This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 7:00 am and is filed under New Zealand.
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.
Chuck, It would be great if the snow covered those people who fail to see that the last great snow storm was 34 years ago, in 1976, and the one before that was 37 years previous, in 1939.
I can explain, the AGW alarmists have entirely failed repeatedly to accurately predict anything so they have been reduced to claiming EVERYTHING as evidence.
Apprently we didn’t even HAVE weather until Al Gore worked out how to get rich off gulibility.
Don’t forget our 55 million Climate Change (latest version of their every changing names) refugees due to islands in the Pacific sinking by 2010. Haven’t seen any myself.
Pretty simple really, there are a small group of people who don’t accept what the scientists are saying, mostly because it upsets their view of the world we live in. These people also deny that man landed on the moon and think we are visited regularly by UFO’s.
The rest of us (those who listen to the scientists) think it makes sense to make changes to the way we do things to reduce the amount of carbon we are pouring into the atmosphere.
You are being unfair to the Moon-landing-was-hoaxed brigade. That’s a slightly more credible theory because of the relatively fewer numbers of people who would have to be in on the secret. The climate change ‘conspiracy’ would require many thousands of scientists to be knowingly deceiving the world.
Scientific issues should not be decided by a show of hand of anyone including scientists.
“If you want an explanation; stand in a glass house and ask yourself ‘why is it warmer in here’?”
That does not explain why an increase in CO2 causes the climate to get warmer and colder. Next you will be telling me it cased the Christchurch earthquake.
Chuck, you are wasting your time asking for a scientific explanation here that would change your mind. I’m going to be charitable and assume that, as a person with an interest in this issue, you have read material on the climate change ‘debate’. If that’s correct, you have already had many opportunities to digest and accept sensible arguments, but for some reason have chosen instead to accept the arguments of ‘sceptics’ such as the famous Monckton.
Instead of asking persons who generally accept the current scientific consensus to explain their position, surely the more germane question is this: why do you reject it?
What brave souls mikenmild and YesWeDid are, such men of conviction. It was such a pity they and the other deluded souls who promote this shit turned to sacks jelly when Lord Monckton rolled into town. Where were your scientists then chaps, no doubt hiding in there taxpayer funded ivory towers.
I got the impression that agreeing to debate Lord Monckton would be a foolish waste of time. Scientists wouldn’t debate him because he is not a scientist. Politicians wouldn’t debate him because his isn’t a politician (apart from his failed attempts to get into the House of Lords). His fellow journalists did interview him, which was a kindness from them.
‘That does not explain why an increase in CO2 causes the climate to get warmer and colder.’
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; meaning an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in less of the sun’s energy being reflected from our atmosphere and this causes an increase of energy and heating.
This increase in energy causes more extreme weather due to the interdependence of weather patterns on the planet and the effect on things like ocean currents and global air flows, more extreme weather means both colder weather and warmer weather.
Reflected should be radiated same as glass effect in green houses or cloud effect cloudy days are on average warmer
Warming is the average world wide in the last warm period Greenland was warmer eastern Canada was colder
The warmth in the early middle ages had huge affects on society there are a lot more of us now and the effects are unknown
@cabbage – I don’t think anyone is saying this is evidence of climate change, what the climate change scientists are saying is these ’50 year’ events will happen more frequently, so one event in isolation is not evidence for or against climate change but if we start getting these events every 5 or 10 years rather than 30 to 40 years then that will show a trend of our weather becoming more extreme.
The problem with climate change is it is like a run away train, once we notice the effects it is too late to do anything about it.
August 17th, 2011 at 8:17 am
This beautifully made and edited video went viral on facebook yesterday. Regrettably few thought to identify its very talented creator, Ro Tierney.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 8:58 am
It would be great if this snow, particularly in Wellington convinced the other 118 MPs that the science is not settled.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 9:09 am
CUBA ST, 9.09am. ‘”Nigel, is that snow?..no,wait…it’s cream on my Latte.”
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Chuck
One swallow does not make a summer, as the saying goes.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 9:42 am
Chuck, It would be great if the snow covered those people who fail to see that the last great snow storm was 34 years ago, in 1976, and the one before that was 37 years previous, in 1939.
’39 was much worse by the sounds of things.
http://www.weatherforum.org.nz/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=460
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Nice video, well done Ro.
@Chuck Bird, it’s climate change and this causes more extreme weather BOTH warmer and colder, is that really so hard to understand?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 10:15 am
“@Chuck Bird, it’s climate change and this causes more extreme weather BOTH warmer and colder, is that really so hard to understand?”
Yes, can you explain it please?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I can explain, the AGW alarmists have entirely failed repeatedly to accurately predict anything so they have been reduced to claiming EVERYTHING as evidence.
Apprently we didn’t even HAVE weather until Al Gore worked out how to get rich off gulibility.
Don’t forget our 55 million Climate Change (latest version of their every changing names) refugees due to islands in the Pacific sinking by 2010. Haven’t seen any myself.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 10:55 am
‘Yes, can you explain it please?’
Pretty simple really, there are a small group of people who don’t accept what the scientists are saying, mostly because it upsets their view of the world we live in. These people also deny that man landed on the moon and think we are visited regularly by UFO’s.
The rest of us (those who listen to the scientists) think it makes sense to make changes to the way we do things to reduce the amount of carbon we are pouring into the atmosphere.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 11:03 am
YesWeDid
You are being unfair to the Moon-landing-was-hoaxed brigade. That’s a slightly more credible theory because of the relatively fewer numbers of people who would have to be in on the secret. The climate change ‘conspiracy’ would require many thousands of scientists to be knowingly deceiving the world.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 11:21 am
As i thought you cannot explain it. Scientific issues are not decided by a show of hands.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 11:28 am
@Chuck Bird – actually they are decided by scientists not by the people who ring talkback or comment on blog sites.
If you want an explanation; stand in a glass house and ask yourself ‘why is it warmer in here’?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Scientific issues should not be decided by a show of hand of anyone including scientists.
“If you want an explanation; stand in a glass house and ask yourself ‘why is it warmer in here’?”
That does not explain why an increase in CO2 causes the climate to get warmer and colder. Next you will be telling me it cased the Christchurch earthquake.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Chuck, you are wasting your time asking for a scientific explanation here that would change your mind. I’m going to be charitable and assume that, as a person with an interest in this issue, you have read material on the climate change ‘debate’. If that’s correct, you have already had many opportunities to digest and accept sensible arguments, but for some reason have chosen instead to accept the arguments of ‘sceptics’ such as the famous Monckton.
Instead of asking persons who generally accept the current scientific consensus to explain their position, surely the more germane question is this: why do you reject it?
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
What brave souls mikenmild and YesWeDid are, such men of conviction. It was such a pity they and the other deluded souls who promote this shit turned to sacks jelly when Lord Monckton rolled into town. Where were your scientists then chaps, no doubt hiding in there taxpayer funded ivory towers.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I got the impression that agreeing to debate Lord Monckton would be a foolish waste of time. Scientists wouldn’t debate him because he is not a scientist. Politicians wouldn’t debate him because his isn’t a politician (apart from his failed attempts to get into the House of Lords). His fellow journalists did interview him, which was a kindness from them.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
‘That does not explain why an increase in CO2 causes the climate to get warmer and colder.’
CO2 is a greenhouse gas; meaning an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in less of the sun’s energy being reflected from our atmosphere and this causes an increase of energy and heating.
This increase in energy causes more extreme weather due to the interdependence of weather patterns on the planet and the effect on things like ocean currents and global air flows, more extreme weather means both colder weather and warmer weather.
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Reflected should be radiated same as glass effect in green houses or cloud effect cloudy days are on average warmer
Vote:Warming is the average world wide in the last warm period Greenland was warmer eastern Canada was colder
The warmth in the early middle ages had huge affects on society there are a lot more of us now and the effects are unknown
August 17th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
YWD. How is this polar blast evidence of climate change?
All it is is evidence of a 30-40 year cycle as per ’39, ’76 and now ’11
Best thing is i will likely be alive to see the next one
Vote:August 17th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@cabbage – I don’t think anyone is saying this is evidence of climate change, what the climate change scientists are saying is these ’50 year’ events will happen more frequently, so one event in isolation is not evidence for or against climate change but if we start getting these events every 5 or 10 years rather than 30 to 40 years then that will show a trend of our weather becoming more extreme.
The problem with climate change is it is like a run away train, once we notice the effects it is too late to do anything about it.
Vote: