Green hysteria
November 9th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarIsaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:
The final reading of a bill which amended the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) drew impassioned speeches from MPs, in particular Green Party climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham.
Dr Graham levelled mock criminal charges at the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change.
“I charge the leaders of this Government with the moral crime of ecocide. I trust that in due course that they stand accountable before the children of this world, the children of John Key, the grandchildren of Tim Groser and mine.”
He went further: “The leaders of this government … are committing us to purgatory and thence to hell. Purgatory is the next decade, and hell the decade after.”
What insane hysteria. Purgatory and hell?
China’s daily growth in greenhouse gas emissions is greater than the total emissions put out by New Zealand.
I actually think agriculture should start to come into the ETS, but Kennedy Graham does his cause no help at all with such hysterical blather.
November 9th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Kennedy had no choice – he had ‘one up’ David Cunliffe from the second reading when he claimed that this legislation would result in the destruction of the entire planet in the lifetime of his grandchildren.
With David C playing prophet, it was clearly Kennedy’s job to pass judgement.
Apparently printing money will fix the problem…
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
“I actually think agriculture should start to come into the ETS”
Then you are wrong.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Just when I was beginning to think warmists weren’t zealots of biblical proportion …
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
That this bunch of lunatics has actually made it to the inside of our parliament shows so starkly the parlous state of our democracy.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
The Greenies live in the world of impending doom. Their very survival depends upon scaring the gullible and stupid. As was noted in a series of comments yesterday the Greenies essentially want to ban tax or have an inquiry into just about everything.
They sort of need to be exposed to the realities of Government to demonstrate to the entire country just how stupid and ill thought their policy platform really is.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
So let’s go back to again calling these green totalitarians “agitators”; it has the ring of thuggery, violence or zealotry which eventually consumes them.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Would be interested to see the full context of his speech. With all due respect for Dr Graham and his fantastic personality, I’m glad that he didn’t talk like that when he was my lecturer at law school.
It is worth noting that what he says is true – that agriculture is the largest contributor to emissions.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
The Luddites are ready to sacrifice NZ at the altar of Gaia.
Vote:This chap Kennedy G. is as bonkers as you can imagine it.
November 9th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Gross overstatement is par for the Green.
Accusing the government of killing the planet is just the next step on from yesterday’s virtual accusations of killing all poor children – or at least being “the difference between an empty and a full plate for many of these children”.
With Labour leaving such a big gap it was to much to resist for Greens to take the space, however it is highlighting their spaced out reality.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Monty:
Did you miss a comma there by any chance?
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Mind you, unwittingly the Greens could be on to something. If we print play money as they suggest we could use it to pay a pretend ETS & pass it on to them to pretend pay for their next election campaign.
Everyone’s a winner.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
To put NZ contribution to co2 in perspective
per capita http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Australia 18.6
Canada 16.3
China 5.3
United Kingdom 8.5
United States 18.0
New Zealand 7.8
We are already leading the Anglosphere and stack up well against Europe. The Greens should be calling to build dams and Produce our own hydro carbons not stopping development.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Actually, the
Vote:GreensWatermelons promote the “earth is dying” meme because its a message that resonates with all of the gormless illiterate dumbfuck new voters coming off the brainwashing line called the education system.November 9th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Griff 2:24 – But that would be bad for the snails. And snails come before humans.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
More proof of why the Greens could be very dangerous in government. There are fanatics in their caucus who would sacrifice the economy to promote their policies. Russel Norman openly promotes the idea that we must lower our standard of living. I take him at his word, vote Green for a poorer tomorrow for everyone.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Pete
At first sight it would appear that there is a comma missing. In reality, I do not think that is the case. Tax involves the taking of money from the person who earns and owns it and using it for other purposes. The Greens do not recognise that people earn and own assets. In the Greens’ eyes, people are simply temporary custodians of community property and the government is the community’s appointed agent for resdistribution purposes.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
It is worth noting that what he says is true – that agriculture is the largest contributor to emissions.
THE greatest, or just OUR greatest?
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
But we could all live together is small communes with wussel as our supreme leader. Just think, we could compost our own excrement, sing kumbaya every 5 minutes and drink tofu smoothies till the cows come home. Bliss.
3 cheers for Wussel !
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Talking of political hysteria, maybe:
There’s been no other reports so I don’t know if it’s Catastrophic or Clarastrophic.
Update: NBR have just repeated Claraphone: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/%E2%80%98catastrophic-failure-hits-southern-cross-cable-curran-ck-132090
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
- Michael Cullen
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/04/cullens_best_quote.html
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Agriculture may well be the largest contributor to emissions, but what are we supposed to do – stop farming?
I can’t help wondering how some of these figures are arrived at. Are the figures for sheep measured, for example, on just growing lambs on the farm (fair enough), on the machinery used to shear and care for them (no problem with that), or do they also include (as I suspect some figures do) the carbon emissions inherent in shipping that lamb to other countries? Anybody know?
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Ok David, this your blog, so you may do or say what you choose.
But please DPF, make your case for including agriculture in the idiotic ETS when no other nation, not a single solitary nation, does? And what is more the EU excludes most of its industry and transport.
Not that idiot red melon’s ecocide. The reality would be ECONOSIDE!
Time to forget the whole AGW/CC scam and look to reduce debt, increase employment and overall productivity, so that our children, and their children and so on, have a modern, progressive state to enjoy and pass to successive generations.
Contributors such as Griff et al, who still believe in the Club of Rome, Black,Hansen, Mann, Jones, Gore scam are not worthy of response.
[DPF: Two reasons I think it should be included – but very very very gradually. The first is I think there will be a global accord in the future on pricing GGEs and it is better to very gently starting pricing them in, than have a sudden shock down the road.
The second is that I think it would stop any trade protectionism aimed at it.
But don’t get me wrong. I’d only have Agriculture in at a very low, almost nominal level, and keep that at that level until others do the same. I’m very aware of the need not to have it at a level where we drive exports pverseas
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Good quote from Cullen. He was a key cog in the last labour wheel, now all the spokes go clackety clack looking for an axle.
Evangelical may go down well with the converted but the masses get turned off by it these days.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
KiwiGreg –“I actually think agriculture should start to come into the ETS”
Then you are wrong.
You are absolutely right with this comment. Why should NZ be the only country in the world that includes agriculture? I get sick of having us compared to what the EU do or don’t do. The EU is VERY SELECTIVE in what it includes in it’s ETS.( which is not achieving much)
Vote:Reports out the US in recent days says Obama is going to introduce a “carbon” tax but it will be nothing to do with environmental issues, it will be a way of raising tax revenue to put against their ballooning debt figures –ie. a sham.
But if it happens you’ll see the Greenies crowing from the roof tops.
November 9th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
LaJ
Re: ‘Till the cows come home’ No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong – there will be no cows; they produce emissions (Wussell says so), and so must be exterminated (To save the planet – of course).
(Come to think of it, humans produce emissions as well . . . Where’s George Orwell when you need him?)
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@ Pete George at 2:49 pm-
Presumably there will be increased latency until Alexandria is restored, as traffic will have to go the long way around via Hawaii I guess. Probably an extra 100 – 150 ms RTT?
Inconvenient to gamers, but probably not a catastrophe until the ring through Hawaii and the States fails … DON’T PANIC! DON’T PANIC! RIP Clive Dunn.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
The whole ETS scam is horseshit. If you worry about emissions, our type of farming is lower emission than intensive northern hemisphere (grain-based) farming. Apparently coal we export to China doesn’t have emissions (perhaps they rebury it when it gets there?) but coal we burn does. Emissions from the process of manufacturing imports don’t affect the environment but emissions from manufacturing here in NZ does. I could go on but the whole thing is such a nonsense it would be funny if it wasn’t just so damaging to our country.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Greens still ignore the fact the total Co2 contribution humans make to this planet is 0.117% thats compared with the existing Co2 in the air. this is an amount so small that it is currently impossible to actually tell whether our contribution has any impact what so ever to this planet. There is simply no evidence to suggest it does.
In real terms, that is 29 gigatonnes of Co2 produced by human activity a year. To put it in perspective the natural cycle of the earth processes 750 gigatonnes a year. This is called the carbon cycle. Tell me how humans are killing the planet again???
If the ecosystem relied on human existence alone to produce enough Co2 for the planet, the planet would turn into a barren dust bowl.
All facts Gweens choose to ignore…
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Another subtle Green criticism:
And History will judge the Greens as great Saviours-in-waiting.waiting.waiting.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Why do you think agricultural bio emissions should be in the ETS David?.
This is why they shouldn’t be in it.
They are atmospherically neutral, being sourced from the atmosphere and the cow is just part of a cycle.
No other country is including tnem, so our farmers are immediatey handicapped.
Every year emissions per unit of product reduce 1.3 %
Every year agricultural emissions reduce as a proportion of NZ’s total emissions.
NZ gross emissions 1990 to 2010 up 20%
Energy emissions 1990 to 2010 up 32.6%
Industrial process 1990 to 2010 up 41%
Agricultural bio emissions 1990 to 2010 up 9.4%
Agriculture is the shining light and it is doing better than any other industry without being in the ETS.
Vote:That shows what a waste of time the ETS is.
And it is supported by National and its bloggers. There is no hope.
November 9th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Under our current ETS:
- if you cut a tree down and replant it no carbon is emitted, but only if you replant in the same place, trees planted somewhere else lack this miraculous property
Vote:- cutting a tree down and burning it for fuel emits the same amount of carbon as using the timber to build a house
November 9th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
The Greens make Michael Jackson look sane.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Apply simple logic to it
Vote:John Banks not convicted of any crime – John good
The Enron guys who cooked up the ETS scheme are in jail – ETS fucking bad
November 9th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
I love CO2. It’s essential to life, which is probably the real reason the deeply eugenic Greens hate it so much.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Klava all right
Vote:To put it in perspective the natural cycle of the earth processes 750 gigatonnes a year. This is called the carbon cycle. earth has been very staple in the size of its carbon cycle for millennium. In real terms man is adding 29 gigatonnes of Co2 to nature every year The surplus stays in the atmosphere and causes global warming. So far we have increased the co2 content by 35%
This is not a good idea
November 9th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Is it any wonder that climate alarmism is now a busted flush when its priests have to resort to such writhing and foaming? They should just Sell Tomatoes From Uruguay.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Only if you are catholic………….
only they believe in purgatory
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
I see Groser has announced NZ will not sign up to Kyoto 2 ( if there is one ,which very much doubt). A step in the right direction.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
re:-
“this legislation would result in the destruction of the entire planet “
What total twaddle some people talk/write. If ANY piece of New Zealand Legislation could result in the destruction of the entire planet, we would be the richest country on the planet, funded by all those other countries who didn’t want us to bring about The End Of The World.
Such a shame twaddle and lies are synonyms.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Sadly I see the Greenpeace New Zealand Branch playing a very important role in the Green/Labour/Winston coalition Government.
Vote:Labour cannot govern without them and they can therefore demand what they want.
Put another way the Greens need not join the Labour, which will stuff them from forming a Government, although with the largest opposition seat numbers, but wait the next in line being called to form a Government after the talks fail.
Russel Norman as PM as a starter.
So it will all be changed in 2014
November 9th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
The POL POTS of the Greenosphere and sanctimonous hypocrites to boot, RB(2.37) – your are right about 20+ years of indoctrination by the NZEI commies has produced a generation of luddites who believe any trash science the aposltes of doom rant on about. This guy – Green Party climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham – from law lecturer to Flat Earth Society member……only Uni’s produce these idiots. Must have got the flick from Uni, a list polllie is another well paid lurk obviously!
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
For your information:
In 2007, the agriculture sector was the largest source of emissions, contributing 48 per cent (36.4 Mt CO2-e) to total emissions. As a result, New Zealand has a unique emissions profile compared to other developed countries where agricultural emissions are typically around 11 per cent of national emissions. In 2007, agricultural emissions had increased 12 per cent (3.9 Mt CO2-e) from the 1990 level of 32.5 Mt CO2-e. In 2007, the agriculture sector contributed 96 per cent (12.4 Mt CO2-e) of New Zealand’s total nitrous oxide emissions and 91 per cent (24.1 Mt CO2-e) of total methane emissions.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/greenhouse-gas-inventory-overview-2009/html/page3.html
I don’t know whether it is the greatest worldwide or not.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Dear God… Chicken Little is back.. Someone hold up the sky for the green party.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Madness, utter madness.
The Greens etc want to save us from a non-existent problem; opportunist govt’s & vested business interests have jumped at the chance to screw our wallets…again!
We are so fucked on all fronts…
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Gaia worshipers talking about purgatory and hell? Pure rhetoric.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Hi RF
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The surplus stays in the atmosphere and causes global warming
Griff – What Global Warming?
Using 32 years data, 16 of which show NO change does not equal your wished for Armageddon.
The ETS is just another tax, nothing more. Just another raid on our hard earned cash that has politicians of all ilks rubbing their hands together.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
I though we were supposed to hell over GM corn, but it didn’t happen
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
“China’s daily growth in greenhouse gas emissions is greater than the total emissions put out by New Zealand.”
Are you sure? This would mean that after a year China’s daily emmisions have increased by 365xNZ total emmisions per day.
Per capita that means 365*4.5m/1.35b = 120% increase in per capita emmisions each year as a proportion of NZ. So China must have far higher per capita emmisions than NZ. Except it doesn’t. So you’re wrong.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
^^Having said that, agreed the greens are hysterical for many many different reasons.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Chicken Little. 7.58pm
How’s it hanging. Good to see you are back.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
The ETS would cost the pastoral sector more than $600 million – a cost not borne by any other countries. Putting NZ agriculture into the ETS would kill the pastoral sector almost overnight. About 2/3rd of the value of exports are from the pastoral sector.
So when fools say that agriculture should be in the ETS, what they are also saying is that they want NZ to be a third world country.
Vote:November 9th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Chicken Little
“Using 32 years data, 16 of which show NO change does not equal your wished for Armageddon”
Again the lies are repeated There is a point were laughing at fuckwits is the only reply
1998 was the warmest year on record to that point
This was beaten in 2005 and 2010 once every five years not once a century Its still warming
32 years were is 32 years from? we have warmer temperature NOW than at least the last 2000.
Melt of arctic ice melt , changes in tree lines, changing animal distributions, changing sea level, seasons changing , glacier shrinking. The exposure of human artifacts that have been frozen in ice for the last 2500 years in both the European alps and the Americas. Many climate indicators back the temperature records.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 12:44 am
We should remember Kennedy Graham when we contemplate the effect of a Labour Green Government.
Vote:Pressure should continue with in NZFirst to keep away from them.
November 10th, 2012 at 5:58 am
Griff….. Lol, call me all the names you want.
There’s a certain symmetry in the fact that it is you who’s the denier here .
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 6:27 am
Chicken Little
Vote:?????
Prove no change in temprarture for the last 16 years and explain why you start a trend part way though the data series.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif
Explain why you say there is only data for 32 years
Eplain the rest of the observed changes in our environment
Then you may have a point until then you are rabbiting bull shit from the loony’s in the denial networks
November 10th, 2012 at 7:00 am
Griff
Vote:I admire your persistence in confronting the climate-change ‘skeptics’. You will never convince those that find ways to keep deceiving themselves about this issue. That often surprises people accustomed to rational thinking.
November 10th, 2012 at 7:24 am
“…to purgatory and thence to hell.”
Not only is this insanely hysterical, it’s theologically illiterate. The RC belief is that the holy souls in purgatory (the church penitent) are members of the communion of saints and are destined for heaven. Plainly put–it’s impossible to move from purgatory on to hell. If you’ve made it to purgatory, you’re on your way to heaven after your purgation.
The man reveals his ignorance of several subjects simultaneously. Bravo.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Milkenmild who else does it?
To allow science to be captured by politics will set our world back in time.
It would have the same effect that the capture of knowledge by the church had in the dark ages.
Pointing out the stupidity in their arguments does not convert them but allows others to see them for what they are
If those on the right see that you do not have to be a raving loony socialist to agree with the science of climate change we may manage to have clear discussion on its impacts into the future not be caught out like New York was recently.
I learn while I debate. learning that keeps me amused into my dotage
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 8:51 am
Griff,
“This was beaten in 2005 and 2010 once every five years not once a century Its still warming ”
As you have already been told, Griff, the numbers for 2005 and 2010 were statistically insignificant. For all we know, the temperatures for those years could have been lower than the others.
So we have indeed had 16 years with no warming.
If you don’t understand this then let me tell you of a plan I have to market a pill which will absolutely prevent cancer in everyone who takes it.
Vote:Now, I have to tell you that the tests I’ve conducted show that the effect it has is statistically insignificant; but still, it’s an anti-cancer pill right? So I’m sure you will support my move to make it government funded to the tune of $100,000 for every Kiwi (how could you do otherwise with your understanding of statistics?)
November 10th, 2012 at 9:37 am
So its only a little lie if you just ignore the facts . The statistical error for the years 1998 2005 and 2010 are the same the middle of these ranges gives 2005 2010 as warmer than 1998
nutter It still means that the temperature record of 1998 statistically has been beaten twice. The reason why 1998 is so important to your story is it was the record temperature in the last century………. cherry pick
The rest of your post is very strange I don’t now what you are trying to say or what 100,000 dollars has to do with agw
Ets …price of carbon is 2.80 dollars a ton we use around 7.8 ton per capital that is less than 24 dollars per person per year
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Vote:http://www.carbonmatch.co.nz/
November 10th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Most people who support the idea of, dramatic man made climate change, do not do so on the basis of science. They do so to align themselves with the left. It is seen as the proper position for an educated liberal to take. A further motivation is general concern about mans impact of the environment. They very rarely base this on the scientific evidence. It is more a moral statement than a reasoned scientific one.
When Europe was struck with a series of record cold periods, climate alarmists were very vocal in telling us it was weather not climate. They told us it was scientific ignorance to consider single events as indicative of climate. However they are happy to use weather events like hurricane Sandy in support of AGW. This shows me they are not acting in good faith and have other motivations.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:12 am
Hi Griff
You may find this site of interest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
Basically the UK Met office say no warming since 1997.
Meantime CO2 has continued to rise;
so this also indicates no connection between CO2 rises and global temperatures.
Also good to see NZ walking away from Kyoto 2
Vote:Have a nice day.
November 10th, 2012 at 10:23 am
“Most people who support the idea of, dramatic man made climate change, do not do so on the basis of science. They do so to align themselves with the left”
I am defiantly a right leaning liberal you know the smart kind atheist personal freedom and legalize
Again you allow politics to define your standpoint on science.
This person along with the government The national party see climate change as real. As do all major scientific bodies, the UN,97 percent of climate scientist ,both the president and vice president of the USA ,and the governments of all our trading partners. To allow the Marxist nutters in the green party to own the debate gives them the high ground. As I have frequently stated the best thing we could do is build more dams. This makes sense financially and is green at the same time. The right should be using climate change to dilute the ability of idiots to keep us from an efficient future. Fuck the RMA Drill Mine and Burn baby just keep an eye on the costs to the environment. One snail or a future for all of us is a no brainer.
Open your eyes to the political influence its about conservative USA and the fear of change. It takes no intelligence to believe propaganda from the usa. It takes intelligence to research the facts and overcome the hysterical standpoints from either side.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Ditto.
No. I was speaking out against that.
You then went on to shoot yourself in the foot. You attempted to support AGW by telling us various politicians and political groups believe in AGW ! Is it a surprise to you that politicians will take a position to win votes and increase tax and government power ? Are you really that naive?
The biggest predictor of someone supporting the idea of AGW is their political leanings NOT their scientific literacy. Can you explain why that is ?
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Griff, you may like to portray yourself as someone who has formed their opinions, about AGW, based on the facts. I challenge that.
The whole theory is based on predicting future events. Various dramatic and alarming predictions are made. The trouble is that all of their predictions have been wrong. They respond to this by tweaking and modifying their computer models, not by questioning the validity of the theory. They then make more (modified) predictions, which again do not accurately describe future observable events. In no other area would this be considered good science.
Given that AGW theory is based on “predictions” of future events and all predictions made previously have been wrong, I can only assume you believe based on FAITH. You certainly can not claim to base your beliefs on evidence.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Griff,
Before making an even bigger fool of yourself I suggest you find out what ‘statistically insignificant’ means.
There has been no statistically significant warming for 16 years.
Fact.
If you don’t understand this then you will certainly be right behind my plan for the government to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars on my anti-cancer pill, notwithstanding the fact that its effect is statistically insignificant.
I mean, who could possibly oppose a cure-all cancer pill, right?
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Good to hear about the cancer pill Wat. I think America, capitalism, big pharma, and monsanto will try and stop you marketing it. The only way forward is clearly socialism, veganism, and a one world (socialist) government. My ideas are based on “science” so your ignorant and evil if you don’t believe me
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Griff still thinks this is all about temperature.
When really it is all about statistics and the manipulation of data to conform to perceived moral and political ends.
That’s why one man, Steve McIntyre, with a laptop, took on the mighty gods of ‘climate science’ and showed them to be the fools and charlatans they are. One man has brought the mighty IPCC with hundreds of millions of funding to their knees.
It always reminds me of the Satanic abuse scare of the early 90′s, when you had a whole pile of people who had invested their education and career on the abuse happening, so it had to be, otherwise……..
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Just try to entertain the idea that we’re right on this one MM and Griff. You might find it the start of a massive paradigm shift that breaks you the fuck out of Povertyville and leads you to a more meaningful path in life.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
I think Griff is genuine in his belief. MM is not, he just pretends its true, because he wants to impress people with how progressive and liberal he is.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Anyone, who’s ancestors liked sheep, even if it was in Wales is OK by me!
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Wind farm noise causes “clear and significant” damage to people’s sleep and mental health, according to the first full peer-reviewed scientific study of the problem.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9653429/Wind-farm-noise-does-harm-sleep-and-health-say-scientists.html
Expect the study to be denigrated by those windy proponents who otherwise hold peer-review as the standard for science research.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
no kyoto, no ETS, see China ,
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
I suppose people know by now that Gareth Morgan has proposed the most socialist green tax ever,
a universal asset tax on everything you own. From the first dollar.
In an Orwellian moment he calls it a Wealth tax.
Nominally called the Comprehensive capital tax.
Oh dear, tax everything that moves and does not move, green organic brain mush.
He has a prescription for sending new housing into dense areas , concentration you could say. collectivism you could say, keep them where we they should be.
Only the wealthy who can afford new infrastructure should buy into green fields.
tax1 Income tax
Vote:tax 2. Roger Douglas GSt tax [ except for financial transactions ]
tax 3 New Green Gareth asset tax [ for houses, but exemptions for stocks, shares, investments, farms, industry, and exporters, and everything else where the wealthy people are ]
November 10th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
I like sheep. I’m a gunna cook me up some lamb for Thanksgiving.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Do you you get your science from the denial net work who lie
You do not see that the hundreds of geeks laboring away at scientific endeavor They are not political they are not the ones pushing the lefts take on the remaedy The true scientist have answered all the question posed by the denial network guys like Kristy and Watts just can not make a dent in the actual science instead you get lies
This is an example
As some one had a brain fart above and posted this story Report: Global warming stopped 16 years ago http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/
Which is just this opinion piece: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2Bnh7bQpn
Classic propaganda; They are all horrible bourgeois Left-wing academics the scientist
“the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport”
So did any of you reach the standard of actually checking for the so called report? Id expect a kid of fourteen to manage that’ Of we go and Google met service and open a web site here http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012
14102012
“An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’”
“It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.” http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
To address some of the points in the article published today:
Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.”
We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.
Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.”
So we then find that the dick was actually telling bullshit in his science stories there was no report and temperature are rising
That may be a small lie however we have caught him do it twice
Would you trust
1 This dick to give you honest science?
2 Any website that published a lie like this however small to give you unbiased science?
If you do you get a d- in this lesson for Critical thinking and the net .101
Here is a real report from real journalist not right wing conservos http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2012/10/british_met_office_refutes_mis.shtml
“It’s sad and even dangerous that we live in an era where you have to vet news outlets and determine if they report science from a predisposed political bias. The Daily Mail piece is not peer reviewed science. It’s one guy trying to create smoke where there’s no fire.”
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Gergis
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
It’s not progressive.
If it was progressive, it would be pretty much perfect.
By the way, it’s a tax based on Islamic theology.
They got there first. A looong time ago…
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
And right on Que one of those who fail critical thinking arrives.
Again some sort of personal attack on a scientist sourced from Bishop hill or WUWT or Joe Nova pick one of the denial echo chamber
A watts had his paper trashed is he a failure in your eyes going to call him a money grubbing looser are we?
Here are some for you to criticize all the bourgeois Left-wing academics
Week 44/2012
A half-million-year record of paleoclimate from the Lake Manix Core, Mojave Desert, California – Reheis et al. (2012)
The fingerprint of human-induced changes in the ocean’s salinity and temperature fields – Pierce et al. (2012)
Sea ice phenology and timing of primary production pulses in the Arctic Ocean – Ji et al. (2012)
Changes in satellite-derived spring vegetation green-up date and its linkage to climate in China from 1982 to 2010: a multi-method analysis – Cong et al. (2012)
When did modern rates of sea-level rise start? – Gehrels & Woodworth (2012)
Milankovitch tuning of deep-sea records: Implications for maximum rates of change of sea level – Berger (2012)
The early twentieth century warming and winter Arctic sea ice – Semenov & Latif (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Increasing influence of heat stress on French maize yields from the 1960s to the 2030s – Hawkins et al. (2012)
Oxygen trends over five decades in the North Atlantic – Stendardo & Gruber (2012)
Homogenization of mean monthly temperature time series of Greece – Mamara et al. (2012)
Spatial and temporal variations in air temperature and precipitation in the Chinese Himalayas during the 1971–2007 – Yang et al. (2012)
Heat-related mortality in Moldova: the summer of 2007 – Corobov et al. (2012)
Above- and belowground linkages in Sphagnum-peatland: climate warming affects plant-microbial interactions – Jassey et al. (2012)
How did the hydrologic cycle respond to the two-phase mystery interval? – Broecker & Putnam (2012)
Climatic fluctuations as a significant contributing factor for volcanic collapses. Evidence from Mexico during the Late Pleistocene – Capra et al. (2012)
Climate Warming and Permafrost Dynamics in the Antarctic Peninsula Region – Bockheim et al. (2012)
BVOC-aerosol-climate interactions in the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM5.5-HAM2 – Makkonen et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
The ‘too few, too bright’ tropical low-cloud problem in CMIP5 models – Nam et al. (2012)
Decadal variability of the NAO: Introducing an augmented NAO index – Wang et al. (2012)
Snowfall-driven mass change on the East Antarctic ice sheet – Boening et al. (2012)
Is a decline of AMOC causing the warming hole above the North Atlantic in observed and modeled warming patterns? – Drijfhout et al. (2012)
Intensification of North American megadroughts through surface and dust aerosol forcing – Cook et al. (2012)
Evaluation and response of winter cold spells over Western Europe in CMIP5 models – Peings et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed – Bierbaum et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Sea level trends, interannual and decadal variability in the Pacific Ocean – Zhang & Church (2012)
Atmospheric carbon dioxide retrieved from the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT): Comparison with ground-based TCCON observations and GEOS-Chem model calculations – Cogan et al. (2012)
Should the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change recognize climate migrants? – Gibb & Ford (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Food benefit and climate warming potential of nitrogen fertilizer uses in China – Tian et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Bunker Cave stalagmites: an archive for central European Holocene climate variability – Fohlmeister et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Human impacts on terrestrial hydrology: climate change versus pumping and irrigation – Ferguson & Maxwell (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Optimal growth with adaptation to climate change – Dumas & Ha-Duong (2012) [FULL TEXT]
Recent changes in the dynamic properties of declining Arctic sea ice: A model study – Zhang et al. (2012)
The last one is a favorite of mine
Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? – Brysse et al. (2012)
Highlights: ► Climate scientists are not alarmists but have underestimated recent climate changes. ► We identify a directional bias toward erring on the side of least drama (ESLD). ► ESLD is an internal pressure arising from norms of objectivity, restraint, etc. ► ESLD may cause scientists to underpredict or downplay future climate changes.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
To address the thread topic, as a pragmatist I understand what Tim Groser is saying on our behalf, even as I detest his born-to-rule delivery, and I appreciate the problems we have with ruminant methane emissions whilst rueing the effect on the planet (I know, the pun is subtle), but surely it’s time we reassessed our national brand, 100% Pure, and altered it ever so quietly to…not so 100% Pure.
But, hey, we smile and wave really well and we really are Keewees!
Does that count?
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Griff is on fire!
Go you good thing, go!
Pity it’s about the only topic we can agree on….
Hang on…what’s your view on sex (with our fair females, I hasten to add!)
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Missing hot spot.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
@Right now
Answer the argument I can not be bothered playing your pathetic game.
Do you apply critical techniques to the stories you read?
Do you check the source of stories from blog sites?
Do you read both side of the argument
Are you happy to continue to get your science from blogs that lie to you?
Do you think that personal attacks on a scientist proves that the science of hundred of researchers is wrong?
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
“The Daily Mail piece is not peer reviewed science” “Here is a real report from real journalist”
Brilliant Griff!
Is your “real journalist” peer-review then?
And you may recall that the Climategate leak exposed these charlatans as having conspired to control and pervert the peer-review process. Why would anyone trust these crooks? Seriously. In other other context they would be in prison for fraud for such behaviour.
And you fail to link to the Mail’s reply to the supposed refutation, with input by Professor Curry “a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers.”
“Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically significant warming of the Earth’s surface.
Between 1980 and the end of 1996, the planet warmed at a rate close to 0.2 degrees per decade. Since then, says the Met Office, the trend has been a much lower 0.03 degrees per decade.
However, world average temperature measurements are subject to an error of plus or minus 0.1 degrees, while any attempt to calculate a trend for the period 1997-2012 has an in-built statistical error of plus or minus 0.4 degrees. The claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for the past 16 years is therefore unsustainable.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
I’ve linked to that reply before Griff, so it is understood that you ignore it not because you’re unaware of it but because it proves you wrong.
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
“True or not who cares”
Vote:- Griff, 2012
November 10th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Fuckwits
First story he lied Second story he lied
Then a third story which ignores that the original quoted met service report was made up —— a lie it was not met service it was hatcru 4
build up some non entity as a world respected scientist Google her?no just take more lies from the same source as face value
Point out that the lie was only a little one hat cru 4 does not say no warming only a very small amount then play with the statistic and ignore the fact that a once a century record temperate is now happening twice a decade. 1998 record is now normal
Claim that the start point was not cherry picked if not why not change it? because it was a cherry pick
Refer to the stolen emails as some sort of proof of wrong doing. These have had nine reviews that is acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial acusation review denial
Notice any pattern
Fuckwits
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Speaking of liars: Gleick
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
And just for a last poke at the noddys here is some of the hockey sticks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Notice that the high point is still there the medieval warm period was as warm as the fifty’s
butbutbutbutbut the hockey stick is wrong say the fuckwits
Its still the same old hockey stick with the medieval warm period
Critical thinking just will not work within climate denial. There are just to many occasions were the denial ecochamber is proven wrong or full of shit to give them any credence if you can actually think like an adult.
Have a nice day kiddys
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
I see your mates at “realcimate” revelling in the Obama victory and mocking “conservatives”. Shows where they’re really coming from! Mmmmmm obama….research grants….mmmmmmm
Vote:November 10th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
goodnight Griff, you were awesome tonight big boy.
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:04 am
Global warming research confirmed by new study part financed by sceptics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/11125386/sceptic-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/
The 1998 high, and the 2005 and 2010 repeat debate – what about a rising trend do some people not comprehend? A rising trend requires that the high be replicated. It has been.
A once in a 100 year flood occuring three times in 12 years is indicative of an increased vulnerability to flooding.
Clearly the planet is now more subject to higher temperatures than it was prior to this period. This is caused by something.
There are other things impacting on temperature – solar and planetary climate cycles, these mean that rather than a year by year constant increase in temperatures the rising trend occurs within other cycles that will either offset or exacerbate it.
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:07 am
The 1998 high, and the 2005 and 2010 repeat debate – what about a rising trend do some people not comprehend? A rising trend requires that the high be replicated. It has been.
A once in a 100 year flood occuring three times in 12 years is indicative of an increased vulnerability to flooding.
Clearly the planet is now more subject to higher temperatures than it was prior to this period. This is caused by something.
There are other things impacting on temperature – solar and planetary climate cycles, these mean that rather than a year by year constant increase in temperatures the rising trend occurs within other cycles that will either offset or exacerbate it.
Global warming research confirmed by new study part financed by sceptics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/11125386/sceptic-now-agrees-global-warming-is-real/
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:12 am
The 1998 high, and the 2005 and 2010 repeat debate – what about a rising trend do some people not comprehend? A rising trend requires that the high be replicated. It has been.
A once in a 100 year flood occuring three times in 12 years is indicative of an increased vulnerability to flooding.
Clearly the planet is now more subject to higher temperatures than it was prior to this period. This is caused by something.
There are other things impacting on temperature – solar and planetary climate cycles, so rather than a year by year constant increase in temperatures the rising trend occurs within other cycles that will either offset or exacerbate it.
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:14 am
Global warming research confirmed by new study part financed by sceptics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:21 am
Which climate model is it consistent with SPC?
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:45 am
It’s results are charted alongside two others in the graph in the BBC link.
“The Berkeley group’s record of global land temperature mirrors existing ones closely”
“Two of those three records are maintained in the US, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa).” Both shown in the graph.
“The third is a collaboration between the UK Met Office and UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from which the e-mails that formed the basis of the “Climategate” furore were hacked two years ago.”
“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK,” said Prof Muller.”
“This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”
Vote:November 11th, 2012 at 12:53 am
My bad, I meant which scenario not model. To be more specific, is it fair to say the temperatures over the last 16 years are more consistent with the reduced CO2 emissions scenario than any other scenario?
Vote: