This entry was posted
on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
219 Responses to “General Debate 01 December 2009”
Lucy Hansen, why do you keep referring to a open source software guy, who’s background is cutting & pasting HTML codes? He is not a climatologist nor even a physicist? His supposed domain of expertise is in Systems Theory and Complex Systems. This guy ain’t know the difference between a prostitute and State-Space-Theory (fundamental to dynamical system theory).
What I am trying to say here. Well I can spot guys on the internet who think they understand what they’re talking about, but actually have zero knowledge about the subject/topic. You should try to read discussions on various physics forums on the net so that you can educate yourself on science rather than keep quoting someone who has no clue to science but an expert in cutting & pasting HTML codes then call themselves software-engineer? WHAT? There is nothing engineering about cutting & pasting HTML codes.
[cros-post from the other general debate thread for lucy hansen]
Lucy Hansen, I made a brief comment on the Hockey-Stick on this thread from another blog. Note, I know the algorithm they used in the Hockey-Stick paper, inside-out , so I am more qualified in commenting on the issue, then the HTML code cutting/pasting guy you keep referring to.
BTW, Lucy, are you related to warmist God James Hansen from NASA ? Are you his daughter? C’mon Lucy fess up.
“Attending the conference on behalf of New Zealand will be the Minister for Climate Change Nick Smith, his Associate Tim Groser, and a contingent of officials. In addition, as one of the concessions to the Maori Party for their support of the emissions trading scheme, taxpayers will also fund two iwi leaders and kaumatua”
Thieving troughing bludging scum the lot of them.
How long will NZ taxpayers keep voting for politicians who take their hard earned income and blow it on scams like this??
Murray, that’s sad for Lucy if her warmist God-father James Hansen abandoned her. I feel sorry for you Lucy (you have my sympathy for your dad’s action towards you), and I hope you can find some nice Kiwi bloke in NZ to marry who will take care of you.
Falafulu Fisi, just a small comment. Lucy Hansen is actually Luc Hansen. I know there is a Lucy that comments here but they are totally different people.
In the rush to Copenhagen, it’s perhaps worthwhile to recall that the Doha round of the WTO talks are still nowhere near an agreement despite years of talks. In an era where the returns from the Green Revolution have trickled away, distortions in the world agricultural markets have widespread effects.
For example, OECD countries spend $US280bn a year (2006) on support for their agriculture, aid to developing countries agricultural sectors is two orders of magnitude lower (US 3bn in 2001). OECD countries are responsible for 75% of the world’s agricultural exports, while developing countries make up around 1%. Food prices measured at the farm gate in OECD countries are 30% higher than in international trade.
The knock on effects on the environment are also severe. Much of the price supports end up being used to employ more industrial inputs (like fertilisers), which intensify GHG emissions. Spill-over effects into water quality have affected several species of dragonflies (larval stages are particularly sensitive to water quality).
It always strikes me as somewhat ironical that we seem hellbent on spending 100s of billions of dollars more, to correct problems that we have created, by spending 100s of billions of dollars making it worse.
The annual spend on energy subsidies and agricultural subsidies globally is now around $US600 bn a year. Here’s an idea- stop it.
Chthoniid, that has always been the tragedy . The alarmist cannot (maybe they can — conspiracy ) grasp that the human race likes to feel good about themselves at the least expense to themselves. Now changing a light bulb is “doing my bit” for the enviroment. That means that looking after the waterways and the water quality as well as soil etc, is no longer a priority. We are losing m1illions of animals even complete species forever through pollution, while we are chasing some tax scheme that will not have a cent spent on cleaning up the environment.
And the biggest joke of all is that the ETS will drive manufacture to China who does not buy into the schemes.
– What is an aspirational goal? And how does it differ from a real goal?
I think when he said aspirational goal, he meant to say “an aspirational goal is the kind that we talk about during an election campaign. When we have aspiration to be in government, but have neither the balls nor the vision to actually do what is needed to reach that goal”.
A quick question – normally the threads here display as alternate grey and white backgrounds. If I get two consecutive whites or greys, should I take it that RIP had done the bizzo?
I have noticed that many posters are applying RIP to posters they do not like so that they do not have to
listen to the rantings of Philu and Billy Borker. While their highly contentious postings do reflect an extreme
opposing view to the mindset of many posters on here, myself included, we ignore them at our own peril.
Any time where we choose to ignore the opinions of others simply because we do not agree with them,
those we ignore are furnished with more fuel for their beliefs that they are the oppressed and supports their
hatred of the vast right wing conspiracy which in their minds are the root of all things that they consider to be
evil.
This action is counter-productive. I find their political views and moral standing to be somewhat disturbing, but
having them express their opinion on this forum is very useful as it gives us an insight into the mindset of the
extreme left. While it is easy to ignore them in the interest of comfort, the stifling of political debate to
manage dissent is anathema to the purpose of this Blog.
As much as it pains me, we need the likes of Philu and Borker to freely express themselves freely on Kiwiblog.
Simply ignoring them is not the solution. I know that we can debate their points ad nauseam while their own
mindset will never be changed. I acknowledge that they seem so blinded by their political views that trying to
understand where they are coming from is a challenge for many of us and that we have as much chance of
coming around to their viewpoint as they have of voting ACT, but that does not alter the fact that in NZ, they
have as much a right to express that view as we have.
Any dissenting opinion should be welcomed, even if that opinion itself is demeaning to others, as we have all
seen recently.
Yes, I am aware that Borkers behaviour regarding Kaya’s beautiful daughter was disgusting. I know that the
overt nastiness of that poster and of Philu disgust many of you, but we must allow them their voice so we may
understand them better. If you must be nasty in response, be subtle. I find Acrostics useful in that regard.
Interesting that you say we should “listen” to them more.
They have been polluting this blog for years. There are many left-leaning posters here that I enjoy reading as their analysis is interesting, regardless of how much I disagree with it.
The fact is that the vast majoiry of borker’s and philu’s posts are vile, nasty, personal attacks, or mere attempts to start flamewars (more often than not successful). There fore you could say our use of RIP will be making kiwiblog a better place.
Also hypocritical to say we are trying to stifle freedom of speech. If any right wing equivalent of philu or bonkers were to go spout rubbish over at the Standard or Public Address, we’d be banned in an instant. While borkers and philu have been treated the same as anyone here.
where his guru admits his global economic world view..of ‘let the markets rule’..
..was wrong..
Instead of making spurious strawman comparisons (Greenspan was talking in particular about certain esoteric aspects of investment banking, not free-markets in general), why don’t you try to counter some of the report recommendations?
For example, what is wrong with less government spending and hence more money in the hands of those who earn/produce it? Don Brash made the point that no country in the world has had decent economic growth with government spending at 46% of GDP. His target is 29%.
SR – I thought long and hard before downlaoding the RIP add-on – at present, I’ve only applied it to one poster here, and that’s only on a trial basis – I’ll review it next week.
Like you, I agree that it’s important to see both sides of the debate. But conduct such as borker’s on Saturday crosses my line in the sand. I’m rather hoping that DPF will sit down and read Saturday’s GD thread, and will take appropriate action once he is repatriated – borker’s comments to Kaya were inexcusable, callous and calculated; probably the worst I have seen in the five or so years I have been visiting Kiwiblog. It’s DPF’s blog of course, and whatever decision he makes is his, but I hope that he thinks hard about the precedent he sets if he allows billyborker’s comments to go without sanction.
On another topic the Human Rights Commission has received 185 complaints about Paul Henry refering to Susan Boyle as retarded.
It will be interesting to see if they investigate this complaint after refusing to investigate the complaints about Hone. Probably will Henry is white.
you see that rogernomics-time was when the suddenly veered in opposite directions..
aussie up..us down..
From the late 90s NZ veered pretty sharply away from the path set by Roger Douglas et all. Maybe that is what got us in the shit? The last term of Labour saw a massive spurge in spending.
Rather than making meaningless generalisations, how about countering the point Brash made about no country doing well with government spending at 46% of GDP?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Rather than making meaningless generalisations, how about countering the point Brash made about no country doing well with government spending at 46% of GDP?
2007
South Korea — 31.7
Australia — 34.0
Switzerland — 34.0
Ireland — 34.7
Japan — 36.5
United States — 37.4
Luxembourg — 37.8
Canada — 38.6
Spain — 38.8
Norway — 41.0
New Zealand — 42.3
Iceland — 43.1
Greece — 43.2
Germany — 44.3
United Kingdom — 44.6
Portugal — 45.9
Finland — 48.1
Belgium — 48.3
Italy — 48.4
Denmark — 50.7
France — 53.0
Sweden — 53.8
I’d have to say a few in that list higher than NZ are doing OK, in fact, we’d do well to try to catch the French and Scandinavians.
That spending list about sums it up MNIJ. Either NZ will be the exception and show the world what can be achieved with 46% of government spending. Or not. In which case it will show the world how a country can be run into the ground. And as 20% of NZer’s live outside NZ already, we seem to be doing that rather well.
Not sure about emulating the French, though. They have a long-standing and chronic problem with unemployment among young people (>25%).
I agree with Philu a fair amount of the time. I’m not ignoring him because his posts are “contentious” or because I disagree with what he says. I’m ignoring him because he posts those views in a long string of barely readable punctuation, often cutting and pasting whole posts from his blog. It just clutters up the page, and I can’t be bothered with it.
Just focus on that one question, Phil. How can NZ grow it’s economy when it has government spending at 46%.
Don’t be distracted by Sweden, Norway etc. They are exceptions and NZ has tried that route and it has got us nowhere. Time to pick a more obvious path.
why won’t the Labour MP’s on Redalert answer my questions about the Huntly Miners strike .. can someone tell me?
is it because the MOFO’s want .. no DEMAND a 13.5% pay rise to around the mid 80k range .. that must make Labour a little nervous since their new Pres is the boss of the EMPU
There are major difficulties using gross measures of Govt spending, as tabulated above.
Obviously, you are not controlling for other factors that influence growth levels. The fact is that the EU is a free-trade zone for member countries (with barriers to outsiders). And free trade creates wealth. So you need to identify the things that hinder or encourage growth levels. There are third-world basket cases with low Government sectors, but that is often a function of their inability to effectively tax their citizens, and fund even basic public functions and investments.
The second is that what the Government spends money on, also matters. You need to identify the percentages of spending that are devoted to growth-enhancing activities (typically infrastructure) and those that distort growth (welfare payments).
The third problem is controlling for endogeneity. In other words, it is noticeable that is economies get richer and richer, Government spending starts to rise. The question here becomes whether Government spending is a cause, or consequence of growth. That means you need to be looking at trends over time, not simple tabular ‘snap shots’.
New Zealand does not have access to large open markets in our chief exports, so the burden of an inappropriate expenditures is high. There are no EU agricultural subsidies to help us out. The expansion in spending has also tended to be in terms of welfare payments (distortionary) rather than infrastucture. So the level and types of expenditures is rightly of concern.
MNIJ,
Now from that list find the rural or natural resource based, export economies with small local markets to compare.
It has been said before we are a Pacific Island agricultural economy. We are NOT an industrialised country with a local market sufficient to support industry-of-scale and productivity levels and an associated welfare system demanding big government at a level approaching half of the economy.
It’s possible that the massive increase in government spending under Labour was all spent in the right places to create growth…. but I doubt it. One need only witness the office building boom in Wellington to see a lot of went into unproductive places.
Chthoniid and david, I don’t disagree with you. I simply posted the stats to show that a crude measure is, well, crude, and more needs to be taken in to account, as you both say.
We are NOT an industrialised country with a local market sufficient to support industry-of-scale and productivity levels and an associated welfare system … which is an excellent argument for NZ to bite the bullet and accept Australian Statehood. Not only would we have a bigger and wealthier economy, we’d also win Rugby AND Cricket, and maybe a little bit of wog ball too.
No it wouldn’t. There is a wage gap because on average NZ is less productive than Australia. Adopting their currency wouldn’t affect that. NZ would just become a poor part of Australia, albeit with a less volatile currency. But if we want to fix that problem why not adopt a decent currency, like the $US or Euro?
And malcolm, WHY is NZ less productive than Aus? That was the question Brash was asked to answer, but he let it slide and simply re wrote his hard right agenda. I’ll give you a clue – the answer isn’t in education vouchers and competetive health.
It’s possible that the massive increase in government spending under Labour was all spent in the right places to create growth…. but I doubt it. One need only witness the office building boom in Wellington to see a lot of went into unproductive places.
I’m afraid so, things started getting very weird in the last term with the money that was being tossed around/targeted to specific groups. I don’t think some of the infrastructure spending was made for sound economic reasons. The railways buyback seemed like an appalling decision given the outright superiority of coastal shipping in both cost and environmental measures.
The warning signals were fairly transparent. Sagging export performance, high interest rates, high exchange rate and ballooning household debt, meant the macroeconomic imbalances were growing.
– Too many unproductive people doing nothing and living off the labour of others.
– Too little investment in NZ companies by over-taxed NZers.
– RMA discouraging development of industries where NZ has a natural advantage/resource.
– Natural disadvantages of a small, distant country (bad place for manufacturing for example).
– Too many good and productive people leaving for better prospects.
– Too little entrepreneurial and risk taking activity from people inculcated with the idea that the government will look after them.
– Too many employed by the government to do unproductive things.
– Traditional reliance on primary industries which now have less relative value in a tech world.
– Under investment in secondary agricultural industries (e.g Fonterra being held back by not having access to interest-free equity capital).
Australia also has some well-known advantages. A little country like NZ will always struggle. In some ways we need to be better just to keep up.
can i takes your silences/lack of replies..as agreement/concession to a superior argument.?
No. I’m also doing programming so I only write here when I’m mulling something over.
so..i guess you are flying the face of the many who say the american dollar will tank..
Sure the US dollar has problems, but behind it is one of the most continually successful economies in the last century. NZ would do well to emulate that which makes the US so economically successful. And it’s not welfare dependency and over-taxation.
The US is in a bad recession. As is much of the world. If you take the situation in a recession and extrapolate it you get insane shit like what you’ve written above. The US economy is not going to disappear down the plug hole. The market rages more freely there, but overall that is to their benefit. Have any of the previous recessions been fatal to the US?
How do you explain that the US has per capital GDP which is nearly twice that of NZ?
A nice backgrounder to ClimateGate from The Register today.
Includes the history behind the CRU, a graph that shows the massive MWP from the IPCC’s 1990 report, and quotes like ““We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!” http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
A nice backgrounder to ClimateGate from The Register today.
Includes the history behind the CRU, a graph that shows the massive MWP from the IPCC’s 1990 report, and quotes like ““We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!” http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis
An international report issued on Tuesday has found that winter temperatures in west Antarctica have increased by as much as five degrees Celsius – and that allows cushion plants and grasses to thrive.
“We’re seeing more plant growth,” Dr Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), told AAP.
Phil, you said “states are filing for bankruptcy…”. Now you’re saying ‘bankrupt’ in inverted comma’s and giving a list of states which have a budget deficit. Not the same thing at all.
Do you know what ‘filing for bankruptcy’ means? And can you name a state which is filing for bankruptcy?
– Too little investment in NZ companies by over-taxed NZers.
If you had a substantial tax cut, what would you do? (check all that apply)
[ ] Buy a new TV / stereo system.
[ ] Buy a new(er) car.
[ ] Buy a house, or move to a nicer house.
[ ] Buy an investment property.
[ ] Buy shares in a NZ company.
[ ] Take an overseas holiday.
[ ] Save it as cash / term deposit.
[ ] Other: _____
Reption, some of those plus others. E.g. recently I’ve put a lot into NZ shares.
But what’s your point? Are you suggesting those are negative things? People spending their money on what they want, rather than government taking it to send Hone to Paris?
You were trying to make the point that the US is in terminal trouble. And to that end you said states we’re filing for bankruptcy. Which does indeed sound very bad and supports your point. But it’s not true. They aren’t. You made it up. Many have deficits, but so do most people (mortgages etc).
I’m not anal-retentive. Why do you ask? Is it because I’ve just pointed out that you’re talking rubbish and making points with false assertions?
Depends on how the tax cut was delivered. If it’s just another tax cut to the lowest marginal rates, then I’d save it. Repaying off the newly acquired Govt debt is going to mean either cuts to services/welfare in the future, or increased taxes.
If it’s a reduction to the highest marginal rate, then I’d probably look at using it to expand my consultancy work in Asia again. I stopped doing it when my taxes went up to 39% (nationalisation of ACC didn’t help, and neither did the rising dollar). There’s pretty much no point trying to create wealth, when you’re not allowed to keep your fair share of it.
Phil, don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogma.
I don’t watch Fox news. We only have the three channels here and even then don’t have the box on much. Although I do have to endure it 24/7 when visiting the inlaws in the US.
KEY has committed Taxpayers to shell out $30 million a year indefinitely to a fund to subsidise the Global Warming Scam for countries that might get drowned………..Thank God we can please ourselves whether we pay it or not
…………………”Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen Summit, it has been detected that money pledged to developing nations in the 2001 Bonn Declaration can’t be traced.
A BBC investigation has revealed that large sums promised to developing countries in the Bonn Declaration of 2001 to help them in tackling climate change cannot be traced.
“Rich countries pledged USD 410m a year in a 2001 declaration – but it is now unclear whether the money was paid,” the BBC report said inciting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to say that industrialised countries had failed to keep their promise.
“The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it,” the probe found.
Twenty industrialised nations, including European Union, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand
, Norway, and Switzerland, had pledged in Bonn to pay USD 410m per year until 2008.
ute USD 410m, which is 450 million euro, per year by 2005 with this level to be reviewed in 2008,” the declaration said.
“But only USD 260m has ever been paid into two UN funds earmarked for the purpose,” the investigation unveiled. “
Don’t worry backster, by the time the (about $US22bn) fund pays out over 3 years to halt global warming, governments elsewhere will have spent close to $US1,800bn on fossil fuel subsidies, agricultural subsidies- and who knows how much on deforestation subsidies- all to make the problem worse.
… MNI Jerk re-emerges from the dross of Borker’s latest meltdown …
And as for all you silly folk getting so upset with Borker or wanting to ban him… WHY? It makes as much sense as getting upset by the silly little Pica Pica.
Consider their therapeutic value. Personally, I’m really looking forward to next ANZAC day when once again Borker is reminded that daddy didn’t get a medal …
And today we have the Borker persona tossed into the cupboard to ride out yesterday’s effort and the silly Pica Pica saving the global economy, wittering about “facts” and using the “we” word again. All very amusing.
Remember; this is what their LIVES are all about. They crave contact, recognition and an opportunity to espouse their views because its the only way that they can get anyone to take any notice of them. That doesn’t mean you need to be polite to them just because of their tragic personal circs. There is after all no denying that Borker/Jerk makes Weatherston look humble and ultimately the magpie is just a lazy little shit. But take them seriously? Puuhhleeze! Get upset? Tsk tsk.
But what’s your point? Are you suggesting those are negative things? People spending their money on what they want, rather than government taking it to send Hone to Paris?
I guess my point is that you’re unlikely to get a lot more New Zealanders investing in shares simply by lowering taxes. It’s more likely to be spent on imports, which makes our balance of trade deficit worse, or on property, which just results in people spending more for the same thing, while the banks cash in.
Obviously this is not a strong argument against cutting taxes (because otherwise we may as well go to 100% tax), but if the problem is “Not enough kiwis investing in companies”, then I don’t think “lower taxes!” is the solution.
Repton, you’re probably right in the short term, but ultimately if people are left with more of their own money, then some of that will find it’s way into investments. And often better and more considered investments than the same dollar spent by the government. Rakon just issued shares to build their joint venture plant in Chengdu. I and a lot of other NZer’s invested in that (they were slightly over-subscribed on the $20M they wanted from non institutional investors). People invest in their own businesses all the time. Plenty of businesses get going and grow off family investments. If taxes were lower then there would be more of that.
That sounds like a real attempt to sort out tax and benefits Portia, being bold and brave rather than Brash. I hope it get’s a lot of discussion going – especially within National. It won’t fly as it is but it’s a refreshing starting point.
Pushing aside the 2025 report may have been anticipation of some real reform ideas.
The universal benefit idea has been around for a long time. Very efficient from an admin perspective, but why give $10k to an able-bodied young person?
Three boys in the US have been booked on suspicion of bullying or kicking red-haired students, at a middle school when a “Kick a Ginger Day” prank inspired by a South Park episode got out of hand.
I blame DPF for promoting the oppression of gingas.
Three boys in the US have been booked on suspicion of bullying or kicking red-haired students, at a middle school when a “Kick a Ginger Day” prank inspired by a South Park episode got out of hand.
I blame DPF for promoting the oppression of gingas.
Really? I find myself congratulating DPF for promoting the oppression of gingas.
When Phil Jones and Mike Mann are forced out of their highly paid jobs, they could try childrens TV. (hat tip: Gerald Warner)
And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”
“Hello, children, I’m Phil. Can anyone tell me what Michael is holding? Yes. It’s a hockey stick. Does anybody know what that is for? No, Timothy, it is not to beat the crap out of nasty sceptic Pat Michaels, though that is a very good thing to do. It is to save the world. No, Prunella, Mr Brown did not do that last month, he was only speaking metaphorically. Michael…”
“Right, children. Now, watch what Phil is doing. That thing with steam coming out of it is called a computer. What do you think Phil is putting into it? It’s called data. There we go… lots and lots of lovely codes and nice warm data… Oh, look! Phil is frowning. Something isn’t quite right… So, children, now Phil is feeding in his lucky number… and his doggie’s birthday… and his social security number. It’s getting warmer, that’s good. Now he’s adding in the number he first thought of and – wow! It’s getting really hot. Look at all that smoke coming from the computer – don’t try this at home. I’ll just print off that graph and let you see the pretty picture.”
“Hi, kids, now I’ve finished working with the computer, let’s see what Michael is holding. It’s a graph, showing how hot the world is getting because of motor cars and American Republicans and horrid people called Deniers – Oh, look, Michael is holding his graph upside down. No, he’s not being silly, he’s being responsible. Because, you see, although the words are upside down, the lines are pointing upwards, which is what matters. And when we send it to our colleagues in New Zealand, who are becoming almost as famous as we are, the words will be the right way up, because it’s an upside-down country…”
“Thanks, Phil. That was good. Now, kids, if you’ll watch very carefully, Phil will show you how to fill in a very useful piece of paper called a grant application form. You can send that to some very nice people in America – they’re like Father Christmas, but all the year round, and they give out lots of lovely money that people all over America pay them. Phil…”
“And what do we do now, children? Just like tidying away your toys at home before bedtime? We wipe the computer clean, in case burglars try to break into it and let people see what we’ve been doing. After all, it’s none of their business!”
In principle, I think Morgan has come up with a good idea, albeit one that will require some fine tuning. It’s good because the progressiveness is in the asset tax. I’m not sure if he includes the family home in that tax, if he does, then Trust Law would need to be addressed.
I was impressed that evidently Bill English told the Tax Working Group that equity was a primary concern. There may be hope for him yet.
I have read previously that when radical reforms including much lower taxes are enacted, the tax take goes up because it’s not worth the expense and the bother of evading it. The way I see, we don’t have a lot to lose.
Just imagine a Martian landing and somebody trying to explain to him/her/it how $Zillions are going to be “traded” for carbon.
“What – you mean that essential gas?”
“That’s right!”
“You buy and sell carbon, which is so plentiful?”
“Yeah – we’ve been told its a pollutant and there’s too much of it.”
“So what do you do with it?”
“Well, nothing really – just buy and sell it.”
“At a profit?”
“Well somebody’s making a bomb on it – don’t know who.” (Thinks – Al Gore?)
“Do you ship it around in liquid form in tankers?”
“No, we just leave it where it is to “do its thing”.”
“Which is?”
“Oh – you, know – help things grow – help people to breath.”
“But you said its a pollutant.”
“Yeah, that too – or so Gore tells us.”
“How and what exactly does it pollute?”
“Dunno, I’m just a climatologist, you’d best ask Al Gore that – or John Key – or Nick Smith – they must know.”
“So – somebody’s making a fortune out of this. But who’s paying?”
“Well, the taxpayer coughs for most of it. Manufacturers and farmers too – pretty much anyone who is producing anything or doing a useful job.”
“Why farmers?”
“Oh, that’s because cattle fart a lot.”
“Really? They fart carbon?”
“Well, no, but I guess they must fart something similar.”
“Do politicians pay their share?”
“What share? Oh – you mean for farting? Probably not. (Thinks – another question for Gore.) Nah, they probably trouser a percentage seeing as they thought the whole scheme up.”
“How will you know when you’ve bought/sold/traded enough?”
“I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps when the politicians (and Gore) say so.”
“You mean when they’ve bled you dry and their pockets are full?”
“No – it can’t be then.”
“Why – you mean they’ll stop before they’ve bled you dry?
“No – I mean their coffers’ll never be full – they’re bottomless!”
“You realise this is going to ruin you all, do you? That the wheels of industry will gradually grind to a halt – and they wont be able to pay taxes? That education, health services, transport, welfare and all that stuff will be history?”
“Must admit, I have wondered.”
“Well, I’m not hanging around here – it’s going to be chaotic. I’m off back to Mars.”
“OK – see yah! Oh, do you have carbon there?.”
“Yeah, heaps – much more than you do. The percentage varies quite a bit according to the effects of sun-spots and natural variations in the weather patterns. But we don’t worry about it – seems harmless enough – it’s quite inert. Why do you ask?”
“I was just thinking – could I cadge a lift with you?”
Poor old getstaffed, still in denial. Did you miss the news that the Mt Everest glacier is retreating at the rate of 70 metres per year?
The evidence is in that the planet is warming. The good news is that it is in the main NOT caused by natural events. The even better news is that we can mitigate, but not eliminate, its effects. It seems we are already too late to avoid some 100,000,000 climate change refugees requiring resettlement.
But just think if we didn’t have the science, we had no idea of the cause of these incredible events. I know exactly what we would be doing.
Sacrifices to the Gods, and woe betide all virgins!
Falafulu Fisi (347) Vote: Add rating 10 Subtract rating 0 Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:38 am
Listen Fala, according to you then I just can’t win. I present evidence endorsed by the overwhelming majority of climatologists and get told it’s all a conspiracy theory and irrelevant.
Then you come along and say I should present evidence from climatologists only! (Let’s forget about physicists for the purposes of this discussion).
But Lord (inherited title, by the way) Monckton, failed journalist, is all cool! Right?
The world’s glaciers have advanced and retreated continuously for eons. And they don’t all co-ordinate their movements. The world is coming out of the Little Ice Age so we have longer term warming trend, offset right now by lower levels of solar activity in a short cycle leading to cooling.
Your wet dream of socialist wealth redistribution under the guise of the climate change Trojan horse is turning into a nightmare.
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Gibbs: ‘No dispute’ on global warming
Dismisses 31,000 scientists who signed petition challenging ‘consensus’
Posted: November 30, 2009
10:26 pm Eastern
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today brushed aside the concerns of more than 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition challenging the theory of man-made global warming.
WND White House corrrespondent Les Kinsolving brought up the petition as a follow-up to an earlier comment.
Gibbs had been asked by Fox News correspondent Major Garrett, “On climate change, why is it a good idea for the president to arrive near the beginning of the climate talk negotiations (scheduled by the United Nations in Copenhagen early in December) as opposed to the end, when the ultimate deal is going to be struck? And secondarily, does the White House have any evaluation or comment on this controversy of the hacked e-mails that suggest that some of the underlying science through some of the propositions put forward by climatologists may be in error or may have been altered in some way?”
Gibbs responded, “On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among – most people – in dispute anymore.”
He continued, “In terms of when the president goes, obviously we believe that progress has been made with developing nations – the U.S. has made some progress with the Chinese and the Indians over the past couple of weeks. The president will travel to Oslo on the 10th, and believed it was important to use this visit to help get us to the point of a deal – something that can take the type of action that scientists say needs to be taken to stop and reverse climate change. I think the president believes that a visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker.”
Kinsolving then asked about the Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. It now lists well over 31,000 scientists, including about 6,000 with doctorates, who subscribe to the following statement:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
“Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?” Kinsolving asked.
“I don’t doubt that there’s such a list, Lester. I think there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this,” Gibbs said.
WND has reported extensively on the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen where critics forecast a new world government will be adopted to regulate and address “climate change.”
The hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom appear to document that many of the scientists promoting man-made global warming – dubbed “warmists” by critics – have manipulated, concealed or doctored information to support their cause.
Whichever way it goes, it is no bad thing that the whole box and dice of Australia’s emissions trading scheme comes under the glare of an election. Whatever policy comes out of that would likely be strengthened by the process.
Tony Abbott’s one-vote victory over Malcolm Turnbull revealed the deep division on the conservative side of politics between the urban and business progressives on the one hand and the bush, small business and parts of the mining industry on the other.
The deal struck between Labor’s Penny Wong and the Liberals’ Ian Macfarlane was not strong enough to prevent this rupture, itself a result of Australia’s carbon-intensive economic structure based on cheap coal-fired electricity.
That signalled a weakness in the political foundations of the ETS which could end up undermining investor confidence needed to put billions of dollars into transforming Australia to a low carbon economy.
Australians declared at the 2007 election that they wanted action on climate change. But this was mostly about the largely symbolic issue of John Howard’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In practice, and contrary to quite a few other rich countries, Australia would have met its Kyoto targets whether or not its government signed the protocol.
The issue now is whether the complex ETS is the best mechanism for Australia meeting its bipartisan targets for cutting emissions by 5, 15 or 25 per cent by 2020. Although the ETS, a form of so-called cap-and-trade, was Howard’s preferred model, voters are confused and wary.
An election will ensure that the details get intense public scrutiny; whatever policy comes out of the process will have more credibility.
Abbott today called the ETS an ‘’energy taxation scheme’’; a slush fund for politicised handouts run by a giant bureaucracy.
That may be so, but an election also will force him to come up with a credible alternative.
You’re dogged ignorance never fails to astound me.
Deep ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years show that global temperature increases lead global CO2 increases – that is, temperature goes up first followed by a rise in CO2. Surely such evidence should put the brakes on climate hysteria.
I look forward to seeing “getstaffed” in the messages thread. Do us all a favour and slam dunk Gavin Schmidt so we can RIP global warming. Forever. Hallelujah.
So Sonny, you have no problem with Pacific Islanders fleeing to NZ then, is that right?
If that is right, I would apologise.
When the hell did I say I did?
I have a problem with it being attributed to climate change rather than simple international urbanisation similar to Kiwis ‘fleeing’ to Aus and the UK.
Getstaffed, I wouldn’t be surprised. China and India aren’t going to want to chance their economic growth to appease the guilt of the Socialist Western political class. We already know that both China and the US’ cuts are essentially hollow. Question is, who will be the first to commit economic suicide in the name of Mother Gaia and give the other leaders an excuse to kill themselves in the name of the cult: NZ or Australia?
The work of “2,500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries” had culminated in one report, the flyer states. The not unreasonable implication that almost everyone drew was that those 3,750-plus experts and authors stood behind the IPCC’s views of impending doom.
The rest is history. A tricked press reported those figures, often rounding the 3,750-plus people to 4,000. And then the public and the politicians such as Rudd were tricked, too.
How many of those 3,750-plus people from 130-plus countries can the IPCC claim as true backers of its conclusions? An Australian analyst named John McLean scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.
The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous.
Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change.
The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion. Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that “section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand” and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was “Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.”)
The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.
There won’t be pacific islanders fleeing to NZ. It’s yet more alarmist claptrap.
SEA LEVEL IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC IS STABLE
Posted 4 August 2009
“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data … suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible….. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. ..Modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe”. – New paper by Cliff Ollier, University of Western Australia.
LINK to download pdf here http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
I’m afraid the people of Holland (The Netherlands) don’t agree with NZ Climate (non) Science, which is why they are spending up large to protect against climate change.
Um, Luc,
The Netherlands has ALWAYS been battling against sea levels – that’s what the dykes are for. Without that engineering, the sea would have claimed Holland years ago. I know, as one of my parents is from there. I don’t believe the story at your link has much to do with climate change. It says nothing about them agreeing or disagreeing with man made climate.
OK I got RIP installed but can’t figure out how to block the fullstop pollution, I try to select one of his posts and block it but rip decides that I’m trying to block peoples names appearing at the start of their posts. Any advice ?
Breaking News: The IPCC admits to incorrect projections on sea level rise. The expected rise is now approximately doubled to a global average of 1.4m by the end of this century due to faster than expected melting of both Antarctica and Greenland ice shelves.
I guess the deniers will continue their denial even as the sea is lapping at their doors.
The IPCC admits to incorrect projections on sea level rise. The expected rise is now approximately doubled to a global average of 1.4m by the end of this century due to faster than expected melting of both Antarctica and Greenland ice shelves.
Didn’t they previously not choose to take Antarctic and Greenland melting into account because there was uncertainty about measurements, or something? Which emissions path is the 1.4 metres?
If there is one thing that should convince any rational person of the artifice of the “climate change” scam it is the cowardly attempts to indoctrinate children, a ruse GW proponents employ throughout every school in the west.
As zealots and tyrants and totalitarians have done through out history when they have ideas that will not withstand logical scrutiny, they try to introduce them into the culture by indoctrinating the young and turning them against their parents.
Propagandists posing as educators abound, not only in Cuba and North Korea, but as the left have tightened their grip on education, throughout the Western world.
Here’s a recent example. Chilling to anyone with any sense of history and any knowledge of how tyranny comes upon us-
============================
Andrea Peyser
When did global warming turn into a forced religion?
My daughter came home from school recently with a spring in her step and a song on her lips. With no foreshadowing — or time to call an exorcist — out came this chilling refrain:
” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”
By the time her father and I removed our jaws from the floor, we had learned that:
A) All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents.
B) Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees.
C) There was no deprogramming session on the menu. And no arguing allowed.
The international “Climategate” scandal is now moving into its third week. And reaction from folks on the scientific and political left — or is that redundant? — who treat global warming as a cult in which naysayers must be crushed has been depressing:
Here’s an excellent insight into the pharisaical mind of the globalwarminista elite
Mark Steyn – Come Fry With Me
In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual “carbon allowance” preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you’re manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.
Wow. 443,243 miles. How many flying polar bears does Dr. Pachauri kill in an average quarter? Well, not to worry, he probably offsets his record-breaking ursocide with carbon credits from carbon billionaire Al Gore.
And in any case it’s okay to devastate the planet on IPCC business — plus the occasional cricket match:
So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.
And why not? Aside from a slight increase in the risk of polar bears dropping from the skies onto stray Indian bowlers and wicket-keepers, where’s the harm?
P.S. I like the headline on Dr. Pachauri’s climate’n'cricket story: “Heat On Cricket Pitch Warms This Climate Change Laureate.” If you’re waiting for some journalist to ask him about the contradictions between his lifestyle and the one he wants the rest of us to submit to, that sound you hear is cricketers chirping.
Ms Hansen said… I guess the deniers will continue their denial even as the sea is lapping at their doors.
The same thing can be said to IPCC worshipers , blind-believers , blind-faith warmists/practitioners , climate clairvoyants, climate pornographers and so forth, including you Ms Hansen. You will continue to hug those IPCC climate oracles and their predictions, even though there is huge inconsistencies between theories and observations.
Thanks for that Angus- Steyn is one of the best writers and most accurate political commentators around.
Shame the treasonist socialist scum at the NZ Herald wouldn’t run his columns, but as we know, truth in journalism is a concept they would rather not play any part in.
The reports focus on 1.4 metres but that will no doubt be an estimate and will be further adjusted as more research and more observations are done. This is part of the ebb and flow of research of this nature.
Our resident Progressive propagandist as usual with nothing better to do and no better argument than to try and draw our attention to the words of the liars in the mainstream media he is in league with. Read that yesterday Petey, and discounted it immediately, because I had already read this-
Hmmm, the blog of Wintery Knight (…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square) versus the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
Haha, who thumbs-downed my SF comment?! I didn’t mean it’s boring, I meant it’s literally flat in some places. Oh, except where it’s not. Like where the condo is.
Or how about the IPCC line that the Himilayan glaciers will all be gone by 2035. Turns out they mis-typed 2350 when they took this from some Russian scientist’s study. Now we had TV3 runnign a story on how they will all be gone in 30 years just last night.
“Hmmm, the blog of Wintery Knight (…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square) versus the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.”
See, this is a good example of why I have nothing but contempt for Progressives. Their whole modus operandi is firmly based on lies and deceit. The Wintery Knight is merely a source of information that has drawn information from other sources (The Australian and Watts Up With That- see here)
yet rather than deal with the issues raised in this very informative and detailed report, the poster who misrepresents “Pete George” as his real name attempts to smear the source with an empty of content derisory sneer and no alternative information.
In other words, if you don’t agree, you don’t exist.
Keep it up you contemptible scumbag. Pretending we don’t exist is the very strategy that has allowed us to grow stronger.
Red, the “very informative and detailed report” you are referring to at Watts Up is dated April. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research findings have just been released, so you are comparing out of date opinion to scientific research reports just released. That is shoddy on your part at best, or it could be “lies and deceit”.
Love this from Phil Jones as he steps aside: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible”
To date, his ‘world leading’ research has been conducted with very little interruption, well out of public view and all dissenting voices sidelined. This has allowed their tribal scientific cabal to get away with agenda-driven perversion of the scientific method. They need a hefty dose of sunlight. If that feels like ‘interruption’ then I’m all for it.
Watts Up is dated April. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research findings have just been released, so you are comparing out of date opinion to scientific research reports just released.
Frigging retard.
Therefore you must agree if a contrary report is released tomorrow it must be the ‘up to date opinion’ by the virtue of your ‘release date’ system of merit.
Sonny, the SCAR research isn’t definitive, it just adds weight to the accumulating evidence. If a credible scientific report came out tomorrow that contradicted it that would make a difference to the weight of evidence.
Red said he read that yesterday Petey, and discounted it immediately, because I had already read this-…referring to Wintery Knight which he says refers to Watts Up in April. If he chooses to ignore new science because it doesn’t fit his view it highlights his closed mind.
Put It Away – get the kiwiblog filter for RIP from here http://ripwiki.pbworks.com/K%20RIPs
Then add it in to RIP (on the firefox toolbar select Tools>RIP Options>Import RIP and locate the kiwiblog RIP you downloaded)
Then you can paste in (or edit existing) XPATH such as
//li[cite[contains(.,'philu')]]
//li[cite[a[contains(.,'billyborker')]]]
Phil, remember our chat the other day about water consumption in dairying?
The one where you tried to blacken NZ dairy farming by quoting the 200 litres of water per glass of milk number? And I said rubbish, that’s for countries that need to irrigate. Not NZ. And you said no it’s for NZ. But with Side Show Bob’s farm as an example we showed that his uses at most 5 litres/glass of milk at his gate. And you again said no, it’s definitely for NZ and from Brent Clothier (plant and food research soil scientist) in the Listener. So I said can you quote the whole paragraph and so you quoted just “it takes for instance, 200 litres of water..to produce a glass of milk..”. And I again asked you where he said that was for NZ? And you just said “no..he was definitely talking about new zealand..”.
Do you remember? Why didn’t you quote the whole paragraph? Was it because it showed that you’d been lying about it being applicable to NZ? From the Listener profile of Brent Clothier:
“It takes, for instance, 200 litres of water to produce a glass of milk – but not all water is equal – from a country with few water pressures, such as NZ that foot-print may be smaller than water-short Australia. As our export markets become increasingly green-aware, panel member Jacqualine Rowarth said Clothier is ‘doing the work in terms of carbon and water that will give NZ the competitive advantage..”
Even a cursory search of the internet shows referenced numbers of 1000:1 (water:milk) ratios for irrigated farming (so 200-300 litres per glass). NZ dairying is by-and-large not irrigated. One of the reasons that NZ is a low-cost dairy producer.
So Phil, like I said yesterday re the US states “..filing for bankruptcy..”. Don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogmatic mental dead-ends.
That would be mean. Anyway, I’m not sure anyone reads whoar.co.nz.
Phil was just the first example I saw that day. Mostly I skip his horribly formatted comments, but as everyone was RIPing him I thought I would start reading them to see what the fuss was about. There’s plenty of bullshit thrown around to make a point, particularly on the GD. It’s not just Phil. I’m sure I do it from time to time. It takes vigilance to avoid believing your own bullshit.
That wasn’t what you meant. And you know it. You were implying that NZ dairy farming is bad because it uses a lot of water. And you lied to make your point when questioned. If you were worried about rain water, why not get worried about Fiordland National Park – that ‘uses’ billions of litres of water a day.
Anyway, I can see you’re embarrassed to have been shown to be lying, so I will leave it at that.
Don’t get angry. You’ve just been caught bullshitting to make a slanderous point. It’s not the end of the world. Take it on the chin like a man. And go away and think over what I said about believing your own bullshit.
Don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogmatic mental dead-ends.
Don’t get angry. You’ve just been caught bullshitting to make a slanderous point. It’s not the end of the world. Take it on the chin like a man. And go away and think over what I said about believing your own bullshit.
And that in a nutshell, is why Phool is RIPped and ignored, and why whoar is less popular than Paris Hilton’s musical opus, “Paris”.
It’s always good to have more data points as well.
For my farm, the total milk prod was 1,057,328litres (FY 2009). Water consumption was a shade over 8 million litres, yielding an average of about 7.5 litres of water per litre of milk.
And because caveats are always needed it should be noted that there’s no irrigation needed.
Thanks Tom. I certainly wouldn’t argue with you – you’d eat me alive.
BTW, any hope of floating Fonterra so I can put my money where my mouth is, and we can both make some cash? I can’t stretch to a dairy farm and Side Show Bob is a bit down on the idea.
The dairy farms in Canterbury, Maniototo, Waitaki Valley and those proposed on the Mackenzie Country will need large buckets of irrigation water.
True. The Greens are fairly keen on more user pays for farmers (well commercial users) with water, and I think their usual thing is to couple this with an income tax break. Once people start moaning (or moaning more?!) about water supplies down that way their proposal(s) may gain a bit more momentum..?
Or how about the IPCC line that the Himilayan glaciers will all be gone by 2035. Turns out they mis-typed 2350 when they took this from some Russian scientist’s study
Brian, what’s your source for this little gem?
@getstaffed 11.02am
If this is the case then why CRU’s need for data manipulation and/or switching?
This is a serious slur on a leading scientist, which, if proven, would surely ruin his career. So can you be more specific please: eg what, why, when? Just a hint at something specific will do, no need to go into great detail, unless you wish to, of course.
@getstaffed 9.14pm
The world is coming out of the Little Ice Age so we have longer term warming trend, offset right now by lower levels of solar activity in a short cycle leading to cooling.
Here are a couple of extracts from a report available at the SCARS website, filed under “Global temperature – 2008 cool, but still 7th warmest since 1900″ by Hansen et al (I couldn’t resist putting his name in lights for you, my friend).
1. Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some
effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged
solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature
response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to
the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual
solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.
2. Summary: the Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the
dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a
non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., Reference 7, which empirically estimates a
somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out
of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Nino beginning in 2009 or
2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2
years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.
Now I should note that this year is predicted to be in the top 5 record global temperature years, maybe as high as three. And the next year or two will see El Nino, increased solar irradiance and the greenhouse effects which should all combine to give us whopper.
The above quotes should reassure people that our climate scientists are well aware of, and can calculate to a high degree of accuracy, solar activity in terms of its effects on our climate.
Now a word on the Phil Jones saga (before baby wakes up and my brief respite draws to a close) – the science will be found to be impeccable. But the same cannot be said for appearing to want to destroy data instead of complying with the FOI Act. Regardless of whether data was destroyed or not, this alone should make Jones’ position untenable.
Sadly no, not a chance in the short-term. I sympathise with SSB’s position, given the fly-by-night business merchants we seem to have had in this country. However, the fact is that Fonterra is simply not going to be able to raise the sort of money it needs to perform the types of expansion and transformation, unless it floats as a public company.
I’ve tried explaining to several farmers in my district that Bill Gates would not be worth $55 billion had he tried to hang on to sole or restricted ownership of Microsoft. I’ve tried explaining that there are various protective measures (‘Poison Pills’) that can be set up to prevent the likes of smash-and-grab artists such as Fay-Richwhite from taking over such a company. All to no avail.
The irony is that the current environment will eventually push-out all these small farmers (e.g. 500 cows or less) anyway, just as effectively as Fay-Richwhite. The economics of farming have been grinding away for decades with costs rising relentlessly and the returns not really matching – at least not consistently enough. We’re also seeing land prices driven by rational – but poorly directed – thinking. For example, one of my next-door neighbours sold his 50h unit in 1999 for $1.1 million. I did not think the production/value justified that investment – and I was right. But the guy who bought was 60 years old and was aiming at retiring in 5 years time after 3 decades of milking. His focus was the capital gain, and he bought plenty of cash with him from selling an even smaller unit. And he was right also, selling the farm several years later for $2.2 million!!!!
With that sort of nonsense going on it’s impossible for anybody to make rational financial decisions and it would be quite accurate to say that the land is NOT priced correctly for the income, which is ultimately the only true measure of its worth.
So what defines a farm as an economic unit has been scaled up, and this process will continue. Farms of 50hectares (the current absolute minimum I would say) are consolidating into 100 -> 150 -> 300, and so forth. Increasingly only large farms will be able to swing the capital when it comes to converting dry-stock farms, building new cowsheds, investing in robot milkers and so forth.
That also means the number of farmers will reduce, and since the votes are on the basis of milk-solid production, those large farmers will have an increasingly greater say as the “small” guys like SSB (and me probably). Eventually such groups will have the votes and Fonterra will float – but you will be at the back of the investment queue for some time. Sorry about that.
Luc – in respect of data manipulation (which is not directed at any one scientist – as you’ve tried to suggest) – Google Yamal tree dataset, upside-down Tiljander series, Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction. None of the shonky science in these ‘adjustments’ would pass proper scientific peer review. Given the trillions of dollars at stake, and the certain knowledge that said adjustments were designed to confirm a presupposition rather than establish the truth, I’d say that a few careers needs to be ruined. And then the courts can get busy with those that remain.
As far as this year being predicted to be in the top 5 record global temperatures, will this be calculated on publicly released source data and adjustment methodology (eg to cater for UHI etc), or will we just get final data for which the source has been, um, ‘lost’ ?
The science isn’t settled as Algore claimed, and it’s not impeccable as you have claimed.
Time to wake up Alarmists: The Climate Change scam is now very much in public domain.
Antarctica has been protected from the most damaging effects of climate change by the impact of one of the worst environmental disasters of the 20th century, the hole in the ozone layer, research published today will reveal.
However, the study has also found that increased melting of some parts of the ice cap around the south pole will cause sea levels to rise much higher than previously expected.
The melting of those parts of the Antarctic, along with glaciers moving faster to the sea, will be enough to raise sea levels by 1.4m by 2100, the scientists suggested yesterday.
…drawing on several years of research, experts from the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, a group made up of 100 leading scientists from 13 countries, now say the hole in the ozone layer has changed south polar weather systems.
Hmmmm – and with a strange sense of timing, the water bill for the first six months of this FY, has just landed in the mail – and it’s 2.3 million litres.
This puts my annual total at something closer to 6.3 million litres, which means my water/milk ratio is about the same as SSB’s – 5.95. Whew – I was beginning to think I was a statistical outlier!!!
I had only the previous six-month invoice to hand so had simply doubled it, even though I knew this was crude, since the 1st six months covers most of the classic three-month dry-off, when water consumption would be minimal.
See what happens when you don’t have the raw data and are forced to “fill in the gaps”.
Yeah Tom you are probably right but don’t get caught with the idea that might is right. Many of these big units are nearly impossible to staff and are far from been run as safe economical units. There are also those that have over extended and are now suffering the consequences. While I realise Fonterra would like nothing more then small farms to amalgamate so the tanker only has a few stops to make they risk losing the very people that have built the company. Also there are parts of NZ that big farm units would not be practical, geographic etc. Further, many farmers these days are highly stocked and feed all manner of tucker to their animals, yes even the evil PKE. Myself and a mate are always comparing our farms, he feeds the cows tell they can hardly walk, mine just get what is grown on the farm. He kills me in MS but I leave him for dead when it come to EFS, bank manger recons we are in the top 10% for our province I’m sure the “suits” in Fonterra don’t give a fat rats arse about the smaller farmer, all though butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths when they address the suppliers. To be honest I don’t trust the bastards and not many around here do, I will never vote to float. If Fonterra wants cash that desperately why do they not retain so many cents of payout. To busy keeping the bloody Aussies happy I would suggest. I agree land prices are crazy, I brought my farm for a little over a million 12 years ago the latest QV is well over 3.5, madness. So many years ago we sold the farm to our family trust, it was the only way we could see how to leave the farm to the kids and make it affordable.
Tom, that’s a great summary of the situation with Fonterra and the possible outcome.
If people like you can make eloquent and reasoned appeals to your colleagues, then it needn’t go that way. It’s not unlike the situation with NZ in general – it just needs some good leadership and selling a vision and a plan. I’d gladly invest.
I totally understand SSB’s point, but as you say, it’s better to have one slice of a big loaf than the whole of a little loaf. If I was a dairy farmer I’d want to grow my investment in the secondary industry, rather than knobbling it to milk the primary one. So to speak. Also there are ways to minimise the windfall that goes to the financial fixers who underwrite the offer. Fonterra are big enough to completely cut those guys out.
The consolidation of farming is inevitable. It’s no different from any other industry. And farming is particularly vulnerable due to family ownership. The farm ends up re-mortgaged every generation so one child can buy the others out. Eventually the ball gets dropped and the farm is bought up by someone or something bigger. In that regard shares in a public Fonterra are an easier investment to manage and keep in the family.
…to prevent the likes of smash-and-grab artists such as Fay-Richwhite
You mean that nice old chap who did so much for NZ with the America’s Cup? And got a knighthood and likes to visit Switzerland? I can’t imagine he would rip anyone off
Given that this hole (really a thinning) was discovered in 1985 and measured since, I wonder how much o3 change has been recorded and mapped against actual variations in sea level? I suspect there’s little correlation.
As for 2100, I’m not a fan of the predictive models (eg 1.4m or whatever) as they’ve become alarmist battering rams, rather than credible projections.
An interesting item on RNZ Morning Report on the situation in Antarctica. It explains that
1 West Antarctica and Greenland are losing land ice into the sea at an ever increasing rate.
2. The surface area of sea ice is slightly increasing overall in West Antarctica, melting at one end but gaining at the other, that is due to temporary natural climate factors (Ozone hole creating cold winds over the Ross Sea and freezing it) overcoming the greenhouse effects. When the ozone hole closes again, West Antarctica will lose about 1/3 of its sea ice.
And more interesting information delivered by RNZ Nine to Noon: Kathryn Ryan interviewing Professor Martin Manning – Director of NZ Climate Change Research Institute, VUW. (Poor bugger, his name is about to be besmirched by the Kiwiblog denialists, but he’s a big boy). Items of particular interest:
1. Scientific analysis of human induced atmospheric CO2 began in the 1890s, really took off in the 1960s, and is now mainstream science.
2. The last time Earth was slightly warmer than it is now, 120,000 years ago, we didn’t have people on the ground measuring things the way we do now. He could have added there weren’t 6 billion of us then, either, to house and feed.
3. The only contribution UEACRU to the latest IPCC assessment was the Phil Jones long term temperature trend, which is also replicated in US studies. In fact, the Phil Jones trend chart indicates less warming than its US equivalents. It’s more conservative. So to say CRU was biased is, as Manning puts it, bizarre.
4. The EU has achieved meaningful emissions reductions without causing economic harm. (This is something that has always bemused me: we live in a capitalist orientated world – the opportunities in the new field of emissions reductions must be enormous).
Then there is some detailed discussion on required emissions reductions to keep the overall temperature increase to 2C or lower, and how that can be achieved. It should be required listening for all those doubters.
And getstaffed is quite correct when he says over huge timespans, everything has melted before. But as I point out, again, the planet was not home to 6 billion valuable, many say sacred, human lives. Even a two or three degree rise would lead to severe disruption with many, many unknowns, including armed conflict.
Excellent, got the RIP going, signal-to-noise ratio is vastly improved without that mindless magpie warbling his streams of senseless fullstops. Cheers folks !
December 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
Pinch Punch first of the month and no returns
December 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am
given the posting of ‘the business roundtable wish-list’ by don brash..(our greenspan’ mini-me..)
this is kinda appropriate..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/how-free-market-delusions-destroyed-the-economy/
December 1st, 2009 at 8:13 am
What is that noise? Never mind, I must be imagining it.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:16 am
No noise here.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
The only free market delusion to damage the economy is the delusion that bureaucrats can intervene in the free market without doing damage.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:19 am
Opening up 20% of Mt Aspiring for mining doesn’t seem like much, does it.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Giving away 35,000 hectares of public land to Maori doesn’t seem like much, does it?
December 1st, 2009 at 8:22 am
What noise?
December 1st, 2009 at 8:29 am
The UNs environmental and political goals revealed.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:38 am
Lucy Hansen (from the other thread) said…
Try this Hurf
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-hockey-stick
Lucy Hansen, why do you keep referring to a open source software guy, who’s background is cutting & pasting HTML codes? He is not a climatologist nor even a physicist? His supposed domain of expertise is in Systems Theory and Complex Systems. This guy ain’t know the difference between a prostitute and State-Space-Theory (fundamental to dynamical system theory).
What I am trying to say here. Well I can spot guys on the internet who think they understand what they’re talking about, but actually have zero knowledge about the subject/topic. You should try to read discussions on various physics forums on the net so that you can educate yourself on science rather than keep quoting someone who has no clue to science but an expert in cutting & pasting HTML codes then call themselves software-engineer? WHAT? There is nothing engineering about cutting & pasting HTML codes.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:38 am
Murial Newman has some good points here on climate change. I suppose Helen Clark had one thing right, you can’t trust John Key. http://www.nzcpr.com/
December 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
the phool is a perfect example FF
December 1st, 2009 at 8:52 am
[cros-post from the other general debate thread for lucy hansen]
Lucy Hansen, I made a brief comment on the Hockey-Stick on this thread from another blog. Note, I know the algorithm they used in the Hockey-Stick paper, inside-out , so I am more qualified in commenting on the issue, then the HTML code cutting/pasting guy you keep referring to.
BTW, Lucy, are you related to warmist God James Hansen from NASA ? Are you his daughter? C’mon Lucy fess up.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am
..”File and forget. We always have good reasons for doing nothing. Outside, the world was fast asleep.”
Le Carre. The Honourable school-boy.
Put that in Nat context if you can.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 am
The rumors are untrue FF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MDzoOF0FvA
December 1st, 2009 at 8:58 am
From Muriel’s piece-
“Attending the conference on behalf of New Zealand will be the Minister for Climate Change Nick Smith, his Associate Tim Groser, and a contingent of officials. In addition, as one of the concessions to the Maori Party for their support of the emissions trading scheme, taxpayers will also fund two iwi leaders and kaumatua”
Thieving troughing bludging scum the lot of them.
How long will NZ taxpayers keep voting for politicians who take their hard earned income and blow it on scams like this??
December 1st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Murray, that’s sad for Lucy if her warmist God-father James Hansen abandoned her. I feel sorry for you Lucy (you have my sympathy for your dad’s action towards you), and I hope you can find some nice Kiwi bloke in NZ to marry who will take care of you.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:19 am
Day 2 of no philu.
Oh the joy!
December 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am
Don,t worry, he has been here. Good that he is unseen. His comments are fewer, spending more time with his trick cyclist I guess. Reality check.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Falafulu Fisi, just a small comment. Lucy Hansen is actually Luc Hansen. I know there is a Lucy that comments here but they are totally different people.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
Pity there is not a RIP type thing for Internet Explorer.
Dose anyone know about IE7Pro being used for the same thing?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am
In the rush to Copenhagen, it’s perhaps worthwhile to recall that the Doha round of the WTO talks are still nowhere near an agreement despite years of talks. In an era where the returns from the Green Revolution have trickled away, distortions in the world agricultural markets have widespread effects.
For example, OECD countries spend $US280bn a year (2006) on support for their agriculture, aid to developing countries agricultural sectors is two orders of magnitude lower (US 3bn in 2001). OECD countries are responsible for 75% of the world’s agricultural exports, while developing countries make up around 1%. Food prices measured at the farm gate in OECD countries are 30% higher than in international trade.
The knock on effects on the environment are also severe. Much of the price supports end up being used to employ more industrial inputs (like fertilisers), which intensify GHG emissions. Spill-over effects into water quality have affected several species of dragonflies (larval stages are particularly sensitive to water quality).
It always strikes me as somewhat ironical that we seem hellbent on spending 100s of billions of dollars more, to correct problems that we have created, by spending 100s of billions of dollars making it worse.
The annual spend on energy subsidies and agricultural subsidies globally is now around $US600 bn a year. Here’s an idea- stop it.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
in a market nothing comes free, free market is an oxymoron.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am
Free Market is only an oxymoron when you don’t understand its intent.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
“in a market nothing comes free, free market is an oxymoron.”
Why don’t you take your band width wasting and pointless socialist claptrap to Public Address.
Where it belongs.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:43 am
jcuknz
A flick and a kick for being so quick. Learnt that one from my daughter.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:43 am
@Swiftman the infidel
People who keep mentioning Phool, or reacting to his posts, may find themselves acquiring more negative karma.
Okay
December 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
Chthoniid, that has always been the tragedy . The alarmist cannot (maybe they can — conspiracy
) grasp that the human race likes to feel good about themselves at the least expense to themselves. Now changing a light bulb is “doing my bit” for the enviroment. That means that looking after the waterways and the water quality as well as soil etc, is no longer a priority. We are losing m1illions of animals even complete species forever through pollution, while we are chasing some tax scheme that will not have a cent spent on cleaning up the environment.
And the biggest joke of all is that the ETS will drive manufacture to China who does not buy into the schemes.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am
Congratulations on making the Listener’s Power List, David – #4 in the media section.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:04 am
“Congratulations on making the Listener’s Power List, David – #4 in the media section.”
oh that is good news, cause DPF’s ego needs a boost
December 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
Two content-free posts in the top three sounds a lot like noise to me.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am
Question for Bill English and John Keyless:
– What is an aspirational goal? And how does it differ from a real goal?
I think when he said aspirational goal, he meant to say “an aspirational goal is the kind that we talk about during an election campaign. When we have aspiration to be in government, but have neither the balls nor the vision to actually do what is needed to reach that goal”.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:29 am
A quick question – normally the threads here display as alternate grey and white backgrounds. If I get two consecutive whites or greys, should I take it that RIP had done the bizzo?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am
yes, or it might have done two in a row so you won’t notice. etc
December 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am
I have noticed that many posters are applying RIP to posters they do not like so that they do not have to
listen to the rantings of Philu and Billy Borker. While their highly contentious postings do reflect an extreme
opposing view to the mindset of many posters on here, myself included, we ignore them at our own peril.
Any time where we choose to ignore the opinions of others simply because we do not agree with them,
those we ignore are furnished with more fuel for their beliefs that they are the oppressed and supports their
hatred of the vast right wing conspiracy which in their minds are the root of all things that they consider to be
evil.
This action is counter-productive. I find their political views and moral standing to be somewhat disturbing, but
having them express their opinion on this forum is very useful as it gives us an insight into the mindset of the
extreme left. While it is easy to ignore them in the interest of comfort, the stifling of political debate to
manage dissent is anathema to the purpose of this Blog.
As much as it pains me, we need the likes of Philu and Borker to freely express themselves freely on Kiwiblog.
Simply ignoring them is not the solution. I know that we can debate their points ad nauseam while their own
mindset will never be changed. I acknowledge that they seem so blinded by their political views that trying to
understand where they are coming from is a challenge for many of us and that we have as much chance of
coming around to their viewpoint as they have of voting ACT, but that does not alter the fact that in NZ, they
have as much a right to express that view as we have.
Any dissenting opinion should be welcomed, even if that opinion itself is demeaning to others, as we have all
seen recently.
Yes, I am aware that Borkers behaviour regarding Kaya’s beautiful daughter was disgusting. I know that the
overt nastiness of that poster and of Philu disgust many of you, but we must allow them their voice so we may
understand them better. If you must be nasty in response, be subtle. I find Acrostics useful in that regard.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
could someone please take don brash by the hand..
..and take him to see the (recent) speech by allan greenspan..(his guru)..
where his guru admits his global economic world view..of ‘let the markets rule’..
..was wrong..
..i think brash really needs to see it..eh..?
c’os when yr guru/example recants on the basic foundation of his/your economic beliefs/prescriptions/formulae..
..this is not the time to be out in public..
parrotting that ‘wrong’ economic worldview..
..just makes you look a bit ‘silly’..eh..?
another ‘walking the plank’..as it were..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
correction:..it wasn’t a speech..
greenspan did his recant/mea culpa under congressional cross-examination..
but brash still needs to see it..(urgently..!)
(and probably more than a few of you lot..also need to see it..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:39 am
Well said, Slightlyrighty. If you don’t challenge your own positions by hearing and thinking about others, then you’re on the path to dogma.
Of course reading abuse doesn’t do you much good, either. And there is plenty of that on both sides of any ‘debate’ here.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Interesting that you say we should “listen” to them more.
They have been polluting this blog for years. There are many left-leaning posters here that I enjoy reading as their analysis is interesting, regardless of how much I disagree with it.
The fact is that the vast majoiry of borker’s and philu’s posts are vile, nasty, personal attacks, or mere attempts to start flamewars (more often than not successful). There fore you could say our use of RIP will be making kiwiblog a better place.
Also hypocritical to say we are trying to stifle freedom of speech. If any right wing equivalent of philu or bonkers were to go spout rubbish over at the Standard or Public Address, we’d be banned in an instant. While borkers and philu have been treated the same as anyone here.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am
Instead of making spurious strawman comparisons (Greenspan was talking in particular about certain esoteric aspects of investment banking, not free-markets in general), why don’t you try to counter some of the report recommendations?
For example, what is wrong with less government spending and hence more money in the hands of those who earn/produce it? Don Brash made the point that no country in the world has had decent economic growth with government spending at 46% of GDP. His target is 29%.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am
Acrostic masterpiece SR – but I still RIP hem
December 1st, 2009 at 10:49 am
SR – I thought long and hard before downlaoding the RIP add-on – at present, I’ve only applied it to one poster here, and that’s only on a trial basis – I’ll review it next week.
Like you, I agree that it’s important to see both sides of the debate. But conduct such as borker’s on Saturday crosses my line in the sand. I’m rather hoping that DPF will sit down and read Saturday’s GD thread, and will take appropriate action once he is repatriated – borker’s comments to Kaya were inexcusable, callous and calculated; probably the worst I have seen in the five or so years I have been visiting Kiwiblog. It’s DPF’s blog of course, and whatever decision he makes is his, but I hope that he thinks hard about the precedent he sets if he allows billyborker’s comments to go without sanction.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
don brash has just put a big fat full stop/exclamation mark..
on the fact he is ‘yesterdays’ man’…
and is in a state of almost terminal denial..
that he ..in any way..was the architect/enabler/promoter ..
..of all those bubbles bursting/deflating all around us..
..as we speak..
‘more of the same!’..he cried..
as he mounted his steed…to charge at the windmills..
once/yet again/still..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Discussing narcissists only keeps them coming back. They love the attention.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Phil, instead of attacking Don Brash (1 of 6 on the panel) can you counter any of the recommendations of the report?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
“..There fore you could say our use of RIP will be making kiwiblog a better place..”
oh..!..i agree..!
the (boring) personal abuse is a fraction of the firestorm it was..
and that is since the worst trolls self-exiled themselves..
to rip-land..
(and long may they stay there..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Oi Stop calling Luc, Lucy Im nothing like him.
On another topic the Human Rights Commission has received 185 complaints about Paul Henry refering to Susan Boyle as retarded.
It will be interesting to see if they investigate this complaint after refusing to investigate the complaints about Hone. Probably will Henry is white.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am
I wonder how many people have actually read the (150 page) report, and how many are reacting Pavlov-like to the authors.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
malcom..it is..as expected..
just the same old same old…
it is rogernomics/ruthenasia 2.0…
and the last time that was tried..it wrought what is called in the history books..
..the rogernomics recession’..
and..(subject under debate)..when you follow the timelines of the wage-gap..
you see that rogernomics-time was when the lines suddenly veered in opposite directions..
aussie up..us down..
(how much more do you really have to know..?..
..to know this is just a plan to make the rich richer..on the backs of everyone else..
meh..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
From the late 90s NZ veered pretty sharply away from the path set by Roger Douglas et all. Maybe that is what got us in the shit? The last term of Labour saw a massive spurge in spending.
Rather than making meaningless generalisations, how about countering the point Brash made about no country doing well with government spending at 46% of GDP?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
oh yeah..!..that’s right..
brash is also against any form of capital gains tax..
is against govts. spending on research and development..(tell that to the chinese..!..eh..?..)
no mention of the green technologies exploding in china/asia/america..
really..!
nothing..
and devoid of any half decent analysis..
(rod oram calls the/any ‘analysis’..’facile’…)
of either .. our current realities..
or our future..
just back to the past…
(as i said)..
meh…!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am
malcolm (581) Vote: 0 0 Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Rather than making meaningless generalisations, how about countering the point Brash made about no country doing well with government spending at 46% of GDP?
2007
South Korea — 31.7
Australia — 34.0
Switzerland — 34.0
Ireland — 34.7
Japan — 36.5
United States — 37.4
Luxembourg — 37.8
Canada — 38.6
Spain — 38.8
Norway — 41.0
New Zealand — 42.3
Iceland — 43.1
Greece — 43.2
Germany — 44.3
United Kingdom — 44.6
Portugal — 45.9
Finland — 48.1
Belgium — 48.3
Italy — 48.4
Denmark — 50.7
France — 53.0
Sweden — 53.8
I’d have to say a few in that list higher than NZ are doing OK, in fact, we’d do well to try to catch the French and Scandinavians.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Malcolm
The phool could not analyse the difference between a f**k and a blowjob.
As you know he is a cut and paste merchant of low intelligence.
But he does not deserve pity only derision.
And reporting to the SPCA – any person who raises their dogs to be vegan needs to be charged with animal cruelity.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am
That spending list about sums it up MNIJ. Either NZ will be the exception and show the world what can be achieved with 46% of government spending. Or not. In which case it will show the world how a country can be run into the ground. And as 20% of NZer’s live outside NZ already, we seem to be doing that rather well.
Not sure about emulating the French, though. They have a long-standing and chronic problem with unemployment among young people (>25%).
December 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Phil, you’re just shooting off random unsupported assertions. Try answering the 46% of GPD question. Just focus on that one question.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
SlightlyRighty,
I agree with Philu a fair amount of the time. I’m not ignoring him because his posts are “contentious” or because I disagree with what he says. I’m ignoring him because he posts those views in a long string of barely readable punctuation, often cutting and pasting whole posts from his blog. It just clutters up the page, and I can’t be bothered with it.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
malcom..
did you note that those higher/taxing..full social support/highest ranking in ‘happiness-stakes’..countries..
have a higher govt gdp-spend than us..?
food for thought..
..eh..?
and kinda blows your alarmist arguments out of the water..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am
Ryan, so for you it’s a case of shooting the message instead of the messenger?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
lol malcolm – good stuff!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
“..Phil, you’re just shooting off random unsupported assertions.”
what specifically..is an ‘unsupported assertion’ in what i have said..?
what facts are you questioning/challenging..?
(and i think the gdp-table puts yr arguments on that ‘to bed’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
“Discussing narcissists only keeps them coming back. They love the attention.”
That and not being gainfully employed.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Just focus on that one question, Phil. How can NZ grow it’s economy when it has government spending at 46%.
Don’t be distracted by Sweden, Norway etc. They are exceptions and NZ has tried that route and it has got us nowhere. Time to pick a more obvious path.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
Precisely. I don’t change the channel when Bro’Town comes on because I’m racist. I change the channel when Bro’Town comes on because it’s not funny.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:44 am
why won’t the Labour MP’s on Redalert answer my questions about the Huntly Miners strike .. can someone tell me?
is it because the MOFO’s want .. no DEMAND a 13.5% pay rise to around the mid 80k range .. that must make Labour a little nervous since their new Pres is the boss of the EMPU
December 1st, 2009 at 11:49 am
“..From the late 90s NZ veered pretty sharply away from the path set by Roger Douglas et all. Maybe that is what got us in the shit?..”
um..!..no..malcom..
that wage-gulf with australia was exacerbated by the fact that in nine years of power in the nineties..
that national raised the minimum wage by a princely 87 cents..
(nearly ten cents a year..!..)
in that time wages in australia pulled further and further away..
and while labour did minimally better..
the wage increases during their time ‘steadied’ the wage-gulf..
and had the lines running kinda parallel..
no..the problem can be traced directly back to that failed rightwing prescription..
of course..part of our problem during those gulf-growing years..
was that ouy union leadership was asleep at the wheel/worse than fucken useless..
and just went and stood in the corner..waiting for their reward of knighthoods/consultancy-cream/govt board appointments..
whereas the aussie union leadership went..
‘no..you’re fucken not..!’..
and stood up/did their job..
(any more questions..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
There are major difficulties using gross measures of Govt spending, as tabulated above.
Obviously, you are not controlling for other factors that influence growth levels. The fact is that the EU is a free-trade zone for member countries (with barriers to outsiders). And free trade creates wealth. So you need to identify the things that hinder or encourage growth levels. There are third-world basket cases with low Government sectors, but that is often a function of their inability to effectively tax their citizens, and fund even basic public functions and investments.
The second is that what the Government spends money on, also matters. You need to identify the percentages of spending that are devoted to growth-enhancing activities (typically infrastructure) and those that distort growth (welfare payments).
The third problem is controlling for endogeneity. In other words, it is noticeable that is economies get richer and richer, Government spending starts to rise. The question here becomes whether Government spending is a cause, or consequence of growth. That means you need to be looking at trends over time, not simple tabular ‘snap shots’.
New Zealand does not have access to large open markets in our chief exports, so the burden of an inappropriate expenditures is high. There are no EU agricultural subsidies to help us out. The expansion in spending has also tended to be in terms of welfare payments (distortionary) rather than infrastucture. So the level and types of expenditures is rightly of concern.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
An aspirational goal is like vowing to drop 10kg in the New Year, while at the same time eating your fifth helping of Christmas trifle.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
MNIJ,
Now from that list find the rural or natural resource based, export economies with small local markets to compare.
It has been said before we are a Pacific Island agricultural economy. We are NOT an industrialised country with a local market sufficient to support industry-of-scale and productivity levels and an associated welfare system demanding big government at a level approaching half of the economy.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Well said Chthoniid.
It’s possible that the massive increase in government spending under Labour was all spent in the right places to create growth…. but I doubt it. One need only witness the office building boom in Wellington to see a lot of went into unproductive places.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Chthoniid and david, I don’t disagree with you. I simply posted the stats to show that a crude measure is, well, crude, and more needs to be taken in to account, as you both say.
We are NOT an industrialised country with a local market sufficient to support industry-of-scale and productivity levels and an associated welfare system … which is an excellent argument for NZ to bite the bullet and accept Australian Statehood. Not only would we have a bigger and wealthier economy, we’d also win Rugby AND Cricket, and maybe a little bit of wog ball too.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
bu hey..!..they are onto those boy-racers..!
eh..?
good/reassuring to know they know what is important..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
i don’t actually see the reasoning behind many of the arguments against economic union with australia..
..it seems a mix of paranoia/nationalism are ..in the main..what drives them..
whereas i see it as just like joining a south seas version of the european union..
(we could be their poland..)
and of course..to a large degree..(back to subject under discussion again..)
that wage-gulf would vanish..
problem solved..!
i mean..why not..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
heh..!..sproull is a punctuation-anal-retentive..!
who knew..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
No it wouldn’t. There is a wage gap because on average NZ is less productive than Australia. Adopting their currency wouldn’t affect that. NZ would just become a poor part of Australia, albeit with a less volatile currency. But if we want to fix that problem why not adopt a decent currency, like the $US or Euro?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
And malcolm, WHY is NZ less productive than Aus? That was the question Brash was asked to answer, but he let it slide and simply re wrote his hard right agenda. I’ll give you a clue – the answer isn’t in education vouchers and competetive health.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“..the $US ..”
heh-heh..!
really..?
so..i guess you are flying the face of the many who say the american dollar will tank..
it is only a matter of ‘when?’..
and..
joining with oz wd give you righties their tax system..which you seem to admire..
wage-rates etc wd have to rise to legislated oz rates..
so of course they would raise..malcom..
and gee..!..malcom..
i’ve answered every question/scenario you have posted..
how about ‘answering’ my/the answers/ripostes..?..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
can i takes your silences/lack of replies..as agreement/concession to a superior argument.?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I’m afraid so, things started getting very weird in the last term with the money that was being tossed around/targeted to specific groups. I don’t think some of the infrastructure spending was made for sound economic reasons. The railways buyback seemed like an appalling decision given the outright superiority of coastal shipping in both cost and environmental measures.
The warning signals were fairly transparent. Sagging export performance, high interest rates, high exchange rate and ballooning household debt, meant the macroeconomic imbalances were growing.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Manifold reasons:
– Too many unproductive people doing nothing and living off the labour of others.
– Too little investment in NZ companies by over-taxed NZers.
– RMA discouraging development of industries where NZ has a natural advantage/resource.
– Natural disadvantages of a small, distant country (bad place for manufacturing for example).
– Too many good and productive people leaving for better prospects.
– Too little entrepreneurial and risk taking activity from people inculcated with the idea that the government will look after them.
– Too many employed by the government to do unproductive things.
– Traditional reliance on primary industries which now have less relative value in a tech world.
– Under investment in secondary agricultural industries (e.g Fonterra being held back by not having access to interest-free equity capital).
Australia also has some well-known advantages. A little country like NZ will always struggle. In some ways we need to be better just to keep up.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
No. I’m also doing programming so I only write here when I’m mulling something over.
Sure the US dollar has problems, but behind it is one of the most continually successful economies in the last century. NZ would do well to emulate that which makes the US so economically successful. And it’s not welfare dependency and over-taxation.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
malcom…the american economy is going down the toilet..
states are filing for bankruptcy…
there is the sharemarket bubble happening..
and retailers..(having let their stock run right down..)..
hoping to be able to cash up the rest of that stock..
then..post xmas..they will start falling like flies..
and everything else in the american economy is pretty much fucked..
do you rely on ‘the herald/tv news for your information..?
c’os they can’t/won’t tell you what’s up..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The US is in a bad recession. As is much of the world. If you take the situation in a recession and extrapolate it you get insane shit like what you’ve written above. The US economy is not going to disappear down the plug hole. The market rages more freely there, but overall that is to their benefit. Have any of the previous recessions been fatal to the US?
How do you explain that the US has per capital GDP which is nearly twice that of NZ?
Name two.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
A nice backgrounder to ClimateGate from The Register today.
Includes the history behind the CRU, a graph that shows the massive MWP from the IPCC’s 1990 report, and quotes like ““We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
December 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
A nice backgrounder to ClimateGate from The Register today.
Includes the history behind the CRU, a graph that shows the massive MWP from the IPCC’s 1990 report, and quotes like ““We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis
December 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
What is RIP and how do i do it?
December 1st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/3114683/Antarctica-turning-green
“Images of a white, barren continent could need updating as climate change brings more plants to Antarctica’s formerly frozen shores.
An international report issued on Tuesday has found that winter temperatures in west Antarctica have increased by as much as five degrees Celsius – and that allows cushion plants and grasses to thrive.
“We’re seeing more plant growth,” Dr Colin Summerhayes, executive director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), told AAP.
“It’s getting a bit greener.”
EXCELLENT!
that’s good right?
More plants?
WaHooooooooo!!
The planet is saved.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
here you are malcom..
a snapshot of the ‘bankrupt’ states in america..
(even has graphs/pics..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/california-misses-deadline-may-now-have-to-issue-iousand-the-other-bankrupt-states/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
razork..general debate thread on 24th nov has all the details..
(another fox-watcher..eh..?
can’t ‘handle the truth’..?
off you go then..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Phil, you said “states are filing for bankruptcy…”. Now you’re saying ‘bankrupt’ in inverted comma’s and giving a list of states which have a budget deficit. Not the same thing at all.
Do you know what ‘filing for bankruptcy’ means? And can you name a state which is filing for bankruptcy?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
oh..ffs..!..malcom..!
surely the point is that they are fucked..?
‘filed’..or not..?
(not anal-retentive..?..are you..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
If you had a substantial tax cut, what would you do? (check all that apply)
[ ] Buy a new TV / stereo system.
[ ] Buy a new(er) car.
[ ] Buy a house, or move to a nicer house.
[ ] Buy an investment property.
[ ] Buy shares in a NZ company.
[ ] Take an overseas holiday.
[ ] Save it as cash / term deposit.
[ ] Other: _____
December 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Reption, some of those plus others. E.g. recently I’ve put a lot into NZ shares.
But what’s your point? Are you suggesting those are negative things? People spending their money on what they want, rather than government taking it to send Hone to Paris?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Mark Steyn rips the world a new one.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
You were trying to make the point that the US is in terminal trouble. And to that end you said states we’re filing for bankruptcy. Which does indeed sound very bad and supports your point. But it’s not true. They aren’t. You made it up. Many have deficits, but so do most people (mortgages etc).
I’m not anal-retentive. Why do you ask? Is it because I’ve just pointed out that you’re talking rubbish and making points with false assertions?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
yeah..ok malcom..
america is in fine shape..
(do you just watch fox news..?..)
carry on..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Depends on how the tax cut was delivered. If it’s just another tax cut to the lowest marginal rates, then I’d save it. Repaying off the newly acquired Govt debt is going to mean either cuts to services/welfare in the future, or increased taxes.
If it’s a reduction to the highest marginal rate, then I’d probably look at using it to expand my consultancy work in Asia again. I stopped doing it when my taxes went up to 39% (nationalisation of ACC didn’t help, and neither did the rising dollar). There’s pretty much no point trying to create wealth, when you’re not allowed to keep your fair share of it.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Phil, don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogma.
I don’t watch Fox news. We only have the three channels here and even then don’t have the box on much. Although I do have to endure it 24/7 when visiting the inlaws in the US.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
KEY has committed Taxpayers to shell out $30 million a year indefinitely to a fund to subsidise the Global Warming Scam for countries that might get drowned………..Thank God we can please ourselves whether we pay it or not
…………………”Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen Summit, it has been detected that money pledged to developing nations in the 2001 Bonn Declaration can’t be traced.
A BBC investigation has revealed that large sums promised to developing countries in the Bonn Declaration of 2001 to help them in tackling climate change cannot be traced.
“Rich countries pledged USD 410m a year in a 2001 declaration – but it is now unclear whether the money was paid,” the BBC report said inciting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to say that industrialised countries had failed to keep their promise.
“The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it,” the probe found.
Twenty industrialised nations, including European Union, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand
, Norway, and Switzerland, had pledged in Bonn to pay USD 410m per year until 2008.
ute USD 410m, which is 450 million euro, per year by 2005 with this level to be reviewed in 2008,” the declaration said.
“But only USD 260m has ever been paid into two UN funds earmarked for the purpose,” the investigation unveiled. “
December 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Don’t worry backster, by the time the (about $US22bn) fund pays out over 3 years to halt global warming, governments elsewhere will have spent close to $US1,800bn on fossil fuel subsidies, agricultural subsidies- and who knows how much on deforestation subsidies- all to make the problem worse.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
… MNI Jerk re-emerges from the dross of Borker’s latest meltdown …
And as for all you silly folk getting so upset with Borker or wanting to ban him… WHY? It makes as much sense as getting upset by the silly little Pica Pica.
Consider their therapeutic value. Personally, I’m really looking forward to next ANZAC day when once again Borker is reminded that daddy didn’t get a medal …
And today we have the Borker persona tossed into the cupboard to ride out yesterday’s effort and the silly Pica Pica saving the global economy, wittering about “facts” and using the “we” word again. All very amusing.
Remember; this is what their LIVES are all about. They crave contact, recognition and an opportunity to espouse their views because its the only way that they can get anyone to take any notice of them. That doesn’t mean you need to be polite to them just because of their tragic personal circs. There is after all no denying that Borker/Jerk makes Weatherston look humble and ultimately the magpie is just a lazy little shit. But take them seriously? Puuhhleeze! Get upset? Tsk tsk.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I guess my point is that you’re unlikely to get a lot more New Zealanders investing in shares simply by lowering taxes. It’s more likely to be spent on imports, which makes our balance of trade deficit worse, or on property, which just results in people spending more for the same thing, while the banks cash in.
Obviously this is not a strong argument against cutting taxes (because otherwise we may as well go to 100% tax), but if the problem is “Not enough kiwis investing in companies”, then I don’t think “lower taxes!” is the solution.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Repton, you’re probably right in the short term, but ultimately if people are left with more of their own money, then some of that will find it’s way into investments. And often better and more considered investments than the same dollar spent by the government. Rakon just issued shares to build their joint venture plant in Chengdu. I and a lot of other NZer’s invested in that (they were slightly over-subscribed on the $20M they wanted from non institutional investors). People invest in their own businesses all the time. Plenty of businesses get going and grow off family investments. If taxes were lower then there would be more of that.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Wow!!
Gareth Morgan Proposes Comprehensive Capital Tax, 25% flat tax, replacement of all benefits HT Bernard Hickey
At last – some new, 21st century, unpolitically-tarnished ideas for us to discuss, debate and play around with. Hallelujah!!
December 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
That sounds like a real attempt to sort out tax and benefits Portia, being bold and brave rather than Brash. I hope it get’s a lot of discussion going – especially within National. It won’t fly as it is but it’s a refreshing starting point.
Pushing aside the 2025 report may have been anticipation of some real reform ideas.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The universal benefit idea has been around for a long time. Very efficient from an admin perspective, but why give $10k to an able-bodied young person?
December 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Just heard him on Radio Left Wing Portia. He sounded credible. Mary of course was her usual poisonous self.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
TV3 are going into alarmist damage control.
Climate change stories every night now.
It’s all our fault, but Climatehagen will be our salvation
December 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Cool ice caves though, weren’t they.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Good on the Aussie Liberals for showing some principle. Cameron must be looking over with consternation.
It’s another thing for James Coe and his shit blog “If Only The Huruld Was Like Alternet” to get butthurt about.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I blame DPF for promoting the oppression of gingas.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Really? I find myself congratulating DPF for promoting the oppression of gingas.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Wow, the moderate centre left doesn’t know what a free market is. I assume it’ll be the same for everything else.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
This dude must be moderate centre left, his market turned out to be not very free:
A New Zealand man has been ordered to pay US$15.5 million ($21.3 million) for his part in an international spam network
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10612680
December 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Just watched Morgan on Campbell Live. Was on what Portia linked to above.
- $10K annually given to everyone (paid probably weekly)
- no benefits at all
- 25% flat tax
Was interesting (except for JC interupting Morgan all the time).
Would need to do some calcs for myself but sounds much more efficient and directly benefits those who work hard.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
When Phil Jones and Mike Mann are forced out of their highly paid jobs, they could try childrens TV. (hat tip: Gerald Warner)
December 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
In principle, I think Morgan has come up with a good idea, albeit one that will require some fine tuning. It’s good because the progressiveness is in the asset tax. I’m not sure if he includes the family home in that tax, if he does, then Trust Law would need to be addressed.
I was impressed that evidently Bill English told the Tax Working Group that equity was a primary concern. There may be hope for him yet.
I have read previously that when radical reforms including much lower taxes are enacted, the tax take goes up because it’s not worth the expense and the bother of evading it. The way I see, we don’t have a lot to lose.
Bye bye Don.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Just imagine a Martian landing and somebody trying to explain to him/her/it how $Zillions are going to be “traded” for carbon.
“What – you mean that essential gas?”
“That’s right!”
“You buy and sell carbon, which is so plentiful?”
“Yeah – we’ve been told its a pollutant and there’s too much of it.”
“So what do you do with it?”
“Well, nothing really – just buy and sell it.”
“At a profit?”
“Well somebody’s making a bomb on it – don’t know who.” (Thinks – Al Gore?)
“Do you ship it around in liquid form in tankers?”
“No, we just leave it where it is to “do its thing”.”
“Which is?”
“Oh – you, know – help things grow – help people to breath.”
“But you said its a pollutant.”
“Yeah, that too – or so Gore tells us.”
“How and what exactly does it pollute?”
“Dunno, I’m just a climatologist, you’d best ask Al Gore that – or John Key – or Nick Smith – they must know.”
“So – somebody’s making a fortune out of this. But who’s paying?”
“Well, the taxpayer coughs for most of it. Manufacturers and farmers too – pretty much anyone who is producing anything or doing a useful job.”
“Why farmers?”
“Oh, that’s because cattle fart a lot.”
“Really? They fart carbon?”
“Well, no, but I guess they must fart something similar.”
“Do politicians pay their share?”
“What share? Oh – you mean for farting? Probably not. (Thinks – another question for Gore.) Nah, they probably trouser a percentage seeing as they thought the whole scheme up.”
“How will you know when you’ve bought/sold/traded enough?”
“I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps when the politicians (and Gore) say so.”
“You mean when they’ve bled you dry and their pockets are full?”
“No – it can’t be then.”
“Why – you mean they’ll stop before they’ve bled you dry?
“No – I mean their coffers’ll never be full – they’re bottomless!”
“You realise this is going to ruin you all, do you? That the wheels of industry will gradually grind to a halt – and they wont be able to pay taxes? That education, health services, transport, welfare and all that stuff will be history?”
“Must admit, I have wondered.”
“Well, I’m not hanging around here – it’s going to be chaotic. I’m off back to Mars.”
“OK – see yah! Oh, do you have carbon there?.”
“Yeah, heaps – much more than you do. The percentage varies quite a bit according to the effects of sun-spots and natural variations in the weather patterns. But we don’t worry about it – seems harmless enough – it’s quite inert. Why do you ask?”
“I was just thinking – could I cadge a lift with you?”
December 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Poor old getstaffed, still in denial. Did you miss the news that the Mt Everest glacier is retreating at the rate of 70 metres per year?
The evidence is in that the planet is warming. The good news is that it is in the main NOT caused by natural events. The even better news is that we can mitigate, but not eliminate, its effects. It seems we are already too late to avoid some 100,000,000 climate change refugees requiring resettlement.
But just think if we didn’t have the science, we had no idea of the cause of these incredible events. I know exactly what we would be doing.
Sacrifices to the Gods, and woe betide all virgins!
December 1st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Lucy Loves Hansen said:
Who are these people? You haven’t included Pacific Islanders fleeing to New Zealand in there have you?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
opps, just come across this:
Listen Fala, according to you then I just can’t win. I present evidence endorsed by the overwhelming majority of climatologists and get told it’s all a conspiracy theory and irrelevant.
Then you come along and say I should present evidence from climatologists only! (Let’s forget about physicists for the purposes of this discussion).
But Lord (inherited title, by the way) Monckton, failed journalist, is all cool! Right?
Yeah right.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Luc – You are misinformed. Again.
The world’s glaciers have advanced and retreated continuously for eons. And they don’t all co-ordinate their movements. The world is coming out of the Little Ice Age so we have longer term warming trend, offset right now by lower levels of solar activity in a short cycle leading to cooling.
Your wet dream of socialist wealth redistribution under the guise of the climate change Trojan horse is turning into a nightmare.
The Aussies have come to their senses, and China and India are already planning their Climeatehagen walkout strategy.
This story has lots more to play as the MSM finally start to get pissed off about being misled.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Don’t worry, I can help them.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
good on ya Sonny – thumbs up!
Ad hominems and racism all in a few words.
You have obviously had a lot of practice at it!
December 1st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=916&p=26564#p26564
WND AT THE WHITE HOUSE
Gibbs: ‘No dispute’ on global warming
Dismisses 31,000 scientists who signed petition challenging ‘consensus’
Posted: November 30, 2009
10:26 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today brushed aside the concerns of more than 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition challenging the theory of man-made global warming.
WND White House corrrespondent Les Kinsolving brought up the petition as a follow-up to an earlier comment.
Gibbs had been asked by Fox News correspondent Major Garrett, “On climate change, why is it a good idea for the president to arrive near the beginning of the climate talk negotiations (scheduled by the United Nations in Copenhagen early in December) as opposed to the end, when the ultimate deal is going to be struck? And secondarily, does the White House have any evaluation or comment on this controversy of the hacked e-mails that suggest that some of the underlying science through some of the propositions put forward by climatologists may be in error or may have been altered in some way?”
Gibbs responded, “On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among – most people – in dispute anymore.”
He continued, “In terms of when the president goes, obviously we believe that progress has been made with developing nations – the U.S. has made some progress with the Chinese and the Indians over the past couple of weeks. The president will travel to Oslo on the 10th, and believed it was important to use this visit to help get us to the point of a deal – something that can take the type of action that scientists say needs to be taken to stop and reverse climate change. I think the president believes that a visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker.”
Kinsolving then asked about the Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. It now lists well over 31,000 scientists, including about 6,000 with doctorates, who subscribe to the following statement:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
“Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?” Kinsolving asked.
“I don’t doubt that there’s such a list, Lester. I think there’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this,” Gibbs said.
WND has reported extensively on the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen where critics forecast a new world government will be adopted to regulate and address “climate change.”
The hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom appear to document that many of the scientists promoting man-made global warming – dubbed “warmists” by critics – have manipulated, concealed or doctored information to support their cause.
Report this post
December 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/australias_ets_will_come_under_the_glare_of_an_election/
ETS will come under the glare of an election
| December 01, 2009 | 47 Comments
Whichever way it goes, it is no bad thing that the whole box and dice of Australia’s emissions trading scheme comes under the glare of an election. Whatever policy comes out of that would likely be strengthened by the process.
Tony Abbott’s one-vote victory over Malcolm Turnbull revealed the deep division on the conservative side of politics between the urban and business progressives on the one hand and the bush, small business and parts of the mining industry on the other.
The deal struck between Labor’s Penny Wong and the Liberals’ Ian Macfarlane was not strong enough to prevent this rupture, itself a result of Australia’s carbon-intensive economic structure based on cheap coal-fired electricity.
That signalled a weakness in the political foundations of the ETS which could end up undermining investor confidence needed to put billions of dollars into transforming Australia to a low carbon economy.
Australians declared at the 2007 election that they wanted action on climate change. But this was mostly about the largely symbolic issue of John Howard’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. In practice, and contrary to quite a few other rich countries, Australia would have met its Kyoto targets whether or not its government signed the protocol.
The issue now is whether the complex ETS is the best mechanism for Australia meeting its bipartisan targets for cutting emissions by 5, 15 or 25 per cent by 2020. Although the ETS, a form of so-called cap-and-trade, was Howard’s preferred model, voters are confused and wary.
An election will ensure that the details get intense public scrutiny; whatever policy comes out of the process will have more credibility.
Abbott today called the ETS an ‘’energy taxation scheme’’; a slush fund for politicised handouts run by a giant bureaucracy.
That may be so, but an election also will force him to come up with a credible alternative.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I said:
Lucy Loves Hansen said:
Paranoid leftist.
It must be ok when Al Gore says it though right?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
getstaffed
You’re dogged ignorance never fails to astound me.
Response: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
I look forward to seeing “getstaffed” in the messages thread. Do us all a favour and slam dunk Gavin Schmidt so we can RIP global warming. Forever. Hallelujah.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:34 pm
So Sonny, you have no problem with Pacific Islanders fleeing to NZ then, is that right?
If that is right, I would apologise.
The way things are looking, you can look forward to many others aside from Pacific Islanders fleeing climate change to Aotearoa.
Be prepared.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:34 pm
You still quoting RealClimax Luc? Hint: Find another source. RC might say what you like hearing, but it’s well discredited.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I actually clicked on one of your sad links Luc.
That was a pathetic explanation from Gavin.
If CO2 caused the last 5/6 of interglacial warming, how did the following glacialiation occur whilst at the peak of CO2 concentration?
I can’t believe your lot are so meekly indoctrinated that you can’t see elephant sized holes in this thinking.
From Schmidt himself:
“Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm”
Notice the words ‘currently unknown’ in there Luc? As in even the sages of GW do not know what causes the Earth to naturally warm up.
More from Schmidt:
“the lag shows that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming”
You can’t pretend that this is not a significant problem for your cult Luc.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Hahaha! Puke thinks Bangladeshis and others are going to be “resettled.” Wrong. They should get comfy on their floodplains.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
When the hell did I say I did?
I have a problem with it being attributed to climate change rather than simple international urbanisation similar to Kiwis ‘fleeing’ to Aus and the UK.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Viking 2
Good post. The ETS is incredibly complicated, but it’s what has gained traction worldwide.
Of course it is an Energy Taxation Scheme. Fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming.
I have a lot of sympathy for a carbon tax with rebates, but when Labour suggested that scheme it got shouted down, so ETS it is.
Or just ban fossil fuels?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Sonny, all cool.
So you have no problems with Pacific Islanders immigrating to NZ. You are just making an observation. Right?
But who says Pacific Islanders have come to NZ because of climate change? I see them as economic refugees.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Getstaffed, I wouldn’t be surprised. China and India aren’t going to want to chance their economic growth to appease the guilt of the Socialist Western political class. We already know that both China and the US’ cuts are essentially hollow. Question is, who will be the first to commit economic suicide in the name of Mother Gaia and give the other leaders an excuse to kill themselves in the name of the cult: NZ or Australia?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Weather forecast for summer in NZ was looking shit on the news tonight. Below average temperatures. Another dud summer.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
It’s not just the Climategate fraudsters who manipulate data. Their paymasters at the IPCC are fairly adept at this too.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
No Luc, as much as sudden economic imbalances can be controlled I don’t believe in overtly controlling immigration.
Sorry do disappoint your bigoted left wing views of ‘right wing conservatives’
December 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Cheers Sonny, good for you.
So what was your point again?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
It’s one of the 35 lies mentioned in that propaganda flick ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Try this update.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I have never seen that movie, sorry. I will have to do some fact checking on that. Are you sure he wasn’t making a forecast?
Do you have a link for the 35 lies?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I’m quite sure he wasn’t forecasting. He was lying, as per usual.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
You could try a wonderful site called Google, but don’t worry, like the government in your dreams I’ll do it for you:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
December 1st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Quite sure, huh?
But no link?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:49 pm
It’s OK sonny, I found my own.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
December 1st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
There won’t be pacific islanders fleeing to NZ. It’s yet more alarmist claptrap.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I’m afraid the people of Holland (The Netherlands) don’t agree with NZ Climate (non) Science, which is why they are spending up large to protect against climate change.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
A city below sea level at risk of flooding? who woulda thunk it guess that can be blamed on the almighty climate change scapegoat as well.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Um, Luc,
The Netherlands has ALWAYS been battling against sea levels – that’s what the dykes are for. Without that engineering, the sea would have claimed Holland years ago. I know, as one of my parents is from there. I don’t believe the story at your link has much to do with climate change. It says nothing about them agreeing or disagreeing with man made climate.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Here’s something that escaped my attention: Marxist arseholes burn cars in the name of Mother Gaia.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 am
Fletch
I guess comprehension is not your strong point.
From the BBC report:
“It’s an excellent example of how a port city can change its focus to tackle the challenges of climate change,” says Mr Jacobs.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
OK I got RIP installed but can’t figure out how to block the fullstop pollution, I try to select one of his posts and block it but rip decides that I’m trying to block peoples names appearing at the start of their posts. Any advice ?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
Put it away:
Open RIP
Click “Add XPath”
Paste //li[cite[contains(.,'philu')]] into the top most box
Click OK
Click OK again
Sorted
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 am
Those buttons are greyed out…
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
You downloaded the comment filter?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
I downloaded the “Remove it permently” add-on for firefox, is “comment filter” somehting different ?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:36 am
It’s the specific file you load onto RIP that goes for KB’s comments specifically. It’ll be where you downloaded RIP.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 am
Not sure what you mean, I got rip from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/521, can’t see anything on there
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 am
Off to bed, will try to get it working in the morning. Phool still wasting my electrons unfortunately.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 am
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Great site.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
Breaking News: The IPCC admits to incorrect projections on sea level rise. The expected rise is now approximately doubled to a global average of 1.4m by the end of this century due to faster than expected melting of both Antarctica and Greenland ice shelves.
I guess the deniers will continue their denial even as the sea is lapping at their doors.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
The IPCC admits to incorrect projections on sea level rise. The expected rise is now approximately doubled to a global average of 1.4m by the end of this century due to faster than expected melting of both Antarctica and Greenland ice shelves.
Didn’t they previously not choose to take Antarctic and Greenland melting into account because there was uncertainty about measurements, or something? Which emissions path is the 1.4 metres?
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
If there is one thing that should convince any rational person of the artifice of the “climate change” scam it is the cowardly attempts to indoctrinate children, a ruse GW proponents employ throughout every school in the west.
As zealots and tyrants and totalitarians have done through out history when they have ideas that will not withstand logical scrutiny, they try to introduce them into the culture by indoctrinating the young and turning them against their parents.
Propagandists posing as educators abound, not only in Cuba and North Korea, but as the left have tightened their grip on education, throughout the Western world.
Here’s a recent example. Chilling to anyone with any sense of history and any knowledge of how tyranny comes upon us-
============================
Andrea Peyser
When did global warming turn into a forced religion?
My daughter came home from school recently with a spring in her step and a song on her lips. With no foreshadowing — or time to call an exorcist — out came this chilling refrain:
” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . ”
By the time her father and I removed our jaws from the floor, we had learned that:
A) All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents.
B) Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees.
C) There was no deprogramming session on the menu. And no arguing allowed.
The international “Climategate” scandal is now moving into its third week. And reaction from folks on the scientific and political left — or is that redundant? — who treat global warming as a cult in which naysayers must be crushed has been depressing:
Total denial.
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/net_result_sure_beats_nut_revolt_qafIP4m2M9TAty2eLxyz5M
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
Does that include Al Gore who brought a seafront condo in SF a few years back?
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
You don’t get it do you Luc Hansen.
Anything that anyone associated with the IPCC or CRU says is likely to be a lie.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Here’s an excellent insight into the pharisaical mind of the globalwarminista elite
Mark Steyn – Come Fry With Me
In order to save the planet from global roasting, it seems entirely reasonable to ask Mr. and Mrs. Joe Peasant to subordinate their freedom of movement to an annual “carbon allowance” preventing them flying hither and yon and devastating the environment. As Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains:
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri? Hey, if you’re manning the VIP lounge at Heathrow, that name may ring a bell:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles.
Wow. 443,243 miles. How many flying polar bears does Dr. Pachauri kill in an average quarter? Well, not to worry, he probably offsets his record-breaking ursocide with carbon credits from carbon billionaire Al Gore.
And in any case it’s okay to devastate the planet on IPCC business — plus the occasional cricket match:
So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match.
And why not? Aside from a slight increase in the risk of polar bears dropping from the skies onto stray Indian bowlers and wicket-keepers, where’s the harm?
P.S. I like the headline on Dr. Pachauri’s climate’n'cricket story: “Heat On Cricket Pitch Warms This Climate Change Laureate.” If you’re waiting for some journalist to ask him about the contradictions between his lifestyle and the one he wants the rest of us to submit to, that sound you hear is cricketers chirping.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 am
Don’t worry my Lord, Luc is one big leftist lie.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
Ms Hansen said…
I guess the deniers will continue their denial even as the sea is lapping at their doors.
The same thing can be said to IPCC worshipers , blind-believers , blind-faith warmists/practitioners , climate clairvoyants, climate pornographers and so forth, including you Ms Hansen. You will continue to hug those IPCC climate oracles and their predictions, even though there is huge inconsistencies between theories and observations.
From a proud denier (yeeha!!!).
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:06 am
Does that include Al Gore who brought a seafront condo in SF a few years back?
Oddly I remember someone pointing this out to me when I was in SF – the St Regis is not actually on the waterfront – 188 Minna St, google it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Thanks for that Angus- Steyn is one of the best writers and most accurate political commentators around.
Shame the treasonist socialist scum at the NZ Herald wouldn’t run his columns, but as we know, truth in journalism is a concept they would rather not play any part in.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
The latest research announcement on Antarctica is from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)
http://www.scar.org/about/
Sea level rise will double due to melting of Antarctica
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6692899/Sea-level-rise-will-double-due-to-melting-of-Antarctica.html
The reports focus on 1.4 metres but that will no doubt be an estimate and will be further adjusted as more research and more observations are done. This is part of the ebb and flow of research of this nature.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Ahhh, Truth……
Truth, is a point of view.
Fact, and fact checking, on the other hand is something the msm now seem largely ignorant of, hence the term “Repeaters”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 am
No worries RB.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Our resident Progressive propagandist as usual with nothing better to do and no better argument than to try and draw our attention to the words of the liars in the mainstream media he is in league with. Read that yesterday Petey, and discounted it immediately, because I had already read this-
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/are-polar-ice-caps-really-melting-due-to-global-warming/
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Though SF is kinda flat…
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Hmmm, the blog of Wintery Knight (…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square) versus the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
Haha, who thumbs-downed my SF comment?! I didn’t mean it’s boring, I meant it’s literally flat in some places. Oh, except where it’s not. Like where the condo is.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Or how about the IPCC line that the Himilayan glaciers will all be gone by 2035. Turns out they mis-typed 2350 when they took this from some Russian scientist’s study. Now we had TV3 runnign a story on how they will all be gone in 30 years just last night.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Surprise surprise – Hone stays. On this issue – Maori Party FAIL. National Party FAIL. I wonder who wins from this decision?
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Proof of the mainstream medias complicity in the global warming fraud-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2397802/posts?page=31#31
They’re not there to shine light on deceit or bring us truth folks, they’re liars and deceivers and a major part of the problem.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Hmmm, the blog of Wintery Knight (…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square) versus the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.”
See, this is a good example of why I have nothing but contempt for Progressives. Their whole modus operandi is firmly based on lies and deceit. The Wintery Knight is merely a source of information that has drawn information from other sources (The Australian and Watts Up With That- see here)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/
yet rather than deal with the issues raised in this very informative and detailed report, the poster who misrepresents “Pete George” as his real name attempts to smear the source with an empty of content derisory sneer and no alternative information.
In other words, if you don’t agree, you don’t exist.
Keep it up you contemptible scumbag. Pretending we don’t exist is the very strategy that has allowed us to grow stronger.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Hone is staying with the Maori Party. Hate to say I told you so but………….
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Lucy Loves Hansen said:
Small problem there, it isn’t.
Had a look outside Lucy? How do you like the summer?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
It’s interesting that defenders of the CRU fraudsters claim that CRU findings are corroborated by NOAA and NASA findings.
If this is the case then why CRU’s need for data manipulation and/or switching? There’d be authoritative support for the truth as CRU found it.
It this is not the case then why do NOAA and NASA finding agree? Are theirs manipulated to agree with CRU’s?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Red, the “very informative and detailed report” you are referring to at Watts Up is dated April. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research findings have just been released, so you are comparing out of date opinion to scientific research reports just released. That is shoddy on your part at best, or it could be “lies and deceit”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Love this from Phil Jones as he steps aside: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible”
To date, his ‘world leading’ research has been conducted with very little interruption, well out of public view and all dissenting voices sidelined. This has allowed their tribal scientific cabal to get away with agenda-driven perversion of the scientific method. They need a hefty dose of sunlight. If that feels like ‘interruption’ then I’m all for it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Frigging retard.
Therefore you must agree if a contrary report is released tomorrow it must be the ‘up to date opinion’ by the virtue of your ‘release date’ system of merit.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Sonny, the SCAR research isn’t definitive, it just adds weight to the accumulating evidence. If a credible scientific report came out tomorrow that contradicted it that would make a difference to the weight of evidence.
Red said he read that yesterday Petey, and discounted it immediately, because I had already read this-…referring to Wintery Knight which he says refers to Watts Up in April. If he chooses to ignore new science because it doesn’t fit his view it highlights his closed mind.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 am
Put It Away – get the kiwiblog filter for RIP from here http://ripwiki.pbworks.com/K%20RIPs
Then add it in to RIP (on the firefox toolbar select Tools>RIP Options>Import RIP and locate the kiwiblog RIP you downloaded)
Then you can paste in (or edit existing) XPATH such as
//li[cite[contains(.,'philu')]]
//li[cite[a[contains(.,'billyborker')]]]
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Phil, remember our chat the other day about water consumption in dairying?
The one where you tried to blacken NZ dairy farming by quoting the 200 litres of water per glass of milk number? And I said rubbish, that’s for countries that need to irrigate. Not NZ. And you said no it’s for NZ. But with Side Show Bob’s farm as an example we showed that his uses at most 5 litres/glass of milk at his gate. And you again said no, it’s definitely for NZ and from Brent Clothier (plant and food research soil scientist) in the Listener. So I said can you quote the whole paragraph and so you quoted just “it takes for instance, 200 litres of water..to produce a glass of milk..”. And I again asked you where he said that was for NZ? And you just said “no..he was definitely talking about new zealand..”.
Do you remember? Why didn’t you quote the whole paragraph? Was it because it showed that you’d been lying about it being applicable to NZ? From the Listener profile of Brent Clothier:
“It takes, for instance, 200 litres of water to produce a glass of milk – but not all water is equal – from a country with few water pressures, such as NZ that foot-print may be smaller than water-short Australia. As our export markets become increasingly green-aware, panel member Jacqualine Rowarth said Clothier is ‘doing the work in terms of carbon and water that will give NZ the competitive advantage..”
Even a cursory search of the internet shows referenced numbers of 1000:1 (water:milk) ratios for irrigated farming (so 200-300 litres per glass). NZ dairying is by-and-large not irrigated. One of the reasons that NZ is a low-cost dairy producer.
So Phil, like I said yesterday re the US states “..filing for bankruptcy..”. Don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogmatic mental dead-ends.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Cheers Rightnow and Hurf, I’ll give it a spin when I get home to my own PC
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Malcolm, I dare you to post that on his blog
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
That would be mean. Anyway, I’m not sure anyone reads whoar.co.nz.
Phil was just the first example I saw that day. Mostly I skip his horribly formatted comments, but as everyone was RIPing him I thought I would start reading them to see what the fuss was about. There’s plenty of bullshit thrown around to make a point, particularly on the GD. It’s not just Phil. I’m sure I do it from time to time. It takes vigilance to avoid believing your own bullshit.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“..“It takes, for instance, 200 litres of water to produce a glass of milk –..”
are you deeply confused malcom..
it dosen’t matter if ‘irrigated’ or not..
what i originally said was:
“..it takes 200 litres of water…to produce one glass of milk..”
where that water comes from is sorta relevant..
but not at all relevant to that fact:..
that it takes 200 litres of water..
to produce one glass of milk..
(what exactly are you failing to comprehend about that..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“..said Clothier is ‘doing the work in terms of carbon and water that will give NZ the competitive advantage..”..”
which i also said to you..(you dissembling prick..!..)
and at the time..i said that fact..of him working for the ‘gummint’..
gave his fact-call all the more credibilty/gravitas..
..(you dissembling prick..!..)
(to save you having to try and find the definition..’dissembling’ means lying/spreading false information..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
OK Phil.
That wasn’t what you meant. And you know it. You were implying that NZ dairy farming is bad because it uses a lot of water. And you lied to make your point when questioned. If you were worried about rain water, why not get worried about Fiordland National Park – that ‘uses’ billions of litres of water a day.
Anyway, I can see you’re embarrassed to have been shown to be lying, so I will leave it at that.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Don’t get angry. You’ve just been caught bullshitting to make a slanderous point. It’s not the end of the world. Take it on the chin like a man. And go away and think over what I said about believing your own bullshit.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“..You were implying that NZ dairy farming is bad because it uses a lot of water..”
no..i was saying that all dairy’ ‘ is bad because it uses a lot of water’.
(that word again..?..’all’..
not a hint of ‘implying’..
quite definite..
hey listen malcom..!..it’s been great..!..eh..?
but really buddy..!
you are as thick as dogshit..
and it is very tiresome to have to multiple-walk you through simple facts..
so..
cheerio..!..eh..?
carry on..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
phool,
you knuckle dragging fuckwit troll,
caught lying again,
twice in one day.
Put your drug addled pea brain into gear and sharpen up.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
OK, Phil. Just remember though:
Don’t make stupid points with dumb and patently false assertions. If you stick to that rule, you may find that you can even debunk some of your own ideas. It’s a great discipline and keeps you from falling into dogmatic mental dead-ends.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
@malcolm
And that in a nutshell, is why Phool is RIPped and ignored, and why whoar is less popular than Paris Hilton’s musical opus, “Paris”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Malcolm
It’s always good to have more data points as well.
For my farm, the total milk prod was 1,057,328litres (FY 2009). Water consumption was a shade over 8 million litres, yielding an average of about 7.5 litres of water per litre of milk.
And because caveats are always needed it should be noted that there’s no irrigation needed.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Thanks Tom. I certainly wouldn’t argue with you – you’d eat me alive.
BTW, any hope of floating Fonterra so I can put my money where my mouth is, and we can both make some cash? I can’t stretch to a dairy farm and Side Show Bob is a bit down on the idea.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The dairy farms in Canterbury, Maniototo, Waitaki Valley and those proposed on the Mackenzie Country will need large buckets of irrigation water.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
The dairy farms in Canterbury, Maniototo, Waitaki Valley and those proposed on the Mackenzie Country will need large buckets of irrigation water.
True. The Greens are fairly keen on more user pays for farmers (well commercial users) with water, and I think their usual thing is to couple this with an income tax break. Once people start moaning (or moaning more?!) about water supplies down that way their proposal(s) may gain a bit more momentum..?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@Brian Smaller 9.31pm
Brian, what’s your source for this little gem?
@getstaffed 11.02am
This is a serious slur on a leading scientist, which, if proven, would surely ruin his career. So can you be more specific please: eg what, why, when? Just a hint at something specific will do, no need to go into great detail, unless you wish to, of course.
@getstaffed 9.14pm
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Oops need more practise on my blockquotes
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
BTW, any hope of floating Fonterra…..
Sadly no, not a chance in the short-term. I sympathise with SSB’s position, given the fly-by-night business merchants we seem to have had in this country. However, the fact is that Fonterra is simply not going to be able to raise the sort of money it needs to perform the types of expansion and transformation, unless it floats as a public company.
I’ve tried explaining to several farmers in my district that Bill Gates would not be worth $55 billion had he tried to hang on to sole or restricted ownership of Microsoft. I’ve tried explaining that there are various protective measures (‘Poison Pills’) that can be set up to prevent the likes of smash-and-grab artists such as Fay-Richwhite from taking over such a company. All to no avail.
The irony is that the current environment will eventually push-out all these small farmers (e.g. 500 cows or less) anyway, just as effectively as Fay-Richwhite. The economics of farming have been grinding away for decades with costs rising relentlessly and the returns not really matching – at least not consistently enough. We’re also seeing land prices driven by rational – but poorly directed – thinking. For example, one of my next-door neighbours sold his 50h unit in 1999 for $1.1 million. I did not think the production/value justified that investment – and I was right. But the guy who bought was 60 years old and was aiming at retiring in 5 years time after 3 decades of milking. His focus was the capital gain, and he bought plenty of cash with him from selling an even smaller unit. And he was right also, selling the farm several years later for $2.2 million!!!!
With that sort of nonsense going on it’s impossible for anybody to make rational financial decisions and it would be quite accurate to say that the land is NOT priced correctly for the income, which is ultimately the only true measure of its worth.
So what defines a farm as an economic unit has been scaled up, and this process will continue. Farms of 50hectares (the current absolute minimum I would say) are consolidating into 100 -> 150 -> 300, and so forth. Increasingly only large farms will be able to swing the capital when it comes to converting dry-stock farms, building new cowsheds, investing in robot milkers and so forth.
That also means the number of farmers will reduce, and since the votes are on the basis of milk-solid production, those large farmers will have an increasingly greater say as the “small” guys like SSB (and me probably). Eventually such groups will have the votes and Fonterra will float – but you will be at the back of the investment queue for some time. Sorry about that.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Malcolm, Stephen & Tom, priceless guys you have made my day. I doubt if phool sees it the same way, so sad never mind
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Luc – in respect of data manipulation (which is not directed at any one scientist – as you’ve tried to suggest) – Google Yamal tree dataset, upside-down Tiljander series, Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction. None of the shonky science in these ‘adjustments’ would pass proper scientific peer review. Given the trillions of dollars at stake, and the certain knowledge that said adjustments were designed to confirm a presupposition rather than establish the truth, I’d say that a few careers needs to be ruined. And then the courts can get busy with those that remain.
As far as this year being predicted to be in the top 5 record global temperatures, will this be calculated on publicly released source data and adjustment methodology (eg to cater for UHI etc), or will we just get final data for which the source has been, um, ‘lost’ ?
The science isn’t settled as Algore claimed, and it’s not impeccable as you have claimed.
Time to wake up Alarmists: The Climate Change scam is now very much in public domain.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
getstaffed, have you looked at the SCAR findings?
I don’t buy the 1.4 metre increase, there must be ranges and probabilities on that at least.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Hmmmm – and with a strange sense of timing, the water bill for the first six months of this FY, has just landed in the mail – and it’s 2.3 million litres.
This puts my annual total at something closer to 6.3 million litres, which means my water/milk ratio is about the same as SSB’s – 5.95. Whew – I was beginning to think I was a statistical outlier!!!
I had only the previous six-month invoice to hand so had simply doubled it, even though I knew this was crude, since the 1st six months covers most of the classic three-month dry-off, when water consumption would be minimal.
See what happens when you don’t have the raw data and are forced to “fill in the gaps”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Phool has learned a new word ! I guess he must have bought a dictionary to look up “blockade”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Yeah Tom you are probably right but don’t get caught with the idea that might is right. Many of these big units are nearly impossible to staff and are far from been run as safe economical units. There are also those that have over extended and are now suffering the consequences. While I realise Fonterra would like nothing more then small farms to amalgamate so the tanker only has a few stops to make they risk losing the very people that have built the company. Also there are parts of NZ that big farm units would not be practical, geographic etc. Further, many farmers these days are highly stocked and feed all manner of tucker to their animals, yes even the evil PKE. Myself and a mate are always comparing our farms, he feeds the cows tell they can hardly walk, mine just get what is grown on the farm. He kills me in MS but I leave him for dead when it come to EFS, bank manger recons we are in the top 10% for our province I’m sure the “suits” in Fonterra don’t give a fat rats arse about the smaller farmer, all though butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths when they address the suppliers. To be honest I don’t trust the bastards and not many around here do, I will never vote to float. If Fonterra wants cash that desperately why do they not retain so many cents of payout. To busy keeping the bloody Aussies happy I would suggest. I agree land prices are crazy, I brought my farm for a little over a million 12 years ago the latest QV is well over 3.5, madness. So many years ago we sold the farm to our family trust, it was the only way we could see how to leave the farm to the kids and make it affordable.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Tom, that’s a great summary of the situation with Fonterra and the possible outcome.
If people like you can make eloquent and reasoned appeals to your colleagues, then it needn’t go that way. It’s not unlike the situation with NZ in general – it just needs some good leadership and selling a vision and a plan. I’d gladly invest.
I totally understand SSB’s point, but as you say, it’s better to have one slice of a big loaf than the whole of a little loaf. If I was a dairy farmer I’d want to grow my investment in the secondary industry, rather than knobbling it to milk the primary one. So to speak. Also there are ways to minimise the windfall that goes to the financial fixers who underwrite the offer. Fonterra are big enough to completely cut those guys out.
The consolidation of farming is inevitable. It’s no different from any other industry. And farming is particularly vulnerable due to family ownership. The farm ends up re-mortgaged every generation so one child can buy the others out. Eventually the ball gets dropped and the farm is bought up by someone or something bigger. In that regard shares in a public Fonterra are an easier investment to manage and keep in the family.
You mean that nice old chap who did so much for NZ with the America’s Cup? And got a knighthood and likes to visit Switzerland? I can’t imagine he would rip anyone off
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Pete – I haven’t researched the Ozone hole much yet. http://www.theozonehole.com/ looks to be a good site.
Given that this hole (really a thinning) was discovered in 1985 and measured since, I wonder how much o3 change has been recorded and mapped against actual variations in sea level? I suspect there’s little correlation.
As for 2100, I’m not a fan of the predictive models (eg 1.4m or whatever) as they’ve become alarmist battering rams, rather than credible projections.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
An interesting item on RNZ Morning Report on the situation in Antarctica. It explains that
1 West Antarctica and Greenland are losing land ice into the sea at an ever increasing rate.
2. The surface area of sea ice is slightly increasing overall in West Antarctica, melting at one end but gaining at the other, that is due to temporary natural climate factors (Ozone hole creating cold winds over the Ross Sea and freezing it) overcoming the greenhouse effects. When the ozone hole closes again, West Antarctica will lose about 1/3 of its sea ice.
And more interesting information delivered by RNZ Nine to Noon: Kathryn Ryan interviewing Professor Martin Manning – Director of NZ Climate Change Research Institute, VUW. (Poor bugger, his name is about to be besmirched by the Kiwiblog denialists, but he’s a big boy). Items of particular interest:
1. Scientific analysis of human induced atmospheric CO2 began in the 1890s, really took off in the 1960s, and is now mainstream science.
2. The last time Earth was slightly warmer than it is now, 120,000 years ago, we didn’t have people on the ground measuring things the way we do now. He could have added there weren’t 6 billion of us then, either, to house and feed.
3. The only contribution UEACRU to the latest IPCC assessment was the Phil Jones long term temperature trend, which is also replicated in US studies. In fact, the Phil Jones trend chart indicates less warming than its US equivalents. It’s more conservative. So to say CRU was biased is, as Manning puts it, bizarre.
4. The EU has achieved meaningful emissions reductions without causing economic harm. (This is something that has always bemused me: we live in a capitalist orientated world – the opportunities in the new field of emissions reductions must be enormous).
Then there is some detailed discussion on required emissions reductions to keep the overall temperature increase to 2C or lower, and how that can be achieved. It should be required listening for all those doubters.
And getstaffed is quite correct when he says over huge timespans, everything has melted before. But as I point out, again, the planet was not home to 6 billion valuable, many say sacred, human lives. Even a two or three degree rise would lead to severe disruption with many, many unknowns, including armed conflict.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Excellent, got the RIP going, signal-to-noise ratio is vastly improved without that mindless magpie warbling his streams of senseless fullstops. Cheers folks !