wot with all the smiting..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
John Ansell 3:04 pm,
While they may have no problem filtering out what they perceive as ‘evil’ in respect to the globalists’ end agenda; bringing about an all encompassing Global Government via an ETS carbon tax, it is interesting to observe the EVIL manipulations of those, including our government, that are hellbent on pushing through this piece of bad legislation.
There is no doubt that so-called AGW and the proposed global ETS tax which will likely result are anything but evil lies and manipulation of the world populace in an attempt to bring us into absolute submission. Say goodbye to our freedoms and the illusion that we live in anything approaching a democracy.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Well said John
Unfortunately with half of the MPs now dependent on their own party list for their survival, it is unlikely that we will see so much as a wayward spider cross the floor in the next couple of days.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Thomas Jefferson
November 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“There is no doubt that so-called AGW and the proposed global ETS tax which will likely result are anything but evil lies and manipulation of the world populace in an attempt to bring us into absolute submission. Say goodbye to our freedoms and the illusion that we live in anything approaching a democracy.”
Ahhhhh hahahahahahhahaha. You’re great, I like you…
November 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
That would be nice, but it won’t happen as any such agreement would price carbon as a global commodity. Any global price disadvantages poor country businesspeople who need a lot of the commodity (Chinese & Indian) compared to rich country businesspeople. China and India are not signing up to something that lets the rich world set up an exploitable advantage over the developing world.
The solution is to have a single country “all-gases, all-sectors” approach. Use an internal tax of carbon set on what each can afford and price carbon much higher here than in say China.
See link in previous quote, also witness worse than expected emissions from China:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html
November 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“The solution is to have a single country “all-gases, all-sectors” approach. Use an internal tax of carbon set on what each can afford and price carbon much higher here than in say China.”
This way we can make our exports even more unviable but imports will be relatively cheaper as long as we buy them from carbon-cheap countries. The world will be better off as our dirty farming and forestry is shut down in favour of clean green Chinese manufacturing. I’m not sure what planet you come from where this would be a good thing.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
u-c you speak sense here, although I don’t quite get how differing carbon tax levels wouldn’t just see us with the same carbon leakage issue? It would still be cheaper to setup in China if you were looking to continue with high emission levels?
I think there must be something in consumer countries paying the carbon tax rather than the producer but wonder about how you’d setup an effective mechanism to do that.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I meant as a GST like carbon tax.
As a consumer tax it would be equivalent to or replace GST. Just like GST it would not be charged on exports and would be charged on imports. Thus retaillers are able to make more money by selling low carbon alternatives.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Anyone who thinks those governments promoting an ETS are doing so openly, with our best interests at heart and based on the best available information really need to have a read of this.
It’s an article from the Weekend Australian detailing attempts by The Australia Institute to gain information, via FOI laws, from the Australian Department of Climate Change, seeking documents on its internal assessment of the proposed emissions trading scheme being rushed into headlong by Kevin Rudd and his Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.
What was released was, predictably, so emasculated it was useless. So then TAI put in an DOI request for the documents relating to its original FOI request.
You really need to read the whole article to get a taste of the cover-up this exposed, as no summary I write could do it justice. Perhaps a couple of quotes will give the flavour:
Yet as I write this the Liberal opposition is splitting over its Leader’s support for an amended ETS whilst many of his colleagues oppose it, or at least want to wait. So points to Rudd for politics, but at what cost to the Australian economy?
And if this level of smoke and mirrors is taking place in Australia, what sort of flim flam is being used to drive smiling John Key toward an ETS in NZ?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
From Stuff:
Pssssst John! There is no arthrogenic global warming. Didn’t you get the memo?!?
The major challenge is now combating the religion of global warming.
Stand up, back away from the altar, and do what’s best for New Zealand
November 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Real climate replies to a Wishart whinge
Just in case it’s too much effort, here is the exchange
You guys just don’t stop spinning, do you? The context is there for anyone with English as a first language
What part of stacking the peer review process don’t you understand is wrong?
What part of the email from Phil to Michael 1077829152.txt which reveals both men essentially in a position to peer review their own work (or challenges to their work or department’s) don’t you see as a conflict of interest?
[Response: Editors very commonly send papers critical of someones work to the author of the work being criticised. The editors also know that this needs to be weighed appropriately along with reviews from other parties. - gavin]
Comment by Ian Wishart — 23 November 2009 @ 1:43 AM
November 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
How fascinating that the ETS machine thunders on as if nothing had happened.
When in fact the biggest scandal since Watergate just happened. (Not that you’re likely to learn that any time soon at a media outlet near you.)
But it happened nonetheless.
And does this matter to our government? Apparently not one whit. They appear not even slightly deterred by the expose of the IPCC fraudsters.
The whole foundation on which their ETS is based has been totally undermined.
And what do honest people do with their minds when the information that previously informed their opinion changes?
And has our government changed its mind now that the information has changed?
I guess we all know why.
I’ve been looking to raise funds for a ‘teach tank’ to explain the basics of economics and public policy to ordinary people. And not so long ago I went to see a prominent personage with his finger in various infrastructural pies to see if he’d support it.
I told him that one of the things I’d be seeking to explain was the truth about what the warm-mongers were saying, and in particular the 35 lies that Al Gore told in his film.
This person’s response brought the conversation to an abrupt end: “Oh no, we like climate change.”
“Really, why?” said I, innocently bemused, since this person clearly did not lack the faculty of reason.
“Because we make money out of it.”
Money and votes trump truth.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Sounds like a preach tank. Why not teach fundamental critical-thinking skills and let people loose reaching their own conclusions about things?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The problem with the IPCC models is they assume the globe is round and there is such a thing as a global average sea level.
Neither is true.
Experts on sea level point out that diverse influences on sea levels mean that the sea level can be 60 metres higher at one point on the globe when compared to another point on the globe.
The influence of temperature is trivial compared to these other influences. On such influence is the movement of tectonic plates which cause sea levels to rise in some places, such as south England, and to fall in others, such as Hawkes Bay.
Then there are trade winds and ocean currents.
But a common one is the gravity effect due to the depth of the ocean relative to the diameter of the core etc. But there is no such thing as a global average sea level – it is a statistical artifact. It is as though we said that because the average human being is 5′9” all human beings are 5′9″ tall.
The recent measuring devices at Tuvalu which are accurate and compensate for these variations show that Tuvalu is neither rising nor falling. Most of the Australian seas are constant with the error terms.
The IPCC loves the Hong Kong measurements because the construction is weighing down the land and so they record sea level rising.
Mind you there computer models for temperature assume the world is flat so we should not be surprised by anything they do.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Indeed. I propose the first critical thinking guide: If a New York banker, a greenie, someone purporting to be a ‘climate scientist’ and a politician all agree on something, consider carefully if it’s a good idea for you and your family.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Ok, here’s what I believe:
I do not believe that human’s (or their carbon) really have much if any impact on the global warming/cooling situation.
I actually am part of “The sun does it” brigade.
I don’t think trading Carbon credits or any ETS makes one scrap of differance to the climate; none!
I do believe NZ might actually be on to a winner re this ETS scheme.
Internationally it doesn’t harm us at all.
Internationally it makes us a very desirable trading partner.
I’m a business man. I know that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
I know that sometimes if you don’t spend money you simply won’t win the business.
I like that National’s ETS spend is around half of Helen’s without compromising the potential new business.
It may not be as bad as it all seems.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Owen @5.38pm said The problem with the IPCC models…
The problem with that statement is that there are no IPCC models, and if Owen already knows that, and he is concerned with accuracy, he should make that point clear. The Cahirman of the IPCC at the time of the First and Second Assessment Reports, the late Bert Bolin, issued an overview to IPCC assessment reports that is very informative. This is a extract:
It is to be remembered also that the bulk report, those 2,000 pages, is not approved by the IPCC. It remains as the scientific responsibility of the key authors.
and another
Thus, when you see in the newspaper that the IPCC must say so-and-so, there are no IPCC models
Unfortunately, duty calls, but I will examine further what Owen has to say when time allows.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
“This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming – and I am somewhat suspicious of it – is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem”
John Key, May 2005
http://www.labour.org.nz/news/john-key-further-undermining-progress-climate-change
He became party leader in 2006 and begun ‘believing’… Chips all in saying he privately doesn’t believe in it. Politics.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Razork, could you explain simply why you believe it would work for us?
You hear all sorts of things. First, Labour said it would benefit our economy by $500 million a year. Then they had to admit they got it wrong – by $1 billion.
What’s the latest?
Even if we would benefit, it still seems rather ludicrous to waste so much time and money on a bogus by-product of a Socialist International plot.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
What bollocks. There are many different models using many factors. They even model on the fact the shape of the earth will change if ice melts and ice/water (and weight) redistributes. They mightn’t all be right, but they are thinking of a lot more than the amateur scientists.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
NZ does NOT contribute to ‘world carbon emissions’ – one iota. Even accepting climate change is in any way human-induced. What the NZ ‘believers’ conveniently forget is:
We’re SURROUNDED by ocean: “Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth…”
We’ve loads of forestry: “Forests are carbon stores, and they are carbon dioxide sinks when they are increasing in density or area…”
And our grasslands and argriculture: “…A large proportion of the world’s grasslands have been tilled and converted to croplands, allowing the rapid oxidation of large quantities of soil organic carbon.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
November 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Owen also propagates the slander: The IPCC loves the Hong Kong measurements
First, read my post above regarding the report of the past Chairman of the IPCC.
Second, there are reportedly 1750 gauges worldwide. If there is one in Hong Kong, I am sure the climate scientists would take into account local circumstances.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Then there is this from Owen: “Experts on sea level point out…” thereby inferring the papers forming part of the IPCC study are contributed by non-experts.
Aside from the obvious fact that this is simply a risible notion, but these are the facts:(ex wikipedia)
Contributors
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[54]
Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.[55]
I just heard Jim Salinger on RNZ (talking about his email that fell into the hands to the deniers) describe a Chris de Freitas published paper as junk science. I fisked a de Freitas NZ Herald article here recently. It seems to me that McShane and de Freitas both set out to deliberately mislead and deceive, in my opinion.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
November 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
wikipedia link for the above post:
contributors
November 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Luc Hansen: surely you’d agree that if you thought there was a climate change conspiracy, you’d hardly be accepting Jim Salinger’s word that Chris de Freitas’ paper was junk science?
And as for how many contributors there were. Yes, but how many experts on sea level? Every time I look into sea level the answer seems to be that there is very little rise. Even Wikipedia, given their moderation process hardly the home of deniers, tells us that there is very little sea level rise going on, and that it is very different in different locations.
What exactly are you saying is wrong in Owen’s comment, other than that you don’t like his tone?
November 24th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Your point? Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Paul, my quick response is why don’t you go and find out for yourself?
And I am not trying to be flippant. It’s just all there, in the reports
Or go to Real Climate and ask Gavin Schmidt (who seems to do most of the replies).
Every time I have hunted down these red herrings by people like de Freitas and McShane I have found that they are baseless.
The IPCC reports even detail the uncertainties involved in great detail. Just go look!
PS I don’t take offence at his tone. Just his gratuitous slander and misleading information. I’m still researching…
November 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Who wrote this?
Go here for the answer
November 24th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
The multi-billion dollar religion of Climate Change is being ‘cluster fisked’, as is the credibility of those who’ve been on bended knee at its altar.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Are you sure that was Bibi Netanyahu?
November 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
From Andrei’s last link (part he didn’t quote):
November 24th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Luc, ’cause same as you, I can’t be arsed. But you were the one that asserted Owen was wrong. If you’d instead said, as you just did “Owen, your comments like that are usually wild goose chases. I very much doubt that the IPCC doesn’t have somewhere amongst its contributors some experts on sea level change” then I wouldn’t have asked the question.
Of course, Owen didn’t actually assert that they didn’t have experts – you interpreted that by reading between the lines (as you acknowledged by saying inferring). I’m not sure Owen actually meant that.
For me, I don’t think the sea levels will rise anything significant. Call it 19cm over 100 years – that is to say, at the low end of the IPCC range now that we know they are inclined to talking up the most alarming scenarios
. I just don’t see that as a particular concern, compared the the millions of people who die of malaria each year. I know where I’d rather spend billions of rich country dollars.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
PaulL, sea level rise is only one of a number of risk factors. Ask the Aussies how their weather has been lately. If that is a sign of what could happen increasingly then they won’t be worrying much about the sea level.
Obviously some scenarios are talked up, bu scientists and by the media. But it is just as likely some things are being underestimated.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
November 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Who cares if the sea is rising or falling, or if it hotter, colder, wetter, dryer or whatever? The earth’s climate has been changing for eons. Humans, animals and plants have adapted to gradual change as well as surviving cataclysmic change.
The question is are we causing a cataclysmic change?. And if our top scientists can’t find evidence and have to resort to secretively fixing and tampering their models to show that we are, then we can be sure that any naturally observed changes weren’t scary enough to give licence for the global wealth transfer plans of a few.
Further these scientists appear more concerned about keeping the sunlight of peer critique away, than they are on establishing the truth. Phil Jones’s receipting $NZ30m in grants may go some way to explaining his motivations in this regard. Sadly this reflects badly on many scientists who still have their integrity intact.
In short, it all a scam. A great big, fat scam. The hope must has been that the lethargy of the masses would allow it to be enacted below the radar. But not any more.
I’d like to see Al Gore stripped of his Nobel Peace prize, and have one awarded to the CRU hacker/whistleblower. I’d also like to see Al Gore in prison.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
getstaffed, do you think you can keep preaching that sermon for the next fifty years? If there is still no sign of problematic climate change by then you might convert me, but not before. The jury is out for a long time yet. While you celebrate scientists will keep studying and observing. And we may (or may not) see, eventually. Although maybe not in my lifetime.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Pete, not interested in converting you. But very interested in not having our futures (and those of or kids) mortgaged on account of falsified, junk-science. BTW, did you read the ‘The Knights Carbonic’ satire in Monbiot? Very good I thought.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
razork – “I’m a business man. I know that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.”
Except it isn’t you spending the fucking money, it’s the mug taxpayer bearing the brunt YET AGAIN. How much longer before the sheeples in NZ say NO and tell these morons to fuck away off? This is a rort plain and simple, it is another tax plain and simple.
I sometimes think it would be an interesting experiment to shut the doors to NZ, tell the world to go away and just get on with our living. I think what we do well is in greater demand than what everyone else does.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for that andrei – a surprisingly honest journo from a left wing rag. Have a karma point.
Note: In all of the defensive statements from the Climate Scientologist warm-mongers, not one single fact: only the usual responses of fudging, minimising and ridicule.
This is the A Team from the IPCC that’s been caught faking the data, not a few fringe players.
These are the guys in whom the Climate Scientologists have been investing their faith, and in whose holy names they have felt emboldened to slag off anyone interested in seeking the truth.
This is like the Pope being exposed as a Jewish pedophile (or Obama being exposed as a Kenyan).
Luc, to keep falling back on the IPCC as though it remains sacred is just not going to work any longer. It’s not holy, it’s holey.
Climate Scientology has entered the post-IPCC age. Its reputation is completely shot now that its leaders have been exposed as frauds.
What does that suggest about the followers? It suggests to me that they’re all donkey deep in the cover-up. Archbishop Gore certainly is.
And Owen McShane, I think you’re wrong about Tuvalu. According to the actual recording instruments on the spot, the sea level of Tuvalu has risen in the last 100 years – by the width of a human hair. Naughty Owen!
And damage to its reef was caused by blasting. Al didn’t mention that, did he?
The Greenland Ice Sheet hasn’t a hope in hell of melting into the ocean for at least 1000 years. Why? Because it’s wedged in a basin under its own weight.
Polar bears numbers have risen by 50,000 in fifty years and actually prefer warmer weather.
Etc. The warm-mongers are just lying lefties and there’s now ample evidence, unearthed by some heroic researchers who should be awarded Nobel Prizes, that we’d be wise not to believe a single thing any of them say.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Since Monbiot is being quoted I thought you all (well not all) might get a chuckle out of this Spiked review of his 2008 book Bring on the Apocalypse
There are many sharp cracks in this piece, but I especially appreciated this one:
November 24th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Pete, I don’t have to ask the Aussies since I’m living in Aus. And yes, there have been some record hot days recently. Also some record cold ones – at least partly reflecting that records haven’t been kept in Aus for all that long, so just natural variation would mean that they do get broken more frequently than in some other places. One of the big problems in Aus (at least the part I’m living in) is that a 5% change in rainfall can result in about a 60% change in runoff – the whole thing is that precariously balanced, in an average year 90% of the rain is soaking in and 10% running off, in a below average year only 5% runs off. So the dams are often empty at the moment, and that hurts. Is that a long term climate change driven thing? Who knows, Aus has droughts all the time. Many believe that we’re returning to the long-term average, rather than this being a particularly dry period.
Yes, some scenarios are being talked up. I’m not aware of anything that is being understated. And if my reading of those e-mails is correct, there is a systematic bias towards talking things up. I’m not saying there is nothing happening, just that there seems to be a process to always be as alarmist as possible about every new statistic or measurement.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
There’s nothing like a “climate change” thread to identify a few more leftards for RIP to annihilate.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Yes Paul, you explain a problem that weather isn’t linear, a small change can make a large difference.
I read something recently where some scientists were saying we could already be too late to keep the temperature increase to 2 degrees, and at best we can try and retain it in the 3-4 degree increase range.
A few degrees doesn’t sound like much but they are talking averages, and those numbers can make a big difference to growing seasons, freezing lines, rain patterns etc.
I don’t know how they can predict specific temperature changes, I am dubious about the specifics but the general theme is still worrying.
I can understand (that doesn’t mean excuse) scientists who genuinely believe we could be heading for major problems that may talk up the problem to try and get the message across. Especially when the anti movement is often blatantly and deliberately overstating and confusing the contrary view.
The problems go both ways.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
World temperatures are on course to rise 6C by the end of the century because of global warming, a major British study has forecast.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6593389/Climate-change-temperatures-to-increase-6C-by-end-of-century.html
November 24th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
If you look for news items on climate change you get far more items on problems and escalating problems than you do on the same old “no it’s not” reports. There is a reason for scientific bias and media bias this way – there is a heck of a lot more people in the know who are concerned.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hello. I’m a giant insurance company. I know you hate the fact that premiums are rising and you think we’re gouging you.
But it’s really not our fault. Let us tell you why……
November 24th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Anyone interested in seeing what an absolute and complete clusterfu*k this whole thing is should download themselves a copy of the file (pirate bay has it, just search CRU) then open -
Documents/HARRY_READ_ME
This document is roughly 15,000 lines of comments, coding and output from some poor programmer they had trying to sort out the mess with their models. Some direct quotes -
- “You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).”
“The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we’ll just gloss over that entirely ;0)”
“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently – I have no memory of this at all -
we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards.”
Keep in mind this guy was hired in 2006, it’s recent.
This isn’t a smoking gun, it’s a Iowa class battleship firing a full broadside at AGW.
I, for one, am loving it.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Pete, not a big believer in tipping points, sorry.
Yes, there are lots of people talking catastrophe. And any time any major event happens there’s some clown to turn up and blame global warming. For example, hurricanes. Even though the IPCC themselves (in a peer reviewed work) say that climate change is having no measurable impact on hurricanes.
The reality is that it’s the current meme to blame climate change for everything, even things it clearly has nothing to do with. So big question marks there for me – volume of claims doesn’t tell me anything.
On tipping points – nobody seems to know if there is or isn’t. I’ve seen papers from serious scientists talking about positive and negative feedbacks. The IPCC crowd generally assume there are significant positive feedbacks. But they seem to have a bias to invent those – that’s how their models come to such alarming numbers in the future even though there is modest warming in the past. They can’t argue with the past, but they can create models that fit a straight line to the past with a hockey stick in the future – through positive feedback. There are others (and no, I’m not talking the general “denier” crowd) who suggest otherwise – such as tropical cloud formation, which is a negative feedback.
Anyway, given there’s some suggestion both ways, I ask myself whether it passes the sniff test. It is plausible that, in a world that has been around for some time, that has been warmer (occassionally) in the past, and a lot colder in the past many times, that has had higher and lower CO2 and greenhouse gases, that our planet’s climate is so finely balanced that some smallish changes in temperature could cause a runaway effect, and have our climate seriously warm, and then reach a new equilibrium that is much warmer than today?
My answer is, no, that isn’t plausible. If that were the case, the long-term average temperature of the planet wouldn’t be so much colder than today, as once the first warming had happened in the past, we would have driven to that new equilibrium and stayed there. Looking at the historical record, I’d be much worried about things getting much colder – a new ice age. That would sure as hell kill millions of people. I daresay even billions. And we know that is a relatively stable equilibrium point, the planet has been there lots of times in the past. But very few sustained periods warmer than today – suggesting there isn’t a stable equilibrium much warmer than today.
I realise my undergrad physics isn’t quite so flash as the models these folks are using. But I also realise that the warming pattern we’ve undergone to date can be reasonably well modelled by a straight line correlating CO2 with the rate of change in temperature. And that there isn’t physical evidence at a global level to date of positive nor negative feedbacks. Unless we count the last few years of the series, which would suggest a negative feedback.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The problem here is actually very simple and can be summed up in one word: politicians.
They decided we needed an intergovernmental panel. They paid the scientists on it. They then pork-barrelled their way to implementing ETS schemes. One in particular runs giant funds management companies that make billions on green investments.
The politicians here could not wait to implement an ETS. The other politicians at the time said theirs would be better – not that it’s a dumb idea, but theirs would be better. Then the others got in power and made a very bad situation a lot worse. Then Maori politicians sold their people down the river for a trip to Copenhagen and a few trees. I could go on but I’m sure you all get the picture.
The problem with most of the issues in life is politicians. They butt into everything. They change health, tax, employment, education, superannuation etc every election. All this puts enormous cost on businesses and families. I’ve seen it first hand in my consulting business.
Folks, the problem is not the ETS. If it wasn’t the ETS it would be the Foreshore and Seabed or bidding wars over who is toughest on crime or anything else. The problem is politicians.
ACT says we should have 99 of them. That would be a start. I figure about 50 is all we need. We don’t need them. They are the problem, always have been, always will be.
That is why Reagan said government was the problem not the solution. Governments and politicians are not constructive, they’re destructive.
The ETS is just an example of the problem, not the problem itself.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
CLIMATEGATE.
HAve been reveiwing media regarding the Leaked E-mails from the Climate Scientists and reading actual e-mails from the file itself.
Heres the file for all to see http://88.80.16.63/leak/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip
By the way it must be very damning because wikileaks was hosting the file and they were brought down.
Heres some e-mails
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate
Kevin Trenberth
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Phil Jones
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
Mike MacCracken
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).
Tim Johns
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
Michael E. Mann <mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu
And this one I love
Hi Mick,
It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular
thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?
All the best,
Paul
This goes to uncatagorically prove that scientists, the people who are driving this Gloabal scam are liars and have been adjusting real figures to meet the Global Taxing agenda.
They themselves admit that real global temps are DROPPING for the last 15 years and the whole Global Climate Change is driven NOT by CO2 but by El Nino and La nina patterns.
This maybe the greatest hoax yet, and show great collusion to create a global CO2 tax on all citizens and create world Govt.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“..Governments and politicians are not constructive, they’re destructive..”
that is simplistic..and untrue..
there are those countries you rightwingersstudiously ignore..
those high-taxing/high social support..low levels of crime/social dysfunction..scandanavian countries..
their politicians/political systems are’constructive’..not ‘destructive’..
(‘destructive’ like this key govt has been..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Owen said: But there is no such thing as a global average sea level – it is a statistical artifact.
I’m not a scientist, but my immediate response was- aren’t all averages statistical artifacts? Anyway, the IPCC, again, is well ahead of mischiefmaker in chief:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/432.htm
Extract: Some regions show a sea level rise substantially more than the global average (in many cases of more than twice the average), and others a sea level fall (Table 11.15) (note that these figures do not include sea level rise due to land ice changes). The standard deviation of sea level change is 15 to 35% of the global average sea level rise from thermal expansion.
PS I find nothing untoward in the emails above from itisntwhatitis other than a perhaps unhealthy concern with the skeptic fringe dwellers instead of just getting on with the science.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Pete George:
“Some scientists were saying…”
Which scientists? Michael Mann, the guy who faked the hockey stick graph? Keith Briffa, the guy who faked the tree ring data that Mann used to fake the hockey stick graph?
“A major British study has forecast…”
A British study perhaps influenced by that eminent British climate centre run by Dr Phil Jones, who faked data to ‘hide the decline’ in temperatures?
(I haven’t looked at the piece you link to, but climatologists and their followers have told so many lies that it’s impossible to trust any source in this field.)
“Especially when the anti movement is often blatantly and deliberately overstating and confusing the contrary view. The problems go both ways.”
No they don’t, Pete. That’s just it. The lies only go ONE way.
The ‘anti movement’ keeps negating the lies with FACTS. Truckloads of hard facts. Enough facts to sink Tuvalu long before the water ever does.
Lord Monckton has 95 minutes of facts in one speech. Have you seen it?
The warm-mongers have not one real world fact to back up their hysterical claims. They’re all based on computer models, the most crucial of which have now been confirmed to be fake.
The Guardian’s George Monbiot had the decency to apologise on his blog to all the honest folk he had previously decried as deniers. When the information changed, he changed his mind. Good on him.
Wouldn’t it be nice if even one MP from the New Zealand National Party would do the same?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
On Tuvalu, a popular place these days.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/fact-sheets/climate-change/impacts-of-climate-change.pdf
Its short, its main point is that nothing is certain, except for the fact that the sea level at Tuvalu has been rising inexorably.
Wrong again, Owen.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“getstaffed, do you think you can keep preaching that sermon for the next fifty years? If there is still no sign of problematic climate change by then you might convert me, but not before. The jury is out for a long time yet.”
Pete, no wonder getstaffed can’t be bothered trying to convert you. You’re just buying time. If nothing’s happened in 50 years, you’ll harrumph and demand another 50.
The jury came back last week. Get your eyepatch off.
“While you celebrate scientists will keep studying and observing.”
And fleecing and faking and lying.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Greenpeace – possibly the ONLY source less reliable than the IPCC
November 24th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
And Owen said Most of the Australian seas are constant with the error terms.
Well, the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology begs to differ in this report
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2005.pdf
The sea level records for all stations, when corrected for local land movement and the inverted barometer effect, are beginning to demonstrate coherent sea level rises
Wrong again Owen.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
getstaffed, what about this 2006 NASA report?
Extract:
Our best estimate of relative sea-level rise at Funafuti, Tuvalu is 2 +/- 1 min yr(-1) over the period 1950 to 2001. The analysis clearly indicates that sea-level in this region is rising.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Estimate? Estimate? And what the hell is “2 +/- 1 min yr(-1)”?” Is that all ya got Luc? Let’s see actual, longitudinal readings from non-ideologically driven scientists. Perhaps we could have the CRU to work up some more ‘estimates’ by way of comparison …
The climate is changing. It always has, always will. Warmer, colder, wetter, dryer. Ice forms and melts. Sea levels have risen and fallen. None of that is rocket science. But that we cause this is nothing other than alarmist junk-science. Which you’ve clearly bitten off hook, line and sinker. Poor soul.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Luc,
You link to a home page, which document were you referring to, I couldn’t find any reference to Tuvalu when searching the site?
expat
Search Results
Your search for Tuvalu did not return any matches (963 documents were searched):
No documents were found.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Luc – if you read the email file and the documents file you will see many conversations between people that work at NASA and CRU and people that work at ABM and CRU.
What you don’t seem to quite be getting is that anyone connected with CRU is now suspect, their research is suspect, their reports are suspect, their models are suspect. Sad I know but true and about to get truer.
What I’m trying to say is that your links are worthless, maybe you should stick to looking after babies huh? At least you know where the shit starts and stops with them.
By the by did you notice these two words in the quotes you’ve put above?
beginning
estimate – see what I mean?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Sweden has the highest incidence of rape in Europe, twice as high as the next most prone. Constructive.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Good grief!
It seems that Luc has been been pulling links out of his bum and not even reading them properly – again?
“2 +/- 1 min yr(-1)”
Ah – I think I see his real problem – as explained in A Fish Called Wanda
November 25th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Luc,
Whats with the words that that look like links but aren’t actually links?
They serve no purpose at all much like your brain cells.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
kaya, you are absolutely right about razork’s “I’m a business man. I know that sometimes you have to spend money to make money” bullshit. It’s not HIS money being spent, and he’s not really a business man, he’s a rent seeker.
This does explain the the seemingly unholy alliance between some in the “business community” and the “greenies”. It’s a classic Baptists and bootleggers situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
November 25th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Luc, even my numerically-challenged brain couldn’t help noticing this sentence in your Tuvalu report:
“An analysis using both sets of data, indicates a rate of rise of 0.8 ± 1.9 mm/year relative to the land. There is
a 68% probability of the rate of rise being between -1.1 and 2.7 mm/year.”
Now given the now legendary tendency for communistic climatepersons to exaggerate sea level upwards, it would seem that the report I found about the Tuvalu sea level rising by the width of a human hair in 100 years might be a hair’s breadth or two overstated.
On their record, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in another 100 years Tuvalu looks more like Oahu than Atlantis.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Interestingly the AU repost linked above (http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2005.pdf) states as its major findings, and I paraphrase (see full points below)
* We spent some money on some measurement stations (justifying spend)
* We recorded some Tsunami’s (cool)
* We noted that some predicted weather patterns didn’t turn out as we had expected (we were hoping for a pattern that would show some sea level rising, hence the timing of the study)
* We noted a measured drop in relative sea levels (but we’ll brush that aside)
* When we fiddled with the data a bit by estimating land was rising faster than sea was rising we managed to construct some trends that were similar to some estimated global trends based on some satellite measurements that weren’t focused on AU (don’t ask about the cumulative effect of all these estimates compared to estimates compared to estimates on the findings)
+++
The main findings during the July 2004 – June 2005 period include:
• The high-quality observations collected by the ABSLMP stations continue to be used for regional sea level analysis and determining sea level response to climate variations and climate change, while their real-time capabilities enable monitoring of tsunamis, storm surges and under-keel clearances at ports.
• Three separate tsunami events were recorded around the Australian coastline.
• A basin-wide El Niño failed to develop despite sustained warmer than average sea surface temperatures across the equatorial Pacific.
• A general cooling trend across the equatorial Pacific began in January 2005 as these weak warm-episode climate conditions began to moderate.
• Neutral El Niño-Southern Oscillation conditions are expected to prevail until the end of the year although temperatures across the equatorial Pacific will remain on the warm side of average.
• Data obtained from ABSLMP stations was consistent with the regional climatological trend – lower than normal sea levels were observed at many northern Australian stations as conditions verged on the threshold of El Niño while barometric pressure, air and water temperatures fluctuated about the climatological mean.
• The largest sea level trends over the duration of the project are being observed in the northern and western Australian region.
• While the duration of the record from the ABSLMP stations remain relatively short there are a number of clear results emerging. The sea level records for all stations, when corrected for local land movement and the inverted barometer effect, are beginning to demonstrate coherent sea level rises. These trends are in line with global trends estimated from satellite-based altimeters.
• It remains the aim of the ABSLMP that the high-quality sea level observations will provide an accurate means of long-term sea level monitoring, especially as the length of record increases.
This report and the monthly sea level data reports are available in electronic form on the NTC web site: http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography
November 25th, 2009 at 6:49 am
If you believe this then you’re nuts. But then it’s how many people seem to operate, the “side” they choose to promote is lily white and the other side is corrupt. Like right versus left, conservatism versus socialism, god versus no god, Christian versus Muslim etc. The world doesn’t operate like that, there are flaws all round. And one of the biggest flaws is choosing to be blind.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“And one of the biggest flaws is choosing to be blind.”..blinded by science,baffled with BS ?.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:55 am
exactly expat.
Seems we have to learn to read the weasel code.
“beginning”
“estimate”
“when adjusted”
ta Dahhh!
we get sea level rise.
It is fascinating to watch the Luc’s of the world spin and whine, when we know damn well if this was tobacco company lobbyist emails, or enron emails he would be on his bullhorn calling for the Police, and FBI to be breaking down Phil Jones and Michael Mann’s doors and carting them off to jail.
George Monbiot is the one who surprises me most. He has as much personally invested in GW as anyone on the left, but he saw immediately that the leak is fatal to the integrity of the “cause”.
But because environmentalism is just the latest religion to impose social control on the masses, we are going to have to nail a few edicts to the Beehive door before anyone notices.
Perhaps we could tattoo them on the scloretic one and nail him to the doors too? (note to the DPS – that was a sarcastic joke)
November 25th, 2009 at 7:56 am
..blinded by science,baffled with BS ?.
There is plenty of that all round, it’s just that some don’t seem to want to see it.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Luc,
Whats with the words that that look like links but aren’t actually links?
Good point.
practising…let’s try Real Climate again
November 25th, 2009 at 8:00 am
According to this from Monbiot he doesn’t see it as anything like fatal.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:07 am
OK I would say it is swapping between Mac and Bill. Probably that on the mac I don’t need to depress the enter key for the quote marks but on Bill’s system it is necessary.
Just a quick note, we have a date with baby’s swimming intructor, but you cannot cherry pick data from a government body that concludes the opposite to what you are promoting and forms the basis of government policy in this regard. Perhaps you should look up the definition of cherry picking. Part of the ongoing research is reconciling theory and observations; they don’t necessarily occur in unison and theory often develops in response to new observations. there is nothing underhand in this, except in the imagination of conspiracy theorists – they live here: paranoidplanet.com (not a link
)
November 25th, 2009 at 8:22 am
RAS (13) Vote: 2 0 Says:
November 25th, 2009 at 12:22 am
kaya, you are absolutely right about razork’s “I’m a business man. I know that sometimes you have to spend money to make money” bullshit. It’s not HIS money being spent, and he’s not really a business man, he’s a rent seeker.
Ras I’m no enviromentalist and think the first half of my 5.53pm post showed that i don’t believe in this crap either.
Quite simply I’m a capitalist and have voted National or Act all my life.
I was trying to put a slightly less negative slant on it.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Pete..according to Tim Flannery climate scientist/activist..
“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works…”.huh. yet governments around the world are basing policy on that ?.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Luc, the evil in this is not that a small number of scientists have fudged their data to provide the result they were looking for. It is that governments around the world are radically changing their economic policies and creating a new *market* for trading emissions, on the basis of what *may be* a fabrication (deliberate or otherwis). The Australian Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery has admitted they don’t really understand climate science. There have been 2 decades of global COOLING in contradiction of their predictions. Salinger has been exposed for the charlatan that he is. It is simply wrong for governments to make their citizens (or, in New Zealand, most of their citizens) poorer on the basis of the assertions that have been made about climate change. And for New Zealand to effectively sacrifice its primary economies (farming and resources) on the alter of this false religion is plainly wrong. Wrong for New Zealand as a country (we’ll be an even bigger laughing stock), and wrong for its citizens (we’ll be a lot poorer than we currently are). The winners from an ETS are (1) the big polluters, who get copious credits to play with (although I guarantee they’ll use the ETS as an excuse to gouge their customers) and the banks, who get a new market to play and trade in. All at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer. Shame on you, John Key. Shame, Shame, Shame.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Pete George: my sweeping statement does indeed look outrageously biased. Therefore all you need to do is supply a few skerricks of hard evidence to support that belief and prove me wrong.
Calling me nuts supports my belief that abuse is all you guys have got.
I read Monbiot’s claim that this does not spell the end of the climate crisis. I also noted his classic minimisation that the leaks only “damage the credibility of three or four scientists.”
That suggests these are just three or four ordinary guys. In fact, they’re the very guys on whom the left have been relying to provide the scientific and moral justification for their whole scam.
To say that the IPCC worldview can survive damage to the credibility of its lead scientists is like saying OJ Simpson can go on endorsing products or P Money can go on a tour of girls’ schools.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Alistair – an excellent comment. Thank you.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am
John, I’m not convinced that we’re going to have runaway global warming or the other catastrophic predictions of some. But I still don’t believe that this is the end of the climate change train. The facts remain that:
– 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred in recent years. The world is getting warmer.
– sea levels are rising slowly – approximately 0.5-1mm per year
The measured rises in temperature and sea level are a small concern, and they are real.
The predictions that these rises will melt all the ice in the world, that they are irreversible, that they will reach a tipping point. Those I think are discredited to some extent, as they are entirely based on the models and theories, and we now know that those models and theories were subject to group think and confirmation bias, and to exclusion from publication of contrary views. That doesn’t worry me much, I’ve never really believed most of those predictions, they appear rather far fetched to me, and never had much/any supporting evidence.
I think it’s important to distinguish the bits that are measurable facts from the bits that are theories. Sceptics who are sceptical of measurable facts always seem to me to be a bit mad.
On sea level rise specifically, I note the claim that fresh water impoundment (i.e. building of dams) reduced sea level rises in the period 1930 to 1970. Maybe we in NZ should do our bit for reducing sea level rise by building some more hydro and/or irrigation dams?
November 25th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Perhaps Paul but who needs supporting evidence when the global media latch onto disaster scenarios and repeat them day after day as fact? Fiction becomes fact. Then facts are derived from there. And so on.
We now have a global aversion to carbon emissions and believe carbon to be a pollutant.. when in truth it’s a cornerstone of life on this plant, and it is quite literally the consequence of every breath you and I take. That’s a masterstroke of manipulation – raising the charge of killing our planet against the only thing over which individuals have zero control.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Sure, this talk of the warmists at Copenhagen planning a new “world government” is crazy. I just wish the warmists wouldn’t talk of it themselves. Take the new and first president of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy: The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet
Hat tip: Andrew Bolt
November 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
The Wegman Report highlights a group of 42 scientists (including all the main players at CRU) who “peer reviewed” each others work, collaborated on various projects and looked after each others backs. I’m fairly sure all of the have been “lead authors” for IPCC reports.
This is not 4 or 5 scientists who have had a bad light cast on them. Those 42 must have their claims investigated. Anyone who worked with those 42 needs to have their claims investigated. Do you see how big this could be. All their data must be investigated. The methodologies they used need to be held up to independent peer review?
It’s becoming obvious that CRU’s master data set was a complete mess and that when they tried to recreate stuff they had done in the past and couldn’t make it work they made stuff up or ‘massaged’ other data to get the same result.
These people need to be subjected to a rigorous investigation into their methods and data now.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
getstaffed: you’re complaining about the fact that most media is shallow and latches onto stories of doom and gloom? Sorry, that isn’t unique to the global warming area. The global warming folks have become adept at feeding that behaviour, but they most certainly did not create it. To be blunt, media respond to what people buy. There’s a reason that NZ has 10 magazines that are full of tattle and gossip, and almost one magazine that has business information. There’s also a reason we have successive governments that are clones of each other, and that bumble around do nothing about NZ’s long-term productivity problems.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Paul – not complaining at all, I’m in complete agreement. The alarmist folks have been very effective intheir use of the MSM as propaganda tool. Given the MSM’s tendency to hype stories, it’s a pity that an overwhelming 94% of Australian exec indicated they obtained their ETS knowledge from news reports (TV, print and radio) (c.f. Fig.2 pp8).
November 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
And the counter-argument alarmists are naive honest souls who wouldn’t know how? Yeah, right.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I agree the MSM will print what sells. But their bias on this particular issue is astounding. They want the blood & guts, car crash stuff. They want the disaster movie. How is the destruction of the NZ economy in supplication to the Great Green God and its High Priest ManBearPig not a disaster? Why have there been no reports on the day-to-day impact on ordinary New Zealanders? How much will power bills rise? How much will petrol prices rise? How much will food prices rise? The MSM in Australia have had a half-arsed go at this by reporting that power prices will rise by 40%, but it was only half-arsed and it hasn’t really gone anywhere. I say again: Shame, shame, shame.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Negative karma for asking what the day-to-day impacts of the ETS will be on everyday New Zealanders? Get fucked.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
An interesting connection:
And Holdren is the Director of Science and Technology Policy at the White House?!? OMG.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I read with interest in the Australian Financial Review (and other places) this morning that Liberals leader Malcolm Turnbull has effectively committed political suicide over the Australian version of ETS. His leadership was shaky before this, but his (reported) shameful behaviour in the party room yesterday appears to have sealed his fate.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Well, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has come out and urged the Government not to pass the current ETS bill – stating that “In its current form, the bill virtually guarantees that the ETS will not achieve its stated goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I cannot support the bill being passed as it is currently.”
Why is the National government wasting New Zealand’s time? Why pass a bill that doesn’t achieve it’s purpose?
November 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
A good question mjanderson, but it presupposes that the intended purpose and the stated purpose are the same thing.
You will recall that the Electoral Finance Bill’s stated purpose was to create a stand-alone Act (the Electoral Finance Act) to provide more transparency and accountability in the democratic process, prevent the undue influence of wealth, and promote participation in parliamentary democracy … when the [unstated] intended purpose was very, very different.
No, the ETS is not about the environment. It’s about our political leaders buying their place at a global trough using our money. Again.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Nigel Lawson has a very good article at the Times online, positing Copenhagen will (and should) fail.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
“The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.
Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.”
November 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Reasonable comments from Lawson, healthy skepticism rather than anti everything – not far off what I feel about it although he is a bit more optimistic about our ability to adapt our way out of any problem should it occur. The higher the population gets and the more industrialised the world becomes the smaller the margin of error.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Yeah, it’s easy to get sidetracked with the noise and lose objectivity sometimes, not made any easier when terms like ‘denier’ get bandied about willy nilly. Anyway, I found something to lighten the moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
November 25th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation”
He’s just stated this as a given though? I’m all for honest, non-partisan analysis of how best to deal with increased rates of change in the climate, but just saying “it’s better for us than trying to decarbonise over a century” needs backing.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
So am I.
But let’s first have some honest, non-partisan analysis of the existence and magnitude of any human caused change.
If there is human caused change then we can address the cause, balancing our response against the magnitude of that cause, in isolation from natural changes over which we have no influence.
If there isn’t human caused change we simply address the effect, as humans have done for eons.
My personal view is that any warming ahead is more likely to be the result of us still coming out of the Little Ice Age (long trend) or an increased in solar activity (which I believe is currently at a low in a short cycle).
November 25th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“But let’s first have some honest, non-partisan analysis of the existence and magnitude of any human caused change. ”
We can argue over the “non-partisan” part of that but you must admit there’s a huge amount of straight scientific investigation into this.
For Nigel Lawson (who was a great man for giving us Nigella but not an honest, non-partisan scientist) to just claim that adaptation by itself is “cheaper” than long-term decarbonisation is almost useless as it seems we haven’t had rigorous analysis of those options.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
PaulL, the trouble with new hydro and other renewables is that everybody wants it, but nobody wants it anywhere near them. Meridian’s Upper Waitaki Project Aqua couldn’t even get planning permission, as I understand it.
As for your legitimate concern that global warming may still be real despite the lead IPCC scientists being crooks, it may well be.
The issue was never about whether the globe is warming – it does and it has been, though for the last ten years it’s been cooling again.
(Mind you, the whole business of how those warmest-in-recent-history temperatures were arrived at must now be called into question, since most of the world’s leading climatologists would seem to be in on the cover-up.)
The issue is about whether we are contributing to the supposed warming, and, if so, whether we should all panic and divert trillions of dollars into trying to lower global temperatures by an amount that would make a difference.
I understand that is not possible, even if it was desirable.
I think the first thing we need to do is stop all the current initiatives and have all the evidence – including the latest emails – heard in a reputable court of law. I’ve no idea which court that should be. The US Supreme Court? The International Court of Justice? I don’t know my courts very well.
But supposing a suitably impartial judge or panel of judges could be found, we could then see all the players interrogated and the media would surely not be able to avoid reporting it.
The first job for the judge, I suppose, would be to conduct a worldwide grid search for an honest climatologist. IF one could be found, his independent views would be interesting.
If one could not (or in any case), it would be equally interesting to subpoena Al Gore and Lord Monckton to appear – ideally in a worldwide televised debate.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
garethw – We differ on this. I believe that a forensic ‘heritage’ analysis of scientific evidence will find swathes of it distorted by the kind of tribal junk science that’s been flushed out into the open in the last week.
The ’science is settled’ notion that carbon is responsible for climatic change is now in tatters, and so any suggestion that we need to tackle carbon emissions needs to be put to the background while science is freed from political and ideological constraints. Sadly I can’t see that happening anytime soon.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
getstaffed, I’m also interested in how a non-partisan, scientific analysis gets you to the personal view you state? Honest question as I’m no scientist, I don’t sit anywhere specific on a “political scale” but any overall research I’ve done comes to quite a different view with regards to the impact of human forcing on climate. So am interested to see your process and at what point we diverge.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I’ve been reading quite a bit of the commentary about the ‘climategate’ material, from both sides of the fence. Initially the smoking gun material was said to be the ‘Nature trick’ and ‘hide the decline’. I read the spin on Real Climate and was tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps overall this was just normal scientist conversation. But what is really perturbing is the way they have set up trying to avoid disclosing their data under FOI requests. Scientists must share their work for it to be credible, it must be replicated by other scientists, and these guys were using every trick they could think of to avoid sharing their data.
This led me to look up the definition of scientist (like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist) which states ‘a scientist is a person who uses the scientific method’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It’s clear these guys perverted the scientific method. They need to be investigated, and an independent team needs to be set up to authenticate their work to date, and it needs to be done in full public scrutiny.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ok, you may have just answered that before I got in there! You seem to think that the “pro-anthropogenic-forcing” science is politically driven (for whatever reason) and the “no-significant-anthropogenic-forcing” science is not. That would be the point at which we diverge (as I see no evidence for that, even the East Anglia emails don’t change the science for me) as I do my best to read only science and research based stuff from people in the field – sure I find contention, but I also find a mass of research within that criteria that falls on one side rather than the other.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
garethw – I’m no scientist either. I just don’t like being hoodwinked and about three years ago I started reading about climate change and concluded that there was something fishy going on. I kept investigating, and about two years ago I switched camps to become a skeptic. The envidence in support of this postion has continued to mount IMO.
Finding non-partisan evidence is difficult beacuse everyone claims that anyone who doesn’t share their views is partisan.
I’m not exempt – I no longer regard anything with a UN/IPCC heritage of worth and, sadly, many downstream research papers base some of their inputs on IPCC data. Climate science pages in Wikipedia are heavily tainted/controlled by UN/IPCC/RealClimate edits.
I’d recommend researching the following topic: the Medieval Warming Period (MWP); the Little Ice Age (LIA); the Maunder Minimum and other Solar Activity
November 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I’d add the Pacific decadal oscillation to getstaffed’s research list.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
That seems to be the case. It doesn’t mean they are totally wrong, but they have certainly done some things the wrong way.
I suspect that scientists are often torn between two things – sharing research and data as much as possible so they can all progress their science, and a degree of protecting what they are doing so they can ring fence the glory. I think it proves that scientists are humans with human failings.
Yes, they should be investigated. Their work is tainted but that doesn’t mean it should be totally discounted, an inquiry would determine who slanted it may be.
So far there is no evidence or indication there is any scam or plot to take over the world. It is more indicative of scientific selfishness rather than a widespread scam.
At this stage the work of many other scientists and studies is not tainted.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Deciding anything that the IPCC uses in it’s summaries as worthless means you actively avoid a great deal of the core science – only reading things that the IPCC won’t use means you’re forcing yourself down a skeptic path.
I’ve read up on MWP and LIA and am still happy with where I sit on this. Solar Activity in general is something I’ve also specifically addressed and, yup, still happy.
I’m sure neither of us can be assed relitigating climate science though. Appreciate you having a rational and reasonable conversation though even if we disagree.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I respectfully disagree with both Pete and garethw on the basis of what I have found out so far when the emails are placed in full context. Although a couple appear to be indefensible, no science is falsified. Selective quotations intended to insinuate that it is are the truly reprehensible contribution to the
witch huntdebate.Funny thing is, when I came to Kiwiblog I was skeptical but taking the advice from my wife on board to the effect of ” What if it’s all true!” I was reluctantly being dragged along the ETS route.
But following the noise generated by you buggers here (no offence) and the extra research you caused me to carry out, I quickly became convinced that the problem is serious. If you are a denier, then no-one can help you. If you dwell in the uncertainties, then listen to the consensus. The politicians usually don’t do controversial stuff like this just for fun!
The Copenhagen Diagnosis http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org was carried out by the University of New South Wales in preparation got the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. This is their forecast for our future:
❏Global mean air-temperature is projected to warm 2°C – 7°C above pre-industrial by 2100. The wide range is mainly due to uncertainty in future emissions.
❏There is a very high probability of the warming exceeding 2°C unless global emissions peak and start to decline rapidly by 2020.
❏Warming rates will accelerate if positive carbon feedbacks significantly diminish the efficiency of the land and ocean to absorb our CO2 emissions.
❏Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst case projections from the IPCC AR4 set of model simulations.
The above points indicate a sea level rise over the next several centuries of “several metres” and a rise of 1-2 metres by the end of this century is unavoidable, even now. It’s not just a matter of moving to higher land, either.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Except for :-
Removal of data to mask the impact of the Medieval Warming Period
Swapping in tree-ring data from another site because falsified set showed more warming
Deliberately fudging data in climate models so that warming trend would be shown when none existed
Stacking peer reviewers from ‘tame’ scientists, and excluding any who might not agree with data & method
Refusing to release data and process for scientific community’s own verification
Working to exclude journals from research if they asked for normal things like data & methodology
Instructions to delete data/emails in advance of Freedom of Information request
Having editorial rights over as supposedly independent climate science website.
The science isn’t settled. It’s non-existent!
November 25th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Ha – this is GREAT satire:
Hide the Decline – Climategate
November 25th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Since when has science been about concensus? In 1633 concensus was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Should the only one to think otherwise, Galileo Galilei, have shrugged and gone along with that consensus?
November 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
getstaffed,
if you go for a cruise through the Real Climate comments threads on this email leak issue, you will find most, if not all, of those out-of-context very satisfactorily dealt with by Gavin Schmidt. I had never heard of him before this fiasco, but just in reading his informed, measured replies to queries, and seeing the time he freely gives of himself, I have developed huge respect for him.
If you are too busy and want me to post here what I have found, just say so. If you won’t, as I suspect, believe anything other than what your contrarianism tells you, I won’t waste my time.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Luc, Schmidt’s role was, and remains to run interference for the CRU fraudsters. His replies may be ‘informed and measured’, but his credibility is zero in my view. However if reading RealClimate makes you feel secure amidst the crumbling temple of climate change then who am I to deny you that comfort.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Here’s some news:
1. Delegations from 192 nations are attending Copenhagen. At least 60 leaders will attend, including the leaders of Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil (BBC, 24 Nov 2009)
2. The following organisations have now outed themselves as part of the worldwide scientific, tax gathering, and world government conspiracy theory:
“The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) say the science of climate change is more alarming than ever.
They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.”(BBC, 24 Nov 2009)
That’s a LOT of zero credibility!
November 25th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Yes, Copenhagen hotels and bars are gearing up for an veritable onslaught of trough-dwellers with their tax-payer funded expense accounts. It’s going to be a talk, eat and drink fest like the Danes have never seen.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
You mean like the Saddam-had-WMDs-Patriot-Act-Posse-Comitatus-Repeal-Downing-Street-Memo-Gulf-of-Tonkin-Treaty-of-Lisbon kind of fun, Luc?
You AGW evangelists are being played like a violin. Precisely like those who don’t see through those other example incidents. Shame you and various others who believe one or more of those examples can’t and won’t see that, those who do see it could use your intellects. It’s a real shame.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Well, you guys convince the 192 governments that are sending delegations to Copenhagen.
Good luck.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
The BBC isn’t the best source of information on this matter: BBC Bias
November 26th, 2009 at 6:24 am
getstaffed, you mention Schmidt running interference on Real Climate. Who are you running interference for on Kiwiblog? You seem unnaturally obsessed with pushing only one side of this, often grossly exaggerating, and you have been repetitively parroting the same talking points, often repeating falsities. You talk about discredited evidence yet you have often quoted extremist unqualified “skeptics” who aren’t displaying skepticism but rather blind faithlessness. Your approach is far more extreme than Schmidt’s. Is someone paying you commission?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Pete, Feel free to push back on things I write that you find ‘extremist’ or ‘grossly exaggerated’, or just cast aspersions on my character and/or motives. The latter seems much more your style. Sadly.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:49 am
You do plenty of casting aspersions on the character and motives of many scientists.
What are your motives?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:50 am
The truth. That’s all.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:54 am
That’s not the way it comes across from you. Who’s “truth” are you pushing?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Truth doesn’t belong to anyone. If it belonged to some and not to others it wouldn’t be truth.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Luc,
Gavin Schmidt is not some credible independent observer. He is actually embroiled in that mess. The main things in those e-mails that point to him are the statements about how other scientists are welsome to use RealClimate to publish their rebuttals to points, and that Gavin will actively filter comments to prevent any real challenge. I.e. RealClimate censors the difficult questions.
In fact, there is a blog set-up specifically to post questions / comments that Gavin Schmidt and his ilk have censored. RealClimate is a global warming advocacy blog.
Going there to get a balanced view on Global Warming is about as useful as going to the Standard or Kiwiblog to get a balanced view on NZ politics (but the censorship at RC is probably worse).
November 26th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Another playbook type response. I’ll rephrase the question – who are you acting for here?
November 26th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Pete – I’m doing what I think is right. No one is directing me. No one is paying me. Actually I’m unemployed right now so have plenty of time. You’ll note that I haven’t asked your motives or questioned your charater. Nor will I.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:28 am
“Who are you acting for here”..jeez pete..typical…it is not getstaffed’s agenda we should be worried about..its the climate scientists who have promoted their own agenda..
November 26th, 2009 at 9:02 am
“Who are you acting for?” is not the right question. “What is the truth?” is the right question.
Whoever can answer that properly is acting for all of humanity.
Luc: I, for one, would like to see the rebuttals you mention to getstaffed’s tight summary of the deceptions.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
LOOK AT THIS FOLKS: http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
If true, it’s proof that our own NIWA are card-carrying Climate Scientologists.
How will our media bury this one?
I didn’t know that NIWA’s former messiah Jim Salinger used to work at the now infamous University of East Anglia Climate Research Institute with Jones and co. That explains a lot.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
This from Richard Treadgold, one of the guys who put out the above expose on NIWA. This time he’s talking about the 100 icebergs said to be heading our way:
‘I think it’s exciting that we might see giant icebergs again, because it’s dramatic. However, the assumption that their close approach is connected with warming is odd, since the appearance of ice in my gin and tonic indicates just the opposite—a cooling trend. As you sail to Antarctica, the appearance of icebergs in the sea certainly confirms a cooling trend. A reasonable person, on hearing that icebergs appear because of warming, surely considers enquiring whether it’s actually because of cooling.
‘Dr Young’s easy attribution of the calving of these icebergs to “global warming” is unlikeable and unconvincing. More likely is that, as usual, the ice shelf reaches such a length (through continual plentiful production of ice, please note!) that the ocean waves can move it about with sufficient force to snap it off. If warming was causing melting, what would survive to embark on a voyage to anywhere?
‘It is equally likely that, because of cooling seas, the icebergs now survive the long voyage to New Zealand!
‘I know of no evidence supporting a global rise in temperature recently. Certainly, no more than perhaps 0.2°C, something like that, in the few months which might have influenced the calving. In the Antarctic, such a rise might get you up to around minus eleventy five which is dreadfully chilly and won’t melt anything. There’s nothing abnormal going on here. Might we not reasonably expect the Herald to know this and to question the AFP story?
‘They have let us down.’
November 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming,