Dom Post on Climate Change
The Dom Post editorial:
Last night, NZ time, representatives of 192 countries gathered in the Danish capital of Copenhagen for the start of a two-week conference devoted to global warming.
Depending on your point of view, the conference represents either a last chance for humanity to save the planet from a man-made apocalypse, or the culmination of a giant fraud.
If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, the planet is warming, sea levels are rising and humans are to blame. The panel, a United Nations body, is forecasting temperature rises of between 1.1 degrees celsius and 6.4C this century and sea-level rises of between 18 centimetres and 59cm – sufficient to cause drought and coastal flooding and render some island countries uninhabitable.
If the sceptics are to be believed, fluctuations in the planet’s temperature are normal and there is no conclusive proof that human activity is to blame for the changes in the past 50 years.
What I find interesting is that the editorial even mentions the views of sceptics. A few months ago, and I suspect it may not have.
Notwithstanding the recent publication of emails suggesting that some climate-change scientists have sought to suppress data that does not conform to their theories, the weight of scientific evidence is on the side of the climate-change believers.
However, even if the sceptics are eventually proved correct, it makes sense to take a precautionary approach. If the sceptics are right, the cost of reducing carbon emissions will be measured in lower standards of living. Consumers will have to pay more for electricity and fuel, goods will be more expensive and inhabitants of developed countries such as New Zealand will have to compensate inhabitants of poorer countries for reducing their use of the polluting technologies with which developed countries built their wealth. If the sceptics are wrong, the cost will be drought, famine, the destruction of productive land and, as an editorial published by 56 newspapers today says, the drowning of whole countries.
A fair point. However the projected increase in sea levels by 2100 is from 19 cm to 69 cm – not metres and metres.
The challenge facing negotiators is to find a formula that rich and poor countries can agree to. An agreement to which the world’s biggest emitters, China and the United States, are not party to is an agreement not worth the paper it is written on. So too is an agreement from which other developing countries exclude themselves.
Absolutely. At present NZ has a more ambitious target than both China and the US. No way should NZ agree to a higher target unless the big emitters do.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Don’t they know the damage they are doing to “our” image but not replicating the Guardian editorial? Oh noes!!!
December 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
” However, even if the sceptics are eventually proved correct, it makes sense to take a precautionary approach. ”
What pretentious garbage. The “precautionary principle” is a means by which the left can enact any legislation or political measure without any need to justify it with facts and logic.
Throughout history, the implementation of the precautionary principle has lead to unnecessary death and tragedy. The downside to the crushing of human endeavour, enterprise and scientific advancement that will occur if the climate change religionists get their way will far outweigh the upside.
Furthermore, if the editor of the Dominion Post and his left wing suck holing lackies who posture as “journalists” had been doing their job rather than pandering to their political friends, this whole scam would never have got off the ground.
If there is one thing I don’t need, its sanctimonious editorials from newspapers I regard as purveyors of propaganda and places where the “news” is written by craven cowards whose allegiance is to their progressive political masters and not to the craft of journalism.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Two thoughts occur:
1. Neither China nor the US trade on their environmental image. And they are both too big to boycott. New Zealand is much more vulnerable to a loss of trade or tourism if our reputation is damaged.
2. New Zealand may have an ambitious target (do we really?), but how are we going to achieve it? Does anyone actually think our ETS is going to bring emissions down?
December 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Neither China nor the US trade on their environmental image.”
Are you asserting we do? A boycott by a country, as opposed to consumers, would be illegal under WTO even if it were remotely likely, which it isnt.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I disagree that it’s a “fair point” to take precautions against something that is not beyond doubt at all.
If one would go down that path, it’s also high time we start to take draconian precautions against the risk of volcanoes, tsunamis, meteor strikes and another few thousand potential mega-disasters. We don’t do that either, but assume a level of risk, in the knowledge that some will be hurt and that infrastructure will be rebuilt. At an individual level we insure where that is economically rational. Nobody has yet provided any proof that whatever tax system they develop in Copenhagen will make any difference to the doom scenarios they are propagating.
I for one wouldn’t mind if it was a few degrees warmer, and it’s a lot cheaper to move a few million people from low lying areas than it is to stuff up the entire world economy. What they are doing now will cause more deaths from hunger and disease than there would otherwise be lost as a result of gradual flooding (namely none).
December 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“However, even if the sceptics are eventually proved correct, it makes sense to take a precautionary approach”
Really, then how many of the alarmists have taken the same approach to religion?
December 8th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The US will never ratify any Copenhagen treaty, just like they never ratified Kyoto. I can’t see them getting 70 senators to vote Yes to it.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Repton, nobody with multiple brain cells actually believes an ETS will reduce our emissions, but those that do believe aren’t actually interested in effectiveness anyway, they’re all about redistribution of wealth.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I am in agreeance with red on this…what absolute obsfucating drivel..if we all subscribed to the precautionary theory, we would do nothing..no progress..just sit at home and wring our hands crying “WHAT IF, WHAT IF”
December 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I am sceptical about the existence of God. Do you think I should pray just in case?
Edit: Repton – you beat me to it.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
We know that the cost of the ETS to the NZ government is $110bn. I’ve seen a figure of $US40trillion mentioned as the global cost. If NZ and the World are going to spend that sort of money on a precautionary measure, then governments should be straight with their citizens and point out what they’ll be giving up. For instance, the NZ government should make it clear that the price of our ETS will be no national superannuation for anyone, regardless of their age… that they’ve spent the money on carbon credits instead. Then maybe distribute the carbon credits to old people, who’ll be able to use them in lieu of the toilet paper they would have purchased if the government hadn’t given away their pension.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. I hereby propose to ban Labour in case they win another election.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I vote for culmination of a giant fraud.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Auckland is built on a volcanic field which was active recently. I propose we move it somewhere safer as a precautionary measure. Dont worry about the cost – look how many will die when those volcanoes erupt.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
If these guys were serious about reducing emissions, they would be discussing ways to do such things. Not talking about which country gets what amount of carbon credits, or who should have to reduce their emissions to certain levels, and who has no restrictions and can therefore increase theirs.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Or they could take that $40 trillion and build fuckign big walls to stop that sea pouring in. At least it would provide work.
Davidp – you are right of course. Government should be honest about what we have to give up. No super, no welfare. And as you pointe dout, no bog paper.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
This NZ 1 degree temperature rising thing is quite a laugh really.
When I was a primary school kid in the 70′s and when looking at NZ encyclopedias for school homework etc, even back then they were saying that temperatures would probably rise a couple of degrees or so over the next few decades.
Even reading newspaper articles in the 80′s and 90′s there used to be the odd article about how things were warming up so much so that places like Wellington, where I grew up, the articles were in quite fascinating terms about how Wellington would end up with a semi-tropical climate like Auckland etc. I bet most of you older people here can remember such articles etc.
So in other words some 30-40 years ago, no-one was worried about temperatures rising a degree or two.
In fact it was something to look forward to in terms of Wellington’s miserable climate etc.
Now it is something to be “feared”.
Hang on, why all the “fear” now…..?
December 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Harder to extort money out of people who are not scared.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Even the economics behind the ETS & cap ‘n tax schemes is absurd:
Monckton:
Even if the IPCC’s 3.3 C° climate sensitivity (down from 3.5 C° in 2001 and 3.8 C° in 1995) were right,
the world would have to forego 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 emission to prevent 1 C° of warming
– a robust figure that has been kept out of the debate till now. The world emits just
30 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, so even if the entire carbon economy were shut down it
would take 67 years to prevent 1 C° of warming. To prevent the 3.4 C° warming the IPCC
predicts for this century, make that 227 years without any transportation or fossil-fueled
electricity. Carbon mitigation would accordingly be the least cost-effective use of taxpayers’
money ever. Adaptation would be orders of magnitude cheaper, but still unnecessary.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“..A fair point. However the projected increase in sea levels by 2100 is from 19 cm to 69 cm – not metres and metres…”
you are ignoring the (now-melting) land-based antarctic ice-shelf..
when/if that sucker goes..(and the latest sattelitte-images suggest that process is well under way..
it’ll be metres..
(that posibility was not factored into the figures you cite..dpf..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
It’s not about the climate, and it’s not about the quality of the, ahem, ‘science’ that’s been used to get us to this point. This is about the evolution of global governance*, with the next stage being global taxation and redistribution at the whim of the UN Walla’s.
The worlds’ politicians are uniformly noted for elevating self-interest ahead of the interests of their local constituents, so hands up who really believes they’re gathering at Copenhagen to help the environment or our future’s several decades out. Anyone? No, there’s more naked ambition gathered at Copenhagen now than perhaps anywhere, any other time in history. Our children will rightly judge us harshly if we abdicate and see their hopes and dreams mortgaged out of existence.
—
* For anyone who lamely claims this to be a conspiracy theory I direct you to the UN Charter 21, UN Earth Charter, Earth Charter Commission and the UN’s Global Biodiversity Agreement. These UN groups set out – very clearly – their vision for global governance structures that will irreversibly alter the course of human history. The use of ‘Climate Change’ is simply a level that’s being pulled to advance their cause.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
These Turkeys at the Dom Post say “The challenge facing negotiators is to find a formula that rich and poor countries can agree to.” Are these so called “poor countries” the likes of Zimbabwe where the mad Dictatorial Mugabe who is reputed to be amongst one of the worlds wealthiest men from the wealth that he has diverted from that country into his own personal Bank Accounts, leaving a wealthy country, poor. Or is is another wealthy country like Guinea whose Dictator was shot in the head by his own hand picked Head of Security last week, the same shot being fired by that Dictators long time boyhood friend, over what is reported to be an argument over the mineral wealth of that country (with one of the worlds biggest reserves of bauxite) and who is going to financially benefit personally from that country’s wealth, because it ain’t going to be the ordinary man in the street. But I bet anything, the current acting President of Guinea will become extremely wealthy in a short time by exploiting that countries natural resources with stuff all care or consideration of the enviroment.
So will the funds generated by our ETS and this load of bollocks being forced down our throats in Copenhagen mean that we may well have to buy Carbon Credits from these so called “Poor Countries” which have been economically raped by their recent political masters?
And if New Zealand which is a very new country in numeric terms compared with some of the so called “Poor Countries” is considered “Rich” because of our natural resources which have been well managed and not stolen like many in Africa and other parts, does this also mean that those sprawling countries like Monaco and the Vatican City will also have to divest themselves of their enormous wealth to put into the hands of corrupt Dictators?
December 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
The precautionary principle does not mean that only the most drastic actions should be taken as a counter to any perceived risks. Rather, it means that a more risk-averse approach to policy is justified. While some variants of the PP ignore the costs (and hence make the rule sub-optimal), the reality is that actions need to be commensurate with the costs. Where the PP appears in international treaties- like the CBD- it brings costs into the calculus, and it is clear that it is one of several decision rules that need to be considered. It’s only groups on the fringe (like Greenpeace) that have a hardline approach to the PP.
I think there are some things that make sense from a PP viewpoint- such as
(a) Ending the global energy subsidy. This is money Govts pay their citizens to burn fossil fuels. That would also save $US300bn a year.
(b) Ending global agricultural subsidies. This would reduce the artificial intensity of agriculture in many OECD countries. Savings would be $US280bn a year.
(c) Ending deforestation subsidies. I don’t know how much these amount to sorry, but again, they’re not trivial.
There are also good grounds for having more positive incentives towards forestry in view of the other environmental services they provide, irrespective of the carbon content.
It’s worth noting that compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars governments are currently spending to inflate GHG emissions, the Gordon Brown fund of roughly $US20bn (over 3 years) for developing countries looks pretty ineffectual.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
A few points.
One, I know the article is necessarily short, but its summary of the positions of both sides is ludicrous. There is no reason whatsoever to call this the last chance. Science has not established any basis for tipping points in the climate, letalone pinpointed a tipping point to, you know, this week, so the idea this conference is the last chance is plain silly. The summary of the skeptics position is uselessly broad and, as always, lumps deniers in with policy skeptics.
Two, the precautionary principle is equally validly deployed against climate change policy. There are also tremendous risks in handing over power to central governments in the name of saving the climate, and governments do not exactly have a clean record when it comes to looking after citizens. A lot of people have died from government power run amok.
Three, the science is much less settled than the CRU emails indicate. Global warming from GG emissions is the sum of two parts. First, a direct warming effect: a doubling of CO2 adds 1 to 1.5C to temperatures. No controversy there. But to get warming beyond that requires a second effect, positive net climate feedbacks, and the science on both the sign and magnitude of feedbacks is completely up in the air. About 80% of the IPCC’s 6.4C maximum warming depends on large positive feedbacks, which are completely unknown. It is not yet clear whether clouds and water vapor damp or add to underlying variation.
So there is consensus on direct effects, but on feedbacks, none at all.
Four, gradual changes in weather – even if, for once, the scientists do get their forecasts right – is not a reason to turn economies upside down, which is what is required to make a difference (adding 3.5 c/l to petrol is ridiculous Nick Smith). Humans have far greater ability to adapt to weather changes than that. Right now people around the world live comfortably in deserts. The only reason changes in rainfall will cause problems is because governments do not leave people free to adapt. The challenge is not to fix the weather, it is the considerably easier task of allowing people to be free of the tyrannical governments that make them so poor as to be unable to deal with less or more rainfall.
Finally, it is worth noting the massive conflict of interest these governments have in negotiating themselves more power to tax and regulate in the name of climate change. Most now spend much more than they collect in taxes and are running enormous deficits. Science is not what worries or motivates these leaders.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Great op-ed by Mark Steyn here
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/03/the-science-of-global-warming/
December 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
and the thing is..the more and more global consensus swings behind this..
the more and more you deniers look like the gibbering-fools you are..
but that’s ok..!..eh..?
”cos none of you have the guts to post your deluded-views in yr own names..eh..?
speaks volumes really..that..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
if the editor of the Dominion Post and his left wing suck holing lackies
Er, the editor of the ComPost is a woman. A very conservative one, formerly of the right-wing Murdoch rag the Sun.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
‘the editor of the DomPost is a woman.’
Well, that is the beginning of the end for the DomPost.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
December 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
what ben said!
edit: and what others said too but you know…
December 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
” A very conservative one ”
Mr. Poneke- What a narrow leftist extremist like you calls a Conservative and what people who embrace a wider political perspective call a Conservative are two entirely different things.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
You may have missed reports over the last couple of weeks.
The reports were from:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
December 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Isn’t it is amazing how cow farts is New Zealand will be transformed into limousines for African thugs through the magic of Climate change mitigation.
I’m not quite sure how that returns us to the Garden of Eden but I have great faith in the luminaries currently working their magic in Copenhagen will deliver what they promise.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Poor pitiful Petey, nothing but clapped out entirely discredited propaganda to post. And he does so endlessly.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
1. The article misses the point. Other than a few (who seem to cluster here on kiwiblog) there isn’t too much outright denial of any warming at all. There is definitely questioning of how much warming, and what policy is best to mitigate or adapt to it.
2. The big story both in NZ and in Australia shouldn’t be arguing about whether there is warming, it should be arguing about whether an ETS (with massive economic costs, lots of distortions and special deals for interest groups, problems for trade exposed sectors, and shipping of money offshore) or a carbon tax (with offsetting income tax cuts, and therefore no cost for the average taxpayer) is the better choice. The failure once again of the commentators to engage with the real issues in favour of painting this as “for us or agin us” is shameful.
3. WTF does it require half the damn world to fly to Copenhagen to talk about this. How much CO2 is that emitting? According to “all that hot air” and other books, someone who does one transatlantic flight a year has more emissions from that one flight than from driving their car all year. And we tell people to screw around turning off phone chargers when they aren’t being used. Yet again an example of ‘do what I say, not what I do’.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The number of believe who think AGW is happening is dropping, phool. Then again, you are the same person who thought the steam engine predated the Industrial Revolution.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Redbaiter. Didn’t you know ? Katherine Rich is a conservative too !
December 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
And in relation to what I wrote at 2.52pm … it’s not so much that even 30-40 odd years ago when reported in MSM at the time, that the projected temperature rises of a degree or two were a result of “global warming” or “climate change”, no, it was simply accepted that temperatures were projected to rise naturally (like the way they have risen or fallen in previous times over thousands of years, i.e. even well before the industrial revolution etc).
Fast forward to today.
Back in the 80′s the hysteria and “fear” being whipped up by certain agitators was against Uncle Sam’s nukes and ANZUS etc. (Funny, didn’t recalll any hysteria and fear about nukes held by the likes of the USSR and China etc).
Nowadays it is “climate change”.
There always seems to be something to “fear”, doesn’t there?
But in terms of reality, sure I don’t like poluted rivers and toxic enviroments either.
I’d rather that taxpayer money be put into R&D and subsidies for new technology/plant upgrades to reduce polution here in NZ and cleanup the enviroment, rather than sending taxpayers money overseas on some sort of weird money go round that won’t do dick squat for NZ’s people and enviroment.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The best explanation I have seen so far for the warmist hysteria:
http://www.livemint.com/2009/12/07224446/Climategate-follow-the-money.html
December 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“..nothing but clapped out entirely discredited propaganda to post. And he does so endlessly..”
holding that mirror up to yourself again..eh red..?
(btw..didyahear what alan greenspan said..?
about the whole rightwing/freemarket-thingy being ‘wrong’..?..
y’know..!..that belief-system you cling to..
..like shit on a blanket..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
What I find amazing is that 9 million cows in New Zealand are a threat to the future of mankind, but 280 million cows in India are a cultural issue.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
” Redbaiter. Didn’t you know ? Katherine Rich is a conservative too ! ”
Heh heh.. Actually I forgot Emily Pankhurst had been replaced. That aside, no true Conservative could write the drivel apparent in that editorial. IMHO, it is the work of a typical media Progressive. Committed to a political cause rather than the truth.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Sigh. We’ve already addressed this, phool. He was talking about risk, not the entire system. When we did this last night, we ended with
To which you have yet to reply.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Back in the 80’s the hysteria and “fear” being whipped up by certain agitators was against Uncle Sam’s nukes and ANZUS etc. (Funny, didn’t recalll any hysteria and fear about nukes held by the likes of the USSR and China etc).
As Russia’s nukes were quite capable of reaching NZ, there was a certain amount of fear that nuclear armed ships in NZ ports could become Russian targets.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Redbaiter’s/Albrechston’s scientist: Nils-Axel Mörner
In 2000 he launched an international sea level research project in the Maldives which claims to demonstrate an absence of signs of any on-going sea level rise. However, his conclusions were not supported by follow-up studies
And
International Union for Quaternary Research
July 21, 2004
Academician Yuri Osipov
President of the Russian Academy of Sciences
14 Leninskii pr
Moscow 119991, Russia
Dear Dr. Osipov:
It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research).
I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.
Sincerely,
John J. Clague
President, INQUA
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
December 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
no true Conservative could write the drivel apparent in that editorial. IMHO, it is the work of a typical media Progressive.
The editorial is never written by the editor. In the ComPost case, it was 90pc likely to have been written by Nick Venter who does most of them, otherwise by Sue Carty who does the rest of them.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Except that NZ would or could have been a target regardless of whether Uncle Sam’s ships were in port or not!
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the “let’s stick our heads in the sand” mentality and hope the badness will go away!
December 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Ah, the Neil Kinnock brand of defence initiative.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I am sure that most posters on here have some form of insurance that protects them from unforeseen risks in the future. Think of Climate Change policy as an insurance scheme.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ (at least watch from ~1min25. It is a more detailed reasoning that the Dom Post editorial was going for)
And DPF, latest research on sea level rise shows that the findings in AR4 were underestimated and the highest figured quoted should be 3 times higher
December 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
And DPF, latest research on sea level rise shows that the findings in AR4 were underestimated and the highest figured quoted should be 3 times higher
There is no more sea level rise than there has been global warming since 1998.
It’s too late now to Hide the Decline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
December 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“Think of Climate Change policy as an insurance scheme.”
Typical Progressive. Your comparison shows such a crippled perspective its no wonder you can’t see through the scam. You want insurance for some kind of perceived risk, you buy it. You don’t force everyone else to buy it too.
Think of leftists/ GW proponents as anti freedom anti human scum. That’s a better suggestion.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
The ‘political economy’ of environmental causes is that there has always been a flock of left-wing types who are attracted to these issues. They provide a vehicle for the expansion of government power and state control. The same thing happened with the nuke protests of the 80s. Gradually you couldn’t really be against nukes (and lets face it, dying amongst the rubble and radioactive dust of a nuclear attack was never going to appeal) unless you were also pro-Union, pro-Feminism, pro-Maori etc. The movement collapsed.
This doesn’t mean there aren’t environmental problems. It just means when you deal with them, you have to realise that a lot of groups will jump on them for the prestige, power and influence that goes with hawking solutions. Send Greenpeace $25 and they’ll save the world for you. It’s better than whales.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Bullion – I’d like to sell you some insurance against asteroid strikes. Home and family included. Only $199,999.
And for an extra $99,999 I will throw in cover for stampeding Elephants.
I’ll have my agent draw up the agreement now.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
First the CRU. Then the NIWA ‘adjustments’.
Now the Darwin Smoking Gun.
Suggest you wait an hour or so and then go to Watts Up with that, and read Darwin and the Smoking Gun.
These guys are great adjusters.
There is an incredibly cheap way to address global warming.
Just go back to the original data and get rid of all these ‘adjustments’.
THere can be little doubt that the IPCC global warming is man made – just man made with an Excel spreadsheet.
Throw the sheets into the bin, and all will be cool.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
You have to realise that there will be a lot of people who will oppose and solutions and oppose any science that doesn’t agree with their opposition, because that’s just what they do.
And most people are somewhere in between them.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
getstaffed. I don’t perceive those risks to be worth that much. That is where the argument lies, on how much you risk you perceive. Since no one can tell the future with 100% accuracy there are potential risks in the future. A large amount of science is pointing to the huge risk of Climate Change and we can take action to minimise this risk.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Bullion – So it’s about personal perception of risk. Fair enough. So I percieve the risk of AGW causing harm to me and/or my family as, let me see, nil. How do I opt out of the billions that are to be collected from unwilling taxpayers?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
are you ‘back on the payroll’..?..owen..?
as part of this ‘concerted-effort’ to ‘fudge’ the issue..?
in the run-up to copenhagen..?
if you aren’t on the climatechange-denial payroll now..
..when did that stop..?
mcshane..on this issue.. (as an admitted recipient of climatechange denial front-group monies)..
..you have all the credibility of hugh hefner at a virginity-pledge party..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I note that there is no acknowledgement on any middle group. If you do not whole heatedly buy into the man made disatster scenario they claim you believe there is no such thing and the climate isn’t changing.
Loard of arse, many people just want some real scientists to do some work, not adocate which is an aspect of politics, not science.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Dear Father Orazio Grassi:
It has come to my attention that Galileo Galilei gave presentations at the seminar on heliocentric theory organized by the Roman Academy of Sciences at the request of Grand Duke of Tuscany earlier this month. Galileo Galilei attacked the science of Heliocentricity, while claiming that he is President of the Commission of Heliocentricity.
I am writing to inform you that Galileo Galilei has misrepresented his position. Galileo Galilei was President of the Commission on Heliocentricity until July 1570, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of COH.
Galileo Galilei currently has no formal position in COH, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, COH, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about earth sun orbital relationships, does not subscribe to Galileo Galilei’s position on earth orbiting the sun. Nearly all of these researchers agree that the sun revolves around the earth, a position diametrically opposed to Galileo Galilei’s point of view.
Sincerely,
Tommaso Caccini
President
Heretic Prevention Society
Rome
December 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Carbonhargen, what a shameful waste, so many socialist suckholes at one trough and not one tactical nuke at hand, what a travesty..
December 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I’m not sure the theory of AGW is science Pete – I do know that the leak of the CRU data has created a crisis is science about what it is and how it should work.
AGW is certainly not science in the Popperian sense that I was taught.
Look for example at this amazing idea from the EPA that CO2 is hazardous to human health and the reasoning from their press release
Actually the best scientific research suggests that CO2 levels of up to 7000 ppm or higher in the past and that our current era with about levels of 380ppm is an era of atmospheric CO2 impoverishment.
So clearly the words “overwhelmingly” and “unprecedented” the release are hysterical crap.
Where did the CO2 go? I hear you ask – some into fossil fuels and a great deal more is locked up in chalk and limestone where it will remain regardless of what we do or don’t do.
I suspect the real crisis presented by AGW will turn out to be a crisis in science not in the climate.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Very clever Red, but it is a reverse comparison – science was on Galileo’s side, but not on Mörner’s.
Galileo was also a pioneer in a lot of other science. Mörner’s pet hobby horse is water divining, which has no scientific basis at all.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Hey phool, are you going to address your arsewhipping at 3.45pm (and last night) or are you just going to ignore it and not address the point like when I crushed you on your Big Dairy conspiracy bullshit?
Stick to the smack, phool, you’re probably more coherent that way.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
” Mörner’s pet hobby horse is water divining ”
Yes. So you and a legion of other pro-warming zealots say.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Where’s Puke Hansen, the progressive pondscum? I miss him regurgitating RealClimate posts to show us knuckle-draggers what’s what.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Bullion – climate policy is a sort of insurance, but its the sort of insurance that costs $20,000 in premiums to cover contents worth $10,000. And with a $5000 excess. Not a good deal.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
• Annual CO2 emissions thousands of metric tons
China 6,103,493 ; India 1,510,351 ; USA 5,752,289 ; NZ 30,488
• populations
China 1,334,560,000 ; India 1,173,560,000 ; USA 308,109,000 ; NZ 4,315,800
• krap per capita
China 0.000457 ; India 0.000128 ; USA 0.00186 ; NZ 0 .0007
NZ is 5.46 x India ; 1.53 x China ; 0.37% of USA
NEW ZEALAND, LEADING THE WORLD FROM SORT OF THE MIDDLE
December 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Mörner was elected “Deceiver of the year” by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for “organizing university courses about dowsing…
http://www.vof.se/visa-forvillare1995
December 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Call me when Al Gore gives up cheeseburgers and private jets. If he was that worried he’d be “leading the world” but all he doing is talking and emitting CO2.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
gee..bloody hands bob..
you are becoming a redbaiter mini-me..
guaranteed to stand on the sideline..
..and shout simplistic slogans..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Yvette – Another angle on the emissions.
Barack Obama promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83% below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.
Who needs an ice age when a stone age is just a promise away.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Well, phool? Come on.
1,200 limos, 140 private planes, caviar wedges jetted in from around the globe. Why couldn’t they have done their debating over video conferencing and sent the relevant documents to each other via the internet? I’ll start believing it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875.”
If they go back too far they will hit a reflux of buffalo
December 8th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“I’ll start believing it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
Its obvious they don’t even believe their own bullshit.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Global Warming debate tonight on Close Up!
Viewers can text in as to whether they believe in it or not in a poll
I would encourage people to make their views felt.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Why have we got an emissions target when the biggest emitters don’t?
If NZ disappeared tomorrow it would not change the world’s climate one meaningful bit. That is a scientific fact.
What bunch of retards would sign NZ up to this climate change farce?
The National Party. Stand up for NZ’s interest like you were elected to do. Its Labor that belongs to the comintern. Fucking useless.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Simon- I blogged on that issue about a week ago-
http://my.opera.com/chthoniid/blog/2009/11/26/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-global-warming-for-nz
(Done in a 10 question format).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200. “We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.” Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.” ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
I gather that the climate summit is going to generate more CO2 this year than Morocco does. Why are environmentalists and green politicians such filthy people?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Wouldn’t want to give them the ratings Fletch, might jump through the T.V and strangle one of them anywho.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Your link doesn’t explain if NZ disappeared tomorrow there would be no change to world climate why NZ need’s an ETS.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Someone needs to call Westie Whore in the TV Guide that regurgitating the pro-tax pro-socialism Gradiaun does not equal convincing argument.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Simon: NZ doesn’t need an ETS. It needs a carbon tax.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Yes, NZ makes no difference to world climate. And if China, the US, India and Europe don’t reach an agreement (with commitment), everything we do will be moot.
No, we don’t “need” an ETS. Plenty of groups argued that a carbon tax (offset by tax reductions elsewhere) would be a better solution.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
The results are in from the TV poll taken by Close Up.
The debate was between Ian Wishart (debating that man is not causing climate change) and Gareth Morgan (arguing that climate change is cause by man).
The results of the TVNZ txt poll –
Ian Wishart 77%
Gareth Morgan 23%
So of those who texted, way more believed that man made climate change was not real.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Surely we have a competitive advantage on being clean and green
Why are we now giving that away?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Fletch, did you think Sainsbury was surprised the result went to Wishart?. He seem quite perplexed, perhaps the drones in the MSM actually believe their own bullshit.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“He seem quite perplexed”
These despicable left wing media cronyists are completely out of touch with public opinion.
Like most MPs.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
could that closeup poll be more of an example of how useless those polls are..?
(silly deniers..!..throwing your money away like that..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
how much did you spend..?..red..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Ian Wishart 77% Gareth Morgan 23%
Not a high as the section 59 petition but prepare to be equally ignored.
France booked 42 limos, so who has the other 1158, considering too that Obama will bring his own.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I voted for Gareth Morgan can anyone quote any other polls? That’s the first I’ve heard of such a swing to the skeptics.
Next poll did God create the Earth in 7 days: Vote A for Professor X B for Ian Wishart.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
The skeptics have been ahead for the last year. Sorry.
That’s what happens when you cry wolf: eventually people stop believing you.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
It is largely due to the climate gate emails I believe. Yet again the blogs are doing the medias job whilst the mainstream attempt to dictate the debate to an uninterested public.
The Lindzen & Choi paper may also have an effect but it is also being ignored by the media.
But mainly, people from across the spectrum are seriously pissed about what has happened at the CRU. These people are to science what Bernie Madoff is to investors. It is dispicable that the mainstream media are attempting to brush the issue off with as little air time as possible.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
What is your point?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
It seems highly unlikely that “climate gate” has swayed anyone who took a serious interest in the subject.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“..It is largely due to the climate gate emails I believe…”
heh..!..heh..!..no it’s not..
it’s deniers multiple voting..
those polls are utterly ficking meaningless…f.f.s..!
can’t you knuckle-dragging morons see/understand that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Your conspiracy theory has about as much weight as your Big Dairy toomfoolery,phool. You gonna address this? Or your beloved progressivist vote continuing to stagnate? Or are you going to ignore it like you always do when you’ve lost.
Fixed that for you.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Was interesting when Ian Wishart brought up that even before the conference starts the Head of the UN is already talking about the size of the cheque that THEY will be distributing to “developing” nations.
I’m sorry but I think communisim by stealth has finally won out.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Is multiple voting possible? Even if one side went on alert given the size of the audience I would have thought the effect would have been marginal.
When New Scientist, Nature, scientific American or any of the mainstream scientifc mags start talking about big cracks or doubts I’ll believe it. You’d either have to know the subject extremely well to doubt the scientists or it is a motivationally driven thing.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The relevant point is that finally a real debate is starting, whereas for too long it’s been one-sided with no opposition getting any airtime whatsoever.
Wonder why that’s recently happened, because the people who own the media that gave rise to this problem and who have prompted this last-minute revelation at the eleventh hour, are the same people who allowed the issue to go on and on and on for years, completely one-sided and with no opposition, until it built up a head of steam no-one could stop.
Call me cynical but this is yet another manipulation of world opinion, designed to make people think the decision-makers have actually heard their views.
In reality, the Copenhagen outcome was determined specifically a few decades ago and generally a century ago, just another stepping stone to the brave new world order.
Firstly phil, there was a global consensus at the time that Iraq had WMDs. That didn’t turn out so well, did it?
Secondly, I’ve always used my real name, if you care to lookup the archives, you can find out where I live, as well.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
reid, the global consensus, particularly amongst the experts on the ground was that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. But some governments, for their own self-interested reasons, and usually in defiance of the majority opinion of their own people, decided to go kill Arabs. I guess some things just never change.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
” You may have missed reports over the last couple of weeks.”
Here’s a report for you Mr. Pete Goebbels George. One that outlines how your fellow frauds have been doctoring sea level data.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
December 8th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Did any one else find the “opening ceremony” up there with the Olympics for fakery?
I’m sorry but the girl hanging from the tree planted in the ocean was just a bit too Jesus on the cross for my liking, but then I suppose it is, after all, a religious event.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Luc, the same people and media organisations who solemnly advised Saddam had WMDs despite expert opinion are the same people and organisations who now strongly advocate AGW is an urgent problem requiring immediate global police (i.e. enforcement) action and never-before-seen wealth re-distribution.
The difference is, they now, thanks to many years of biased one-sided actions by the aforesaid media organisations, claim to have an overwhelming body of expert opinion on their side.
Hello?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
77 to 23 suggests that it has swayed a fair few who were watching close up tonight.
I’m guessing you are not someone with a serious interest in the subject.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Man made climate change in Bolivia … lol
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a001300/a001310/index.html
December 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Oh so only deniers can vote multiple times, eh Phool?
Anyway the Close Up poll in roughly in line with Polls I have seen lately
Stuff – 37% believe in AGW
Daily Mail (UK) online poll – 22% believe in AGW
Pew Research (US) 36% believe in AGW
Rasmussen Reports – 47% believe global warming is a problem
December 8th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
That 0.1% we contriubute to world CO2 levels has such a huge impact. Let’s be honest does anyone think that NZ has any real influence around the world regading environmental matters. Sounds more like a Green Fantasy.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Problem is, emmess:
99.9% of influential media commentators say they believe in AGW (whether they do or not is another question)
99.999999999% of politicians know they’ll lose their jobs if they don’t say they believe in it and take action
99.9999999999999999999% of lefties are fucked in the head and ergo, really do believe in it
0.00000000000000002% of the population are lefties.
Fucking lefties, media and politicians.
You bastards!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Well, phool? Come on. I await patiently.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Owen above referred to the Darwin Smoking Gun – it’s now up
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
Truly scary …
December 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“..Firstly phil, there was a global consensus at the time that Iraq had WMDs..”
um..!..no..!
some of us believed the weapons inspectors..
who said there were none..
rightwing armchair-warriors did not..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Yep, I saw it – blatant propaganda – pure Hollywood.
Nothing like a film of a little girl hanging onto a tree while the sea sweeps in underneath her and the wind tries to blow her from her perch to tug at the heartstrings. It reminded me of that movie Wag the Dog.
Sideshow, lol, yes he did a bit.
I bet we won’t be hearing anymore about it from TVNZ.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
So phool addresses reid, but doesn’t address his bizarre and stupid hopes. Come on, phool. Stop snorting crack.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
cd someone tell that moron hurf that i am running my own little r.i.p. on him..?
ta..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Yeah phil, I never believed the WMD bullshit either. The two of us + a few million more + Hans Blix doesn’t make a global consensus, unlike what AGW has become.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Reid, stop talking conspiracy theory crap. Hans Blix is nowhere to be seen in Copenhagen.
The fact is there were no WMDs,
I don’t think Bush knew that because he was told what he wanted to hear, but Blair, Howard and the rest all knew the truth and decided to go kill Arabs, just like the old days.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Philu are you happy we are paying the Bolivians so they can continue to root the environment and whine about water shortages as the land turns to desert? that picture is great as you can almost see the farm run off.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“NEW ZEALAND, LEADING THE WORLD FROM SORT OF THE MIDDLE”
Yvette, have you got a source for your figures?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Awww, how cute. Phool can’t take the pressure. How’s the delusional bubble you’ve built up around yourself? Comfy.
That’s the second time you’re repeated that extremely inflammatory libel, Puke. I hope you have some proof that the Iraq War was commited just to “go kill Arabs.”
December 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
no..it was to go and get their oil..
with some texan-revenge thrown into the mix..
killing arabs was just a bonus..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
“I don’t think Bush knew that because he was told what he wanted to hear, but Blair, Howard and the rest all knew the truth and decided to go kill Arabs, just like the old days.”
Well Luc maybe you should read what Tenet, Head of CIA at the time, said about that in his book: The Eye of the Storm.
Evidence of WMDs were made up, from start to finish, by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, according to the biography of a man at the centre of the action. Why do you think Colin Powell, one of the few people in that execrable Administration who had integrity, who gave that UN presentation using manufactured intelligence, resigned?
It was bullshit, from start to finish. We all know it now and some of us knew it at the time. Question is, why can’t or won’t you see the parallels between that history and today’s hot global topic currently being progressed in Copenhagen?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Ah yes, which is why fuel prices have risen and the Iraqi government has been giving out contracts as they see fit, including to China. Oh wait.
Still want to keep your mouth shut about your progressivist delusions?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Wikipaedia has a page devoted to “climate gate”
Mainstream science organizations
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has “expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions”.[6][50]
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society’s position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating “For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.”[51]
The Union of Concerned Scientists was critical of climate change sceptics using the stolen e-mails to attack climate science, commenting: “Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers’ understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change.”[52]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
December 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Y’all think Gareth Morgan got it wrong?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Gareth Morgan is wrong, and so are you. AGW is a con.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Probably that Ian Wishart would have more credibility as a con-buster, if he hadn’t himself been taken in by the oldest and most transparent of them all.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
“AGW is a con.”
As is Destiny Church, but it has its followers. But we are being asked to pony up for the global collection plate for our alleged 0.2% of our global “sins”. At least we can tell Bishop Tamaki to fuck off.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
What should Gareth do take a lie detector or IQ test?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Ian Wishart is a liar. I say again, LIAR!
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!
Now, why do I say this?
First, because he was asked this question by the incompetent Sainsbury: “Is it just a matter of degree?” Good question and I was looking forward to Wishart’s answer. But idiot Sainsbury didn’t wait for an answer. While Wishart was drawing breath, Sainsbury followed up with: “You don’t trust the science, do you?”
And Wishart lied. Right there and then, he lied to the nation.
He said, “Normally I would…” Ha Ha Ha, this guy is a rabid intelligent design, anti-evolutionist believer. There is not one iota of science to back up his belief. Not one. But he has the gall to say, “Normally I would (trust the science)…”
And then he lied again. Yes again. To the whole nation. He said, “…but the Climategate scandal showing the science has been doctored…”
Wishart LIED again. Just check how long his conspiracy theorist book “Air Con” has been in the bookstores and when “Climategate” broke and you will see his lies. His book has been around for a lot longer than Climategate. Therefore, he has been denying the science and espousing a vast conspiracy among the scientific community for a lot longer than the last few weeks!!
This just shows how hopeless Sainsbury is as an investigative journalist,
But wait! There’s more. Wishart goes on to say, “…and the Hockey Stick debacle, which Gareth and I both agree on, is a travesty of science…”
At the request of the US Houses of Congress, the independent body, National Academy of Science (NAS) investigated the science behind the Hockey Stick and largely confirmed it.
Furthermore, the originator of the Hockey Stick, Michael Mann, accepted the advice of the NAS and undertook further research, diversifying the proxy data, and gathering more data. This not only affirmed the original Hockey Stick, but enabled Mann to extend the it even further back in time.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
hj – Wikipedia reports that the Climategate page is locked – “Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until December 23, 2009.”.
This means you and I are not permitted to make changes. But check out who is. None other than William Connolley.
Check out Connolley’s activities under the heading “Wikipedia – A Falsified Resource For Students and Media” towards the end of this article/a>.
Wikipedia is infested with alarmist overlords. I suggest that you completely ignore it if you have any desire for truth on the matter of climate change.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Have a look at the programmer’s comments in the code for global warming analysis. They had no axe to grind at that time and there is all sorts of massaging of the data from different sources because it was unsuitable or otherwise unusable. It was like making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The programmer comments frankly informally on what was being worked on and the fixes incorporated and lack of quality.
The sea level changes proposed have varied from under 10 cm to over 50m ! the latter being a recent one from Al Gore.
Pretty pictures of children distressed from indoctrination are no substitute for rational action.
Our government’s lack of distancing themselves prudently helps no one except those who would gain from the politics of control.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
grrrr…. tags!
December 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Wow sounding more desperate than usual there Luc. Is your Climate Change Altar crumbling before your eyes?
Mann is a fraud. His hockey stick is thoroughly discredited, and those Alarmists with any [warped] vision are moving the battle elsewhere. But not you it would seem.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Hurf, everything you write on the ME reeks of anti Arab racism.
I even smell it on your breath. Lean back. Please.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
getstaffed, don’t be a wanker all your life, OK?
The US has finally come fully on board and you can expect something dramatic when Obama arrives in Copenhagen.
Your “thoroughly discredited” line is just propaganda bullshit. You obviously are intent on handing your children and grandchildren a poisoned chalice. I have no idea why.
Do tell me why your selfish desires trump our kids future.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Wow sounding more desperate than usual there Luc…..
Indeed, and here was me thinking that the following was just parody from Jim Treacher: A friendly chat with the global warming evangelist who lives in my head
Sample quote:
December 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
LOLOLOLOL. Yeah, because I’ve systematically called for the destruction of a nation through an international sanctions regime and supported an extremist Islamist regime’s push for regional hegemony that will inevitably result in the deaths of millions.
you can expect something dramatic
Yeah, I expect Puke Hansen and a bunch of low-level bureaucrats to fawn. You think any legally binding bullshit will pass through the Senate? Really? The Democrats aren’t that suicidal.
You’re a fucking joke, Puke. I feel sorry for your kid.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I urge Ian Wishart to get his lawyer/s on to Ms L Hansen for calling him a liar (defaming). Go on Ian, this asshole (Ms Hansen) needs to be taught a lesson.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
tom – lol!
Luc – You really can’t see the writing on the wall can you? I want a future for my kids that doesn’t involve loss of sovereignty and global taxation justified by scientific fraud.
You have nothing but vitriol for the US in your successive anti-Israel rants, but suddenly they’re going to save the planet when Obama rides into Coaxenhagen on his white horse. Flipply flop Luc. Flippy flop!
Actually I suspect you agree with me, but the prospect of eating humble pie now that the genie is out of the bottle is just too much of a bitter pill. I pity you.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The Climate page may be locked but you can read the discussion page and criticize the content. I don’t see why it is a problem that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley edits as sceptics can also edit . It would be an issue if wikipaedia was shown to have a certain bias but then they would be shooting themselves in the foot. One thing I’ve noticed is that the procedures seem to get people discussing things reasonably civilly even on the Palestinian conflict.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
hj – Connolley is one of the climate fraud insiders:
Have you really looked at his edits? Repeatedly reverses anything that isn’t 100% the Climate Religion’s line, that or has one of his tame assistants do it.
Like I said – If you want balance, then don’t rely on Wikipedia – do primary Google research yourself. It takes longer but you’ll be making the decisions on what to accept and what to reject.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
as lies go wouldn’t the worst (and most cynical) lies be the twists conducted by the professional PR industry?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
For some sanity in this debate read the wisdom of Prof Richard Lindzen of Harvard or Freeman Dyson ,no vested interest just plain intelligence go here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
or put Dysons name into your browser,
On the issue of temperature in the future try this on your friends and weatherman.
What will the temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction, humidity and precipitation be on Xmas day? They won’t be able to tell you and we accept that because we know that weather prediction science is not up to forecasting at this level. Why then are we prepared to believe an IPCC prediction of the temperature 20, 50 or 100 years into the future. Are we suffering from mass insanity. These climate modelling clowns are deluded into believing they have some magic formula to predict climate. I think they should listen to the Harvard professor who commented thus, “we think that there are about 5000 variables that you would need to describe mathematically (a necessity for modelling) the climate and if we could do that (and currently we can’t) we don’t have the computing power to solve the resulting equation. Is it any wonder then that the modellers haven’t been able to predict either the past climate let alone the future
December 8th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
hj – Yes of course. But the big, cynical lies are the easiest ones to detect. The more dangerous lies are cloaked in respectability and absorbed by millions without a thought of a critical filter. That’s where Wikipedia operates. And this is where I check out. Night.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Luc….. Luc…….. Luc
Well worth ignoring IMO
December 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Luc <<<<<<first link.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Luc, why do I picture you as a youthful clean-cut guy with a bike and sporting a badge on your crisp white shirt next to a black tie that confirms you are indeed a child of Lutheran and his Latter Day Saints?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Ms Hansen hasn’t been aware that Ian Wishart doesn’t back down from anyone. Ian has done this many times in the past, ie, he had confronted those who defamed him and here is an example:
Air Con author preparing defamation papers against Herald columnist and newspaper (13 August 2009)
I think that Ms Hansen is wetting in her pants right now. I hope that Ms Hansen can use her own money in her possible defense if Ian will take a defamation action against Ms Hansen or otherwise, the taxpayers have to foot in the legal bill for Ms Hansen.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:55 am
The “poll” that matters?
December 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
15,000 moderate centre left morons.
Keep plugging the con, Delirium. Perhaps it will suddenly work.