Witness this just published by Briston University: Controversial new climate change results.

Extract:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

Lots of similar findings now starting to appear, but they don’t make the MSM – not sensational enough. That in itself should be cause for concern.

or ..as i suspect.. is it more of a ‘gut-feeling’..?

that you are you just pulling out of yr arse..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Most scientists don’t say it is certain there will soon be catastrophic arthrogenic climate change. They are suggesting probability levels of certain things happen.

I try to be skeptical of aspects of all sides of the argument. When people post an anti climate change argument here I research it and more often than not find it is from a source with poor credibility in the field and has been using falsehoods and other unethical scientific method.

I am most skeptical of those who claim there is no problem and no effect and remain fixed on that view. The argument must be one of degree of effect (from negligible to major), whether we should try and do anything about it, and if we do anything what we should do.

Some inconsistencies and a bit of curiosity had me look a little deeper, at which point I discovered a large quantity of contra evidence and some rather alarming ‘warmist science’ that’s been packaged for public consumption.

I think most judges would rebuff hearsay (eg he said that he said) as clutching at straws by the prosecution.

You’re very welcome to believe whatever you like, and clearly have plenty of faith in the ‘evidence’ that finds it’s way into the MSM.

But I don’t.

For my part there is sufficient evidence of tampering, falsehoods and other unethical scientific method in the support for soon-to-be catastrophic arthrogenic climate change that I choose skepticism over gullibility.

More of the former ensures better science, while more of the latter promotes naivety and exploitation.

So lemme get this right: Mörner claims to be the ‘former chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change’

You got it wrong – you have misquoted the letter.

while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA

And this is a big deal how

- he continues to represent himself in his former capacity

It would be like Winston Peters going around saying he is an MP rather than a former MP.

Remember science is about fact and truth, not about consensus, so the idea that ‘majority’ has any meaning is just nuts.

Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

The (growing) weight of evidence, and the huge majority of scientific opinion does have some meaning if you are prepared to look beyond just nuts you keep searching out.

But that won’t stop the ‘majority’ (scientists or fellow travelers) working overtime to denigrate the source of contra viewpoints. Such is modern scientific method …

The majority of scientists are working to find more evidence to test the current views, and as it happens most results keep supporting the majority view.

It is so simple to “denigrate” most contra viewpoints because they are so weak and poorly supported.

You seem to keep searching for straws to clutch to.

Mörner is perfectly entitled to refer to his past high-ranking role as part of his credentials. When these chaps are introduced at conferences the first 5 minutes is spent regaling the attendees with such information. You do it on your CV. I do it on mine. 100% normal and expected. Clague is just pissed because his predecessor didn’t see the world that way he did/does. That’s petty. So we didn’t agree on that at all!

Trouble is, the refutation of the deniers is evident on the IPCC website if only you could bring yourself to look at it.

But you can’t, can you?

Anymore than Kris can look at the evolutionary basis of the recorded desire for a “meaning” to a life that in the long term, has none, but in the short term, has heaps.

And just to re-present one fact: Clague positively DISOWNED your mate’s point of view. I agree with you that that is much more important than CV enhancement.

Oh should that not be (E hoa, ka whawhai tonu ahau ki a koe, ake, ake!)

The guy is an expert and his opinion is not supported by the ‘majority’. Remember science is about fact and truth, not about consensus, so the idea that ‘majority’ has any meaning is just nuts. But that won’t stop the ‘majority’ (scientists or fellow travelers) working overtime to denigrate the source of contra viewpoints. Such is modern scientific method …

Further, anyone here have a CV? Yes? Well we ALL use past experience and credentials to lend weight to our future pursuits. That Clague laments Mörner doing so is too petty to dignify with comment.

Jack5: Agree with you. I’m told that Oil needs to sustain prices north of $150 a barrel (probably more with Obama slaying trees to print more greenbacks) for Great South Basin exploration and recovery to start to look viable.

The new estimates put the Manaia and Maari combined reserves at 1.5 per cent the size of Norway’s proven oil reserves.

Upgrading of the estimated reserves of the offshore Manaia and Maari fields to 100 million barrels is welcome news and for a short time will put a dent (but no more) in our overseas trade deficit. But to suggest NZ is on the verge of a bonanza is gilding the lily.

100m barrels is significant, being equivalent to slightly less than 3.5 days production of the combined oilfields of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US.

However, if there is a bonanza, why do NZ explorers find it so hard and expensive to attract offshore rigs to NZ?

It is a sad fact that NZ drillers are generally much more likely to strike gas than oil.

While the Manaia-Maari reserve upgrade is to be welcomed, let’s cut the bonanza crap. Leave that with Invercargill’s over-the-top mayor, who talks of his city’s becoming the new Dallas, before oil reserves are proven in the Great South Basin, before it is proved the structures contain significant amounts of oil rather than gas, before it is established it will be economic to extract oil there if and when it is found in production quantities.

The Stuff story:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3059510/New-Zealand-set-for-an-oil-bonanza

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston

For example, one contract is a 385 million dollar logistics contract to the son of the Afghan Minister of Defence, of which they say at least 10% goes to warlords and the Taleban to guarantee safe passage.

It just shows that nothing changes over time. Going back 3000 odd years, the Arabian caravan trade existed by paying tribute to the local warlords on their way to what we know now as Iraq, Iran, Turkey and beyond. It was also the original, but peaceful, Arab invasion of the Middle East as the traders set up outposts (familiar word?) to facilitate their trade.

And I guess it shows also that Aghanistan never needed to be bombed back to the stone age because it never emerged from it!

Hong Kong is a free port, and does not levy tariffs on any imports.

So what’s the big deal about getting an FTA with Hong Kong? We already have free access.

it’s your turn..!

don’t cut and run on us now..!

(psstt..!..i think your ‘expert’ is standing naked..eh..?..

and you too..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

We are talking about different documents. The one you linked to is NOT the Treaty of Copenhagen and Monkton’s case seems to rest upon interpretation of one word, ‘government’. I wonder if we would call it ‘governance’?

Seems to me what the media call a ‘beat up’.

Unless she smacked me back!