Scare-mongering

December 1st, 2010 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

at blogged:

I’m in Cancun, Mexico, at the 16th UN Conference. Like last year at the 15th Conference in Copenhagen, I am representing Labour as its climate spokesperson; I paid my own way to get here; I am part of the delegation from the International Trade Union Confederation (thanks to Helen Kelly and Sharan Burrow).

I wonder what would be the reaction if a National MP turned up at an international forum as part of a business lobby group?

I’m here to support efforts to get an ambitious, binding, global deal to limit the problems that we are all likely to face as a result of human-induced climate change, and to support a just transition to the different world we are all to shortly going to find ourselves living in.

There will be no binding deal at Cancun. Cancun will make progress in a number of areas but no one expects a binding deal.

So why am I here? Well, just because the media isn’t talking about it so much doesn’t mean that the issue isn’t just as serious as it was last year. My aunts’ home in Tahiti, 6m from the high tide line, is no less likely to be washed away by rising sea levels than it was last year.

This is th part which I think is ridicolous scare-mongering – I expect it from ill informed people, but not from the official Labour Spokesperson on climate change.

The IPCC 4th report had a number of scenarios. In the most optimistic the mean sea level rise by 2100 would be 18 cm and the most pessimistic would be 59 cm.

So the IPCC have said the worst case scenario is that by 2100 the sea level may have risen 10% of the 6 metres above high tide.

If that rate kept up, Charles’ auntie’s place will get swept away in the year 3000. Now regardless of sea level change, Tahiti is also sinking or subsiding at around 25 cm every 100 years. So in fact around 2700 or so it might get hairy.

Of course by then it will be 18 generations or so on from Charles and his aunt.

I’ve often said politicians who scare-monger like Charles are in fact very damaging to their own cause. Such ridicolous statements (which strongly implied that a six metre rise could happen in his aunt’s lifetime) just provide ammunition to sceptics.

[UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that a more likely meaning is that the house is 6 metres along the beach from the high tide mark. If that is the case, then it all depends on the angle of the beach. If the angle is more than 9 degrees, then it still isn’t until 2100 that you get problems.

The projected rate of sea level rise is not dramatic (it is undesirable though). The increase per decade last century has been 1.8 cm/decade. From 1993 it has been 3 cm/decade and the IPCC projects the worst case scenario is 6 cm/decade up until 2100.]

Tags: , ,

64 Responses to “Scare-mongering”

  1. Manolo (14,031 comments) says:

    Isn’t the deranged Nick Smith also there? A meeting of the gullible, the fifth columnists, and the liars is about to take place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. david (2,561 comments) says:

    Good to see those union fees being put to a good use by Helen Kelly and the CTU. I’m sure there are a few minimum wage workers in South Auckland who appreciate that their hard earned dosh is being used to send people off to a tropical resort in Mexico.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    If he was that worried why is he letting his auntie live in such a dangerous place? Does he not care about her at all?

    And they’re only at Cancun because they’re tied of being snowed out in the middle of their Gorebull Warming worship and made to look like the hysterical idiots they really are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Viking2 (11,557 comments) says:

    No doubt there’s some Parliamentary Services money there as well.
    No better the his predesessor when it comes to travel

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. grumpy (270 comments) says:

    Every time idiots like this say such easily disproved crap, it’s another nail in the coffin of AGW bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    Chauvel said “6m FROM the high tide line” not “6m ABOVE the high tide line”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    I wonder if they see the irony of having thousands of delegates jetting all over the world at regular intervals, to debate how to reduce carbon footprints? But I’m sure they reassure themselves by thinking it’s all “carbon neutral”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    s.russell>Chauvel said “6m FROM the high tide line” not “6m ABOVE the high tide line”.

    In which case his aunt should move. Anyone living just a few steps from the high tide mark is going to get waves coming through their home every time there is a high tide and an on-shore wind. Probably a couple of times a week. This isn’t anything to do with rising sea levels, and it certainly isn’t anything to do with global warming. This is an aunt who clearly should move her home from directly on the beach to behind the sand dunes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. rimu (48 comments) says:

    Indeed. Drought is likely to be far more of a problem than sea level rise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Grizz (610 comments) says:

    This is the problem with climate change activists. They are using an emotive issue to push their own political agenda. It comes across as a means to obtain power and social engineering. When he rants off on half truths, exaggerations and scaremongering bullshit, not only does he discredit the cause, he discredits the politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ephemera (557 comments) says:

    @DPF

    Re-read Chauvel’s comments.

    He isn’t saying that the ocean will rise 6m, merely stating how far the family home is situated from it, and implying that it will be affected by rising sea levels.

    [DPF: It can be read both ways, yes. If he tells us what the angle of the slope is, then we can work out whether she has just one century or many centuries to prepare]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Whoops (136 comments) says:

    DPF – the science (real, not imaginary or scaremongering as you indicate) is indicating things are worse than previously thought. Regardless of ideologies, physics will do what it wants.

    Also – re; Business lobby groups – there are plenty there – as there should be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    Chauvel said “6m FROM the high tide line” not “6m ABOVE the high tide line”.

    That’s right – and slightly raised sea levels and more unsettled weather patterns potentially can threaten a lot more land than that directly affected by the actual level rise. But the way Chauvel says it still seems designed to shock, that is counter-productive..

    Climate science should continue, we should keep investigating what could be happening and what could be done to mitigate, but it shouldn’t be the major focus. It should be just a part of all pollution issues, and the use of (and depletion of) natural resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. anonymouse (721 comments) says:

    My aunts’ home in Tahiti, 6m from the high tide line, is no less likely to be washed away by rising sea levels than it was last year.

    Does that mean that Charles’s place in Oriental Bay is also at the same degree of risk?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Clint Heine (1,571 comments) says:

    Cancun, party town. Yeah… a really good place to fly thousands of tree huggers from every corner of the world to “discuss” climate change. What an absolute joke. In a world of Skype, video conferencing and advanced communications – and we are still flying people around the planet to save the environment. Creepy Charlie Chauvel better hope he doesn’t get drunk again and start abusing passengers on planes…. again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,914 comments) says:

    Godd God, did you say “Charlie’s Aunt”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Bryce Edwards (248 comments) says:

    DPF says: “I wonder what would be the reaction if a National MP turned up at an international forum as part of a business lobby group?”

    A very good question. To unpack both cases a bit further, I’d say the question of MPs being funded by, and representing, various civil society organisations (ie a union or a business association) has two components: 1) is it *legitimate* for an MP to be so aligned to a business or union group?, and 2) is it *popular* for an MP to be so aligned to a business or union group?

    In terms of legitimacy, I think it’s entirely so. There should be no illegitimacy raised about, say, a National MP being funded by the Business Roundtable to go to a neoliberal international conference and represent them. In recent times it has become fashionable to decry the linkage between party and societal institutions; the linkage between business and right-wing parties and between trade unions with left-wing parties has come to be seen as somewhat insidious. But that linkage is a very important mechanism for rooting parties into society. If those alignments are eroded – and in NZ they have eroded a great deal – then political parties become free-floating groups of individual MPs devoid of any real ideological anchors and the parties become very centrist and opportunistic.

    In terms of popularity, then this is a more open question. It’s perhaps a reflection of how New Zealanders feel about unions and about business associations, that some MPs are willing to show they are aligned to unions (which are therefore seen more favourably) but other MPs are much less willing to show an alignment with business organisations (with are very unpopular). Or many National MPs are just less willing to show their true colours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    While Chauvel is scare-mongering with his comment, DPF you are being mischievous in your redefining of the comment.

    Chauvel says 6m from the high tide line. That sounds terrible. What if there is a spring tide – goodbye aunty. Unless of course she lives 6m from the high tide line but on top of a 20m cliff. Lovely views. I wish Chauvel will tell us more. Of course she might be very wealthy and have a house that is built on huge piles etc, very well built and very safe with commanding views of the ocean. Just not enough info Charles. Wasn’t it in your interests to make a full disclosure.

    As said above metres from high tide does not mean metres above high tide. If that was the case then I would be living about 20km above the high tide mark. David, we expect better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. John Gibson (295 comments) says:

    DPF – the use of the word “skeptic” implies a scientific approach. Scientists don’t hack into university email servers and steal information , they don’t run campaigns to (unsuccessfully) attempt to have scientists fired from their universities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    What a farce. If our emissions are really to blame then they shouldn’t be letting politicians decide on the solution. All that will do is cause some people to become richer from carbon trading and alternative energy subsidies while production moves from developed nations to developing nations, in effect increasing the emissions because the developing nations will be less regulated.
    Meantime energy costs will increase, pensioners will sit in freezing houses leading miserable (shortened) lives, many poor people will become isolated because they can’t afford the cost of travel, and third world nations will have their development hobbled because they will be denied the cheap fossil-fuel energy that developed nations consumed so rapaciously to get where they are today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    I think that it is great that we have so many New Zealand representatives are at Cancun after all our country was directly and severely affected by climate change recently in the shape of the Canterbury earthquakes.

    However on the matter of rising oceans we are lucky in New Zealand because when it happens we can just get Maui to fish the islands a little higher out of the water.

    I am sure the Tahitians also have some mythical God type figure that can save them from this mythical armagedon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,914 comments) says:

    Charlie’s Aunt is described in Wikipedia as a three act farce. Kinda says it all, dunnit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    John Gibson ““skeptic” implies a scientific approach. Scientists don’t hack into university email servers and steal information”

    I doubt you can point a finger at any scientist who has hacked into any servers. The information is now in the public domain, probably the work of a single individual who was unlikely to be a ‘scientist’. There are many scientists disputing the AGW theories independent of what came out of ‘climategate’. It’s just a diversion.
    WRT to campaigns to have scientists fired or whatever, again a diversion from the debate, but also one which pales by comparison to the actions of many warmists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Manolo (14,031 comments) says:

    Please, remind me again, why are we paying this new tax, the ETS?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Brian Marshall (204 comments) says:

    John, at 10:41 you say that “Scientists don’t hack into university email servers and steal information , they don’t run campaigns to (unsuccessfully) attempt to have scientists fired from their universities.”

    The climategate files that was released to the Internet was titled something like FOI request. Maybe you are being biased or blinded by ideology, but that sounds like a whistle blower releasing the information, not a hacker. Also as per those same emails and files, it clear that the sceintists were active in stamping out any arguements that disagree with their view any way possible while fudging data with “tricks to hide the decline”.

    It’s clear to any lay person that the so called AGW proponent scientists are the ones hiding the truth, base data and methodology. Funny how the “skeptics” release their data and findings where the “team” refuse to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Inventory2 (10,407 comments) says:

    @ Adolf (10.52am) – spot on Sir, spot on!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    Brian M>Maybe you are being biased or blinded by ideology, but that sounds like a whistle blower releasing the information, not a hacker.

    I always thought the idea that the servers were hacked was so unlikely as to not be worth considering. The documents were almost certainly leaked. Possibly by someone inside the university who was shocked that the “scientists” were actively ignoring FOI laws in order to “hide the decline”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    If his aunt if 6m from the high tide level she probably has more to worry about from coastal erosion which is natural and occurs without any change in the global climate.

    Is he over there to aide in the creation of a binding resolution to abolish waves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. david (2,561 comments) says:

    ” I will believe there is a crisis when those who are telling me there is a crisis act like there is a crisis” [hattip- whoever wrote it wherever I read it but it wasn’t the original author]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    I blame movies for inflating peoples expectations of what most “hackers” are able to accomplish.

    Maybe the 12 year old girl from Jurassic Park can “hack” into the security system of what is effectively a dinosaur jail, but your best skeptical scientist is very unlikely to be able to wield those same fantastical skills to extract what should already be public data from those tight-fisted, academic bullies.

    Maybe it was an inside job. Maybe they never changed their passwords. KyotoFTW isnt that hard to guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Regarding whether the servers were hacked or the info was leaked, on balance of probability it was a hack. One reason I think that is that Gavin Schmidt says
    “I woke up on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009 completely unaware of what was about to unfold. I tried to log in to RealClimate, but for some reason my login did not work. Neither did the admin login. I logged in to the back-end via ssh, only to be inexplicably logged out again. I did it again. No dice. I then called the hosting company and told them to take us offline until I could see what was going on. When I did get control back from the hacker (and hacker it was), there was a large uploaded file on our server, and a draft post ready to go announcing the theft of the CRU emails. And so it began.”

    So whoever had the material was at least capable and motivated to hack realclimate to post it.

    Not that I think this is ultimately relevant – whether the info was hacked or leaked, when considering the fate of the world is the stakes (i.e. that many trillions of dollars can be ‘redistributed’ in the cause of AGW).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. All_on_Red (1,643 comments) says:

    The funny thing is the Sea Surface Temperatures have started cooling and as a result the sea levels in the past few months have actually FALLEN slightly.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ensosea-levelsea-surface-temperature-page/

    Scroll down to see the University of Colarado results which they collate from Nasa’s Jason and Topex satellites which are the most accurate measurement of sea level.
    Slight drop aside the sea level has been rising at 3-5 mm per year.
    So to get a 6 metre rise at 5mm pa that will take 1200 years.
    Charles is a sucker. But hey , Cancun is a fun place.

    This is what Cancun is really about:

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated”. – Ottmar Edenhofer
    http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

    This is who Ottmar is:
    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ipcc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,737 comments) says:

    Come on folks ,here we have govt representatives talking about binding resolutions(the EU) to control the Climate…..and these guys can’t even control their own banks,deficits,borders,crime rates,corruption among their elected representatives.

    The UN can’t restore order or democracy in the Congo, Haiti,or Somalia….please feel free to add to the list…..

    This is worse than a farce.

    Now that Chauvel has brought his aunt into the public arena could one of the lions in our media get a contact in Taihiti to get a few shots of the endangered house.

    Taihitis’ French innit?In the unlikely demise of that island paradise they could all go to France where the electricity is nuclear generated ,way to go Froggie!Oh sorry by then it will be a caliphate and they mightn’t take Christian islanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    The tide has turned on the “global warming” political movement. I suspect it will be a slow process as it is in the hands of the politicians of the major economic power houses of the World. With the climate not co-operating with the dooms day predictions of the skewed climate models, public opinion will win out and the politicians will be forced to admit they were wrong, or get voted out. Then AGW will be set to rest along with other false theories, like “the Earth is flat”, or “the Sun rotates around the Earth”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Viking2 (11,557 comments) says:

    Yep its really warming. England. Earliest snow in 17 yearsand breaking all low temperature records.
    American Scientists have also predicted this for Florida dec and Jan i.e. snow in those states. Warmists said notheir computers reckonmild winter. So far the sceptics have been right and the weather computer wrong.
    What can we say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    One week does not make a winter. What have the sceptics predicted for the northern winter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    I’ve been quite interested in getting solar panels, and it looks like next year they’ll be pretty cheap:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-16/solar-panel-makers-face-supply-glut-armageddon-chart-of-day.html

    Pete – not quite an answer to your question but try accuweather for a ‘sceptic’ forecast. I use it for Wellington http://www.accuweather.com/en-us/nz/wellington/wellington/quick-look.aspx) and like it better than what Metservice offers (although I suspect they might source some data from the Metservice, and just have a better output format).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    Thanks for the weather report. Guess who has to go there for the Christmas holidays.

    And why hasn’t anyone said this yet;

    Charles Chauvel – the modern day King Canute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Pete – this may be closer to the answer you want:

    http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
    “UNHOLY ALLIANCE… THE UKMET OFFICE AND ME ON THE HEART OF WINTER.

    It’s darn cold now, but a few weeks ago I was banging the gong about that. I have been banging the gong in the states about the threat that by Christmas, people will be wondering if another wild winter is on the way, just like you are now.

    But I believe the heart of the winter across England and Ireland will wind up normal to above. Because of that, the forecast from this forecast remains unchanged. The place where winter could be severe, brutal and harsh, against the normals, will be southeast of the northwest islands, the center and southeast part of the continent.

    I have made no secret that I think the UKMET is a good meteo centre. That being said, in the spirit of competition, when I see something that we can have a little challenge with (last winter, global warming, etc.) I will take them on, but I do not do it to be malicious, I do it because God made me to forecast the weather, and if there is a challenge, I will take it on. The coldest 30-day period of the cold season relative to averages is in progress now. If we start this, let’s say on the 23rd, when the cold really started to come a-calling, I am confident you will see that the 30 days that start Dec. 23, Jan. 23 and Feb. 23 will not be as cold and are likely above normal in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

    People in the eastern and southern U.S. will see the same thing, that after Christmas or so, it’s much milder.

    So in this case, the weather is making rather strange bedfellows, but I would wait until until March before I let them have it… or for that matter, me, if you don’t agree.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (8,737 comments) says:

    jimbob;
    I would not be so optimistic about the tide turning and the pollies listening to their electorates.

    One danger is alot of the push is coming ,as always ,from narrow interest groups,like the envirnomental NGOs etc.They will not give up. Industry is also in on the act and getting govt(taxpayer) subsidies to build wind “farms”,universities are getting money for “research”(is it any wonder they produce the rubbish they do,if there was no perceived crisis ,they’d get no money).That’s just the tip of the ice berg. Leftist politicians are wedded to it also(obama, and then “right” wingers must go along with it,Key Cameron)

    And of course there’s the trendy liberal MSMwho push this relentlessly.

    So even in the face of 2 particularly cold North hemi winters and the email scandal they persist.

    Why the hell is a nearly failed narcoterrorist state like Mexico hosting this? Mired in crime,drugs,pollution ,disastrous urban sprawl and insurgency they can afford to talk about the weather?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Herman Poole (297 comments) says:

    A very important point of runaway greenhouse warming theory is that the problematic warming is not expected to come directly from CO2. CO2 can only produce an overall small amount of warming, but it is posited that this modest amount of warming will cause positive feedbacks due to reduced albedo at the poles, increased methane release from thawing tundra, clouds etc.

    So therefore the real supposed threat from climate change is a large degree of warming caused by a small amount of warming. It is possible to determine from the fact of previous interglacials such as the Eemian reaching 4 degrees warmer than today with sea levels 8 metres higher, that these feedbacks did not occur in a problematic manner.

    It would take an incredible amount of CO2 to directly cause more than 4 degrees of warming, and we have a huge amount of buffer before we enter temperature ranges where we lack recent observations of no runaway effects.

    In fact the IPCC only predicts warming in the natural range for glacial/interglacial cycles, in effect, they are not predicting a significant anthropogenic influence at all.

    10.7.2 Climate Change Commitment to Year 3000
    and Beyond to Equilibrium

    By 2100, the projected warming is between 1.2°C and 4.1°C,
    similar to the range projected by AOGCMs. A large constant
    composition temperature and sea level commitment is evident
    in the simulations and is slowly realised over coming centuries.
    By the year 3000, the warming range is 1.9°C to 5.6°C. While
    surface temperatures approach equilibrium relatively quickly,
    sea level continues to rise for many centuries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. scrubone (3,104 comments) says:

    I wonder what would be the reaction if a National MP turned up at an international forum as part of a business lobby group?

    Outrage. Labour represents the unions, it’s their job. National represents the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2195538.ece

    Shattering the great green myths

    — Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water and detergent

    — Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more space to store so require extra energy to transport them from manufacturers to shops

    — Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4×4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive”

    — Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered

    — Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher

    — Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain

    — Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas

    Sources: Defra; How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, by Chris Goodall; Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association; The Times; BBC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    3mm of sea level rise a year certainly doesn’t sound like armageddeon to me…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. backster (2,184 comments) says:

    “If that rate kept up, Charles’ auntie’s place will get swept away in the year 3000. Now regardless of sea level change, Tahiti is also sinking or subsiding at around 25 cm every 100 years. So in fact around 2700 or so it might get hairy.
    Of course by then it will be 18 generations or so on from Charles and his aunt”

    Except within that time the Island might start to rise again.

    The Courier reports that Queensland is experiencing its’ coldest Spring since records first started in 1840. This Spring is the only year when not one day has recorded 30 degrees for three months..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. flipper (4,197 comments) says:

    DPF…
    The less you pontificate on this subject the better.
    The more that you comment the more you make yourself look as silly as Chauvel and young nicky smith.
    You have been sent the real, reliable, data. But like some ( nominally, less sensible than you) NP members you choose to follow the chardonnay set rather than the real data.
    DPF…. Ask, Chauvel, smith, Groser et al to detail their references.
    Please may we have references, not assertions or IPCC BS!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. slade52 (13 comments) says:

    A “complete” list of things caused by global warming, according to the world’s media:
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. TCrwdb (242 comments) says:

    Agreed Flipper… he lost me after IPCC…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    What parasitic, dribbling, slimy arse, socialist fucks these tossers are. All are first class leeches, Chauvel included. Seen these parasitic bunch of wasters on TV all crying their crocodile tears while trying to fucking rob the productive of their wealth. If ever there was an occasion for a good A bomb test then this little bullshit fest would have no equal. The only thing that makes my day is they can only muster 15000 drongos while the first wank fest drew 45000. Perhaps the brighter amongst them have finally realised they were get shafted to the max.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Crusader (321 comments) says:

    Who amongst us is so naive to believe that our ETS will make a jot of difference to the climate of Planet Earth? Of all the myriad factors that influence our planets complex and ever-changing climate, who actually believes that the tax system of one small nation makes any difference whatsoever? Hands up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Some Oxfam NZ trougher was on the radio this morning, talking from the Cancun junket. Absolutely disgusting.

    Never give money to the self-indulgent Oxfam leeches; give it to a charity that helps poor people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Crusader 9:06 pm

    Not me!

    The Labour one was as weak as a bladder full of piss in in a 44 gallon drum of water, and the Nats watered it down even more.

    I have always thought that an ETS is a licence for emissions scammers to do dodgy deals, and that a simple tax on the greenhouse gas (not just carbon – let’s remember the greenhouse warming potential of nitrous oxide and chloro-fluorocarbon emissions as well) of every industry would be a much better option if we were really serious about reducing greenhouse emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    “let’s remember the greenhouse warming potential of nitrous oxide”

    You would tax the Port Road Drags then toad?

    I hope you never reveal your true identity to the petrolheads or you will be toast not toad. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    It seems the rate of sea level rise slowed significantly from 2004 – from 4.2mm/year to 1.5mm/year.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/archibald_sl_fig1.png
    “The above graph shows the satellite data from the University of Colorado from late 1992. A change of trend is evident in 2004. Prior to that, sea level was rising at 4.2 mm/annum, and after 2004 at 1.5 mm/annum”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    Turns out that NZ Herald comments moderation prefers scaremongering over reasoned discussion.

    After attracting too many “Likes” in comments disputing AGW and the erroneous basis for the ETS and climate change alarmism, I have been shut out of the NZ Herald website (can’t even complain).

    I’ve placed some replies that wont see the light of day from the NZ Herald website at Climate Conversation Group.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/12/cooling-forecast-comes-true/#comment-30822

    The link is ironic because it features a forecast of “global cooling by the end of 2010″ made in June 2010 by Bryan Leyland based on the paper “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by John McClean, Chris DeFreitas and Bob Carter, that has subsequently proved accurate.

    The success of the forecast is vindication for John McClean, Chris DeFreitas and Bob Carter after efforts to suppress and discredit it by Foster, Annan, Jones, Mann, Renwick, Salinger, Schmidt, Trenberth and the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Jeremy Harris (319 comments) says:

    The only thing that makes my day is they can only muster 15000 drongos while the first wank fest drew 45000.

    It’s actually the 16th annual “wankfest”… Copenhagen was the 15th UN meeting on AGW…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    Re my comment upthread December 2nd, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Have managed to send this message to the NZ Herald Online Editors.
    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    To: Online Editors

    I am curious as to why I am no longer able to submit comments but had been free to do do so until recently.

    My username is “nonentity” with the same email as above.

    Without knowing the real reason I can only assume that there is an active policy to stifle a dissenting view on the contentious issue of climate change.

    I have supported my comments with scientific evidence when challenged so I cannot see why I should be shut out of all NZ Herald discussion except that I was attracting too many “Likes” for editorial comfort.

    Being in opposition to the notion of man-made climate change means I get my share of flak from proponents but I do not expect censorship from NZ Herald on account of it. However I cannot rule out the possibility given the zeal expressed in favour of it, not just in comments but also in NZ Herald articles with no alternative hypotheses to AGW being presented.

    I note that my access ceased immediately after I presented in comments, a scientifically sound alternative to the AGW hypothesis.

    I am hopeful that there is a benign reason for my exclusion from NZ Herald and that my paranoia is unjustified.

    Richard Cumming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    Re my comment above December 3rd, 2010 at 12:29 am

    The NZ Herald Online Editors must have got my message because I now have access to comments restored.

    To date have had no communication from them stating the reason for my exclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    A reply to Gandalf in NZ Herald comments was posted eventually but it had been edited and I now think the original error was as a result of NZ Herald Online Editors changing the wording because the line in question was a cut n paste.

    So this

    Correction
    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″

    Became this

    Correction.
    “translates to a global temperature of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″

    The word “drop” was edited out. This can only mean that one of the Online Editors is a warmist and possibly one of the opposing commenters – Gandalf? Dave? Foreward Thinker? Nick?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    David,

    Thank you for allowing me to document my NZ Herald saga.

    I have been doing the same at Climate Conversations Group at this thread

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/12/cooling-forecast-comes-true/#comment-30822

    My previous comment December 4th, 2010 at 12:45 am was duplicated there but it was disallowed, understandably, because the blog owner has (I think) commercial activities with NZH.

    If the avenue of the internet is closed to dissenting views to an establishment with a totalitarian bent, we will be assailed by scaremongering with no recourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    No matter how many times I submit this correction, someone at NZ Herald Online edits out the word “drop”
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Correction
    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Am now trying this approach
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    @Moderation

    Correction
    “translates to a global temperature drop of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″

    Please stop editing out the word “drop”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    Re NZ Herald Online editing out the word “drop” in my sequence of comments

    The first comment editing occurred on this page

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=3

    The second here

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=4

    The third here

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10690687&pnum=6

    It remains to be seen if third correction addressed to @Moderation sees the light of day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Richard C NZ (9 comments) says:

    This might be progress – but still weird
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    Nonentity (Mt Maunganui)
    09:55AM Thursday, 09 Dec 2010

    @Moderation

    Correction.
    “translates to a global temperature of 1.5 degree Celsius by 2020″

    Please stop editing out the word “drop” from this correction.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Think I will leave it at that – it might be some auto-correct thing in the software.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote