Unlike you I don’t spend every breathing moment of my life blogging – in fact I don’t think I’ve commented here for well over a month. You should try getting out more. Maybe even spend more time with your teenage boy who supposedly justifies your DPB. Get some pride for goodness sake.

but then..you usually do take an inordinately long time to ‘get up to speed’/notice things…

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

i’m not ‘deranged’..

i don’t spend my days being cruel to animals/polluting the country/peddling a foul cancer-causing muck….

for money..

You love to comment on how Side Show Bob earns his livelihood, but hate it when others comment on your DPB livestyle. Go figure.

Edit: What’s this “Request Deletion” feature for posted comments, and when was it introduced?

2. Does CO2 drive atmospheric temperature changes, or is it the other way around?

Ooh, I know this one (well, based on Gareth Morgan’s book, anyway).

In the past (as far as we can tell), atmospheric CO2 has always risen following a temperature increase, because a warming climate reduces the ability of the oceans to store CO2.

Right now, CO2 is increasing very steadily prior to the temperature increase — which means the great human climate experiment is breaking new ground.

12. What has more influence on atmospheric and/or ocean temperatures: CO2 levels or solar energy oscillation?

I know this one too (again based on Morgan’s book, _Poles Apart_). Radiation from the sun varies over about a 10 year cycle, with a difference from the maximum to the minimum being about 0.1%. Quoting Morgan, “while there is little obvious trend [over the past 30 years], such variation as there is suggests that the Earth ought to have been cooling rather than warming since 1978.”

I’m sure you know as well as I that the US is one of the two biggest emitters, along with China.

You criticise the US a damn sight more than I do, and wish they have an uprising and revolution etc etc. To use your own words, “A deranged US hating bigot” might well be how many see you. But then unless you deceive yourself you will know that too.

i don’t spend my days being cruel to animals/polluting the country/peddling a foul cancer-causing muck….

for money..

phil(whoar.co.nz

Note that none of my views in any way changes the idea that it is both wise and responsible to care for our environment. The problem I have is when the subject material becomes a platform for powerful people to gain more power at the expense of the unformed (naïve?) majority.

More propaganda from Kiwiblog’s pet communist liar. A deranged US hating bigot who says nothing about what’s going on where his comrades rule.

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=993

no..bloody-hands bob..you are the ‘down right evil’ one..

you are the one who everyday inflicts foul abuses/tortures on animals..

and pollute our country..

and all to make your ‘dirty’/blood-drenched money..

eh..?

you are the ‘evil one’..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

the feature of the scientific consensus..is the vast numbers of peer-reviewed scientific papers that lead to that consensus..

there is no one ’silver bullet’-reason..

b.t.w..blount..what qualifications do you have to disbelieve this scientific-consensus..?.

(just a ‘gut feeling’..?..is it..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Actually, this isn’t true on a per capita basis And the poorest billion or so contribute a minimal amount. The developing nations are increasing their emission in total but are still way behind the supersize me, SUV driving developed nations on a per capita basis. In fact, the developing nations will never surpass the developed nations in total emissions over time because the fossil fuels simply won’t be available.

getstaffed, as soon as you introduce belittling words like “scam” and terms like “power hungry” (as if any politician is not power hungry-it’s probably the main reason why they are there) it’s apparent that your are not seeking serious debate but just indulging in ad hominem rants against learned and dedicated specialists. I suppose it must make you feel powerful, skulking as you do behind a nom de plume.

Pete, I posted a link to Bjorn Lomborg’s site above because he is one who actually is very skeptical of ETS or even carbon tax schemes. I am tempted by the theory, but still think that the precautionary principle means we should support whatever carbon reducing scheme the government settles on. Anything is better than nothing.

If you believe the only way to fight pollution and resource degradation is through huge taxation then you have rocks in your head.

I don’t believe the only way is through taxation, although what I am finding out suggests that if done right it may work better than trading (especially with all the exceptions and distortions being suggested).
Can’t comment on the rocks, never been tested for that.

Generally speaking developed counties have less pollution and look after their resources better then third world counties because we have learnt that it will benefit our bottom line.

Is the US a third world country? They have learnt that exploiting and don’t care about the pollution is best for their bottom line.

We should be finding ways of using resources more efficiently and polluting less, that surely won’t do anyone any harm.

Now that I agree with. Most thinking people know what pollution is: toxic waste, and the kind of industrial aftermath that we witnessed first in the 19th century industrial-age, then in Soviet Russia and still, sadly, in too many countries. We can and should fix that pollution. However CO2 is not a pollutant and increasingly studies, like this one from Bristol University, are showing those who claim otherwise to be misguided.

As for efficiency, I agree there too. However what drives efficiency is organic consumer demand rather that state-originated taxation. The latter may be initially intended to change consumer demands via pricing, but IMO quickly becomes a blunt instrument to pay for increase welfare and get-me-re-elected policies.

Luc – There is ‘overwhelming consensus and evidence’ of the climate change scam if you open your eyes to see it. You and your ilk are as guilty of the myopia that you claim of me. However ‘Climate realists’ don’t have the backing of power-hungry politicians, nor do we have the MSM holding the front page for juicy stories of alarm and impending misery.

Make no mistake, at the last minute, it may turn out the science is wrong, but if it isn’t, by then it will be too late. And the end result will be untold misery for future generations.

There is no certainty in the science, either way. There may never be certainty, in our lifetimes anyway, climate and what affects it isn’t simply measured over short periods.

Those with fixed opinions have closed minds.
Those who say humans affect nothing and there is no potential climate problem choose to be blind to reality.
Some of the more extreme adverse predictions are only slightly more likely to be right than that.

We should be finding ways of using resources more efficiently and polluting less, that surely won’t do anyone any harm.

The real climate scientists work on probability factors, not certainty. I’m not a scientist, but my punt at the current situation is there is about a 75% chance we could have caused a significant problem and about a 25% chance we can do anything significant about it. I’ll keep re-evaluating as I find out more – and that is what I believe most scientists are doing.