Is geoengineering the answer to climate change?

November 1st, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

A fascinating article at Foreign Policy:

These scientists are beginning to look for a Plan B. There are two distinct approaches under consideration — sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, or creating an artificial sun shield for the planet. The former, which involves reversing some of the very processes that are leading to the climate problem, is expensive.

A sun shield?

If the world can’t get its act together to limit carbon emissions, geoengineering may be the only option we have. Distill the climate problem down to the essentials, and it becomes obvious that global warming is fundamentally a market failure: All seven billion of us human beings are “free riders” on a planet that is heating up. We put billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and largely aren’t required to pay for the privilege. There’s too little incentive to stop polluting. …

“Free riding” also plagues relations between countries. Some, like the European Union have a cap or tax on carbon pollution. Most are still waiting on the sidelines. Why should any single country cut its carbon emissions when it knows that its reductions will only be a drop in the bucket toward solving — and other nations aren’t asking their citizens to pay their fair share? Blame it on short election cycles, partisanship, or fossil energy interests, the political will often doesn’t exist — whether in Washington or the latest global environment gathering in Rio de Janeiro.

Yep, unless China and India are part of any agreement, other countries won;t commit.

“Free riders” are only half the problem. “Free drivers” may be as important. The allure of geoengineering derives from the simple fact that – given what little we know about it at the moment – it appears to be a comparatively cheap way to combat climate change. And it doesn’t take a global agreement to act. It takes one actor – one country – in the driver’s seat.

If, for example, the very existence of an island, nation, city, or agricultural region is threatened by global warming, the question among its leaders will no longer be whether geoengineering is an option, but what the effects, positive and negative, might be and how it could be carried out. That’s also where the science stands today, and the economics points in the same direction.

This makes sense. Something one or more countries can do by themselves, without the need for universal support.

In fact, the price tag of these geoengineering strategies is likely to be negligible relative to the purported benefits: Columbia University’s Scott Barrett, among others, has calculated that it would cost pennies to offset a ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. By comparison, it costs dollars per ton to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the first place.

And much cheaper.

What makes scientists believe geoengineering could work? It’s been tried before – by nature, not by humanity.

When Mount Pinatubo erupted in June 1991, it forced the evacuation of 200,000 Filipinos and shot 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The added sulfur counteracted the effect of 1,100 billion tons of carbon dioxide that had been accumulating in the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. In 1992 and 1993, it decreased global temperatures by a bit less than 1 degree Fahrenheit by reducing the amount of sunlight that hit the earth’s surface. That was about the same amount temperatures had risen at that point from carbon added to the atmosphere by human activity. In other words, Mount Pinatubo alone offset all temperature increases from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

So all we need is to have more volcanoes erupt! :-)

As the article makes clear, geoengineering has considerable risks and side-effects. But with the major emitting countries unwilling to cap carbon emissions, it may well be that one or more countries turn their attention to geoengineering.

Tags:

138 Responses to “Is geoengineering the answer to climate change?”

  1. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MarkF (100 comments) says:

    I know this will start a firestorm but here goes.
    Why are we trying to find a solution to a non problem?
    The sky is falling on our heads, again. We must do something about it said Chicken Licken…
    I think it is somewhat arrogant of us totally insignificant Humans (in a global sense) to first think we can really affect the climate of this planet, for better or for worse.
    The Suns energy alone falling on the planet is roughly 121PW (121,000,000,000,000,000W). To put this in perspective, from Wikipeadia “The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. thedavincimode (6,715 comments) says:

    That’s a shitload of energy MarkF. Make sure you wear a hat when you’re outside.

    This only underscores the need to dig all that coal up and flog it off to China ASAP. It’ll be worthless if we wait too long.

    Will the script writers of The Highlander get royalties for having their idea pinched?

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

    What’s that quote from “The Matrix”, humans are a virus and need to be exterminated?
    Totally bizzare, arid nonsense. Man is not changing the climate now, but is going to dream up crap
    to totally root the whole planet. Scientist have no idea how the climate works, but seem to want to experiment
    through trial and error to find out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    People who actually know what they are talking about seem universally convinced that we are affecting the climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    The only way to include developing nations into a world system is to bring an emissions tax into world trade via the WTO – thus “tariff” penalty when competing against carbon/methane free produced goods. This is as important as inclusion of agriculture, services and investment in the next trade round. We would do better via our grassland agricuture than international competitors. We would struggle against domestic producers if we had a methane tariff (and carbon transport cost) unless the carbon/methane tariff was set at zero if production was a best practice (lowest possible level of emission).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tom1980 (42 comments) says:

    The scientists who work in this area are almost without exception reasonable and objective people. If they say that mankind is affecting the climate then that’s good enough for me. That doesn’t mean that we have to accept that the only solutions available are the Green ones, where we have to give up on progress and live like medieval monks. Geoengineering is the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. KH (695 comments) says:

    Not getting into the arguement about whether climate change is happening a lot.
    But geo- engineering. We would be bound to be in big trouble with that.
    You know how it will go.
    1. Implement geo-engineering remedy
    2. North and South America capsize and disappear.
    3. Geo- engineer says “didn’t think that would happen. but I tell you what we should do”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    “People who actually know what they are talking about seem universally convinced that we are affecting the climate.”

    That’s absolute rubbish. Thats like saying catholics know more about ‘God’ than scientologists. Who cares what they think, they are both talking about sky fairies!

    It use to be called ‘global warming’, now its called ‘climate change’. Whatever you want to call it humans have little effect in the long term. The earth has been warming and cooling all by itself for billions of years. No matter how much ‘junk’ science people try and apply to their theories, they are still theories based on junk science.

    You do realise over 70% of the earth has been covered in ice thousands of times, and life flourished on this planet when temperatures where 3x the average that they are now. The green agenda needs to be rubbished more for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    People who actually know what they are talking about seem universally convinced that we are affecting the climate.

    How ever those who are not making money, or political gain, from the climate change story, seem less convinced. Any scientist who challenges the story is instantly discredited and thrown out, because he endangers the research funding, not for any scientific reason. Then we have the anti business, anti America, anti freedom, anti capitalist, anti people, pro socialists, who are the real force behind the AGW movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    it may well be that one or more countries turn their attention to geoengineering.

    An act of war against the countries that benefit from these naturally ocurring warm periods.

    See what Putin makes of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, peak oil etc, the solutions are always the same . . more taxes, more regulation and more power given to monolithic, unaccountable, self-perpetuating commissions agencies, quangos and bureaucracies.

    Climate change is not about science. It is about politics. Always has been, always will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MarkF (100 comments) says:

    @tom1980

    “The scientists who work in this area are almost without exception reasonable and objective people. If they say that mankind is affecting the climate then that’s good enough for me.”

    OK then explain why so many of these “reasonable and objective people” refuse to turn over their original data sets to others so as they can test the conclusions of there findings. If they have nothing to hide surely they would be only too happy to assist and show others, but they don’t!

    One is forced to ask why?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MarkF (100 comments) says:

    @Urban Redneck.
    Your wordsmanship captures the essence precisely.
    We should throw in there Y2K, SARS and Bird Flu as well just for good measure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (3,991 comments) says:

    Geoengineering is a discredited load of horseshit. At best, the so called “scientists” will extract billions from the world economic system, to no useful purpose.

    As for the World Tax proposals…. Well not so far fetched.

    ECOSOC, Helengrads rainbow faction UN claven is already proposing just that. It’s April 2012 report has Helengrad rubbing her hands in glee. But there is just one, small little roadblock (thank lord) – the US Senate.,

    The idiot Obama administration may want to go along with it, but just last month the US State Department was moved to say: ” it will never happen”.

    Neither wlll geoengineering which, as someone correctly observed. is simply spending mioneyion a priblem that does not exist.

    Good afternoon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. emmess (1,427 comments) says:

    People who actually know what they are talking about seem universally convinced that we …

    What a stupid statement
    Can you not think for yourself?
    Do you not have free will?
    You are basically condemning yourself to slavery

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Alan Wilkinson (1,873 comments) says:

    By the time it is a problem we will

    a) know whether the planet is getting too hot or too cold, and
    b) have infinitely more technological resources to deal with whatever is the problem than we can conceive now.

    In the meantime the planet hasn’t warmed since 1997. Let’s enjoy the summer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross12 (1,413 comments) says:

    Here is a couple of quotes from the “news” in recent days :

    “This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive.

    If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public.” -David Roberts, Grist

    Cara Santa Maria (Los Angeles, CA) HuffPost Senior Science Correspondent @CaraSantaMaria [Amusingly, around the 7:00 mark, Santa Maria brings up a "difficulty": If you tell the truth about global warming, "you're giving fuel to climate deniers"]

    These come a few days after Dr Micheal Mann claimed he was a Noble Prize winner for his work only to have to crawl back into his hole when the Noble Prize Committee very publically said he did not win a Noble Prize. So his CV had to adjusted
    ( abit like some data !!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Geoengineering is a discredited load of horseshit.

    It sure is flipper.

    Geoengineering is about man influencing climate. Like you say “horseshit”.

    Maybe we can one day, but so far we have not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. rouppe (967 comments) says:

    The only problem with that is that sulphur dioxide, in the presence of water, will oxidise. Since there’s lots of water in the atmosphere, if we dump heaps of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere, it will oxidise and cause acid rain…

    Regarding whether climate change is man-made or not, I still have not seen any scientific examination of how much greenhouse gas is emitted every year from natural sources (such as volcanoes) and how much is from human sources (such as cars). I’d really like to know what proportion of greenhouse case emitted yearly is in fact man-made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. magsta (344 comments) says:

    NIWA dabbled in a bit of iron-fertilisation of the Southern Ocean in the late 1990s.
    http://tracer.env.uea.ac.uk/soiree/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. s.russell (1,621 comments) says:

    The apparent miracle solution offered by geoengineering comes with one big problem:

    About the one think climate change deniers (and most reputable scientists) agree on is that we do NOT fully understand how climate works.

    Which means a geoengineering solution might (as KH suggests above) be an even bigger disaster than the climate change it seeks to reverse. Very VERY risky.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. rjhd2012innz (2 comments) says:

    Its good to see that so far, there have been no playing the man and not the ball in the comments, normally any discussion of this topic brings out the extremists from both sides.

    The AGW team can only quote models to provide the ‘data’ of any possible warming. The more sophisticated the actual measuring has become, eg Satelites. The actual raw measurements show a miniscule trend – within the margin of error – of warming, and all genuine scientists accept and acknowledge this trend.

    We will often hear on MSM of records broken here or there in the world, but if you look past the headlines, the ‘record’ stated always, without exception, is able to be proven incorrect when the correct information is considered, with the appropriate time frame.

    A case in point is Sandy! The 4th ranked storm of 2012, in terms of energy, but it was able to cause such damage through timing and the area of the coast line it struck. Records of October Storms striking the East Coast of USA go back years, so are not unusual at all. Just as Queensland floods are common and droughts often follow, you only need to study the records.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    This storm in the north east of USA is the best example of the stupidity of carbon taxes.

    If – as the scientists tell us – that there will be ocean level rises even if we stopped using carbon now – then this stort is the ideal example of whats going to happen in the next 50 years.

    And no amount of carbon taxes is going to stop it.

    Stop wastinf time and money on carbon taxes. Build sea walls is the only option.\

    And the scientists tell us the rise will be more that the size of the storm surge……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    “Its good to see that so far, there have been no playing the man and not the ball”
    Mostly because I am having a good laugh at the uninformed and damn right stupid comments being posted in this thread
    Carry on with the wishful thinking it does my hart good to see ostriches in their natural habitat. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    People who think (and proclaim) they know what they’re talking about usually have other agendas at work.
    These so called abberations in climate are nothing more than natural earth cycles – The earth has been there, done that, many times over in times past. Dont be fooled by these proclaimers, who have nothing but self interest at heart ! Follow the money

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dave_c_ (217 comments) says:

    Spot on Urban Redneck !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Griff, still peddling that Doomsday cult I see.

    How about you team up with Penny (just tone your crazy talk down a bit, or you will put her off) and build your stone age socialist utopia together ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Insurance industry and climate change

    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/06/limited-coverage-climate-change-and-the-insurance-industry/
    The insurance industry is famously, intentionally, even proudly, backward-looking: Its assessments of risk traditionally draw from data on prior losses over long periods of time.
    In a world of extreme weather and non-linear trends, however, the times, and with them the actuarial tables, are changing in some quarters. International insurance firms and big reinsurers like Swiss Re and Munich Re are incorporating projections for more unpredictable and extreme weather.
    http://www.insurancenetworking.com/news/insurance-climate-change-risk-ceres-30007-1.html
    Stakeholders from the insurance industry met with members of the U.S. Senate to acknowledge the role global warming plays in extreme weather-related losses, and to issue a call for action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    So insurance companies want to raise insurance levies. And that is your evidence the world is ending.

    Your such a little Troll sometimes Griff :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Kea go tell the coastal community’s on the Atlantic seaboard that climate change is not happening. They will not be rebuilding quite so close to the coast this time around because they will not get flood insurance.
    New York will have to spend the money to water proof the subway system again no insurance if they dont. Dont you just love reality, capitalism and the insurance industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yeah the world certainly needs another environmental disaster caused by nut bar scientist putting up reflecting satellites?

    Or let’s tax the,rich nations so they become poor and being,everyone down, that’ll work.

    Since all,the solutions,are wet dreams,and,fairy tails, doesn’t that get the bullshit receptors going?

    Bt oh here we go

    The report recommends…

    “Relevant UK government departments, in association with the UK Research Councils, should together fund a 10 year geoengineering research programme at a level of the order of £10M per annum.”

    QED.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Griff shame on you. That storm is not evidence for or against climate change and the damage suffered has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It,is because more and more people are,in the way with more cameras to snap the destruction.

    Just like katrina had nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. It was a man made,disaster resulting from building a city below sea level in a frecken hurricane zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Ok so there were no storms before we started liberating co2 back into the atmosphere from organic matter Griff?

    So is it part of the scientific consensus that “capitalism” is to blame, or is that just you letting slip your real motivation for supporting the AGW cult ?

    I would appreciate any reference to a “climate science” peer reviewed paper that showed the link between political belief and global climate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Yes kevin keep it up just ignore two little facts
    1 The storm regenerated as it crossed a warmer than usual gulf stream
    2 Due to sea level rise the surge was effectively 1ft higher than it would have been 100 years ago

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Fletch (6,296 comments) says:

    FFS, there is NO CLIMATE PROBLEM.

    These guys are going to create one though, with all this talk of creating sun shields and stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Tut tut tut Griff.

    You know bloody well that your fellow climate alarmists are always telling us that “weather is NOT climate”.

    (Just google it dear readers, there are thousands of articles, from “climate scientists” saying that very thing)

    Or how are you going to explain away all those record cold snaps in the Northern Hemisphere ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Kea are you really that stupid? My post was pointing out the capitalist system is wakening to the reality of climate change. The costs in specific the cost of insurance will force the changes in coastal development that are needed to mitigated the effects.
    The link between conservative america and climate denial is documented in quite a few peer reviewed papers.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5000/mccright_2011.pdf
    http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XfTISxCa6SwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA240&dq=climate+change+denial+and+conservative+views&ots=HbyOj63pb8&sig=1mdziA60GaGMthBF
    http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/economics/jacques_2008.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    There is no way sea levels are 1ft higher griff. Even if,they were it is minimal compared to the fact that they built New York at sea level and now have to suffer the consequences of periodic flooding even if there was no warming.

    Of course the insurance industry swallows it all hook line and sinker because they are trying to line up energy companies to contribute to the compo feeding troughs.

    Even if a small amount of warming is true, you can’t join these scams like trading in thin air because they are scams. Or extensions of wealth redistribution like most of our internal taxes go on.

    And finally, if you want to worry about problems facing mankind AGW doesn’t make the top ten. They are all occupied by overpopulation, with AGW being one of the smaller consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    So far we have the following proofs of climate change:

    1) Too hot (global warming)
    2) Too cold (global warming)
    3) A storm (global warming)
    4) Reduced storms (global warming)
    5) No change in temperatures for 15 years (global warming)

    Here are some more things to do with global warming. Just click a link and laugh. Its great fun :)

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Here’s a time proven rule: don’t fuck with nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Kea seems to have dropped into the ozone hole that toad has apparently abandoned! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Yes Griff I see your point, I wondered if you meant that.

    But to answer your question, yes I am very very stupid. Thick as Pig Shit. But not so thick I would buy into all this, as you have done :)

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    It is noted you then DID go onto try and link politics to climate. Talk about an own goal !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Oh and you forgot kea…

    If bad consequences of global warming happen, we told you so.
    If they don’t, we acted in time, hallelujah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I thought L.Ron Hubbard was dead, but no, he’s obviously still churning out SF.
    A new religion perhaps – The Holy Church of the Geoengineers – a couple of Hollywood types on board and it’ll fly

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    God you guys are,in good form today. Tom Hunters first post is a classic :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Tom Cruise has quit being top gun since his last marriage failure PEB! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Some of you who want to blame the evil “right wing conservatives” for climate change. (like Griff)

    I invite you to have a look at the environmental record of socialist countries, both current and past. China increases co2 production daily, by more than NZ’s yearly output. They have serious environmental pollution on an epic scale. The former USSR was an environmental disaster zone. Forget Chernobyl, that place is a health camp compared to many other sites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (11,277 comments) says:

    The leaders of Europe are all sitting around a table at another Climate Change summit.
    After the initial pleasantries, David Cameron speaks first. “I will end climate change, just like I ended boom and bust! I will be tough on climate change and tough on the causes of climate change! Britain will spend “£200 billion on fighting climate change this year!”
    Before he has even sat back down, Angela Merkel of Germany begins to speak.
    “That’s nothing! We will spend €300 billion on fighting climate change!”
    Francois Hollande of France speaks next; “We will end zis climate change. We will spend €1 trillion on fighting climate change!”.
    Attention now turns to the president of Armenia, he stands and meekly announces: “We have budgeted to spend $1,000 on fighting climate change over the next 10 years.”
    People around the table begin to snigger. Embarrassed, the Armenian president slams his fist onto the table and shouts “Ok, ok, we will spend $100 trillion on climate change!”.
    The sniggering around the table has now become hysterics; “How will you afford that?”
    “Well” the Armenian president began, “The real figure was bit low, so I just made some up. Isn’t that how it works around here?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. DJP6-25 (1,376 comments) says:

    The warmists can see the writing on the wall for the ‘climate change’ boondoggle. So, they seek something to replace it. No surprises here then. I was wondering how long it would take.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Kevin the bad will happen nothing will be done until its to late and I will be dead so I don’t really give the proverbial about the consequences of my lifestyle.Its the perversion of science by the denial camp that pisses me off
    I love two stroke diesels and two stroke outboards the bigger the better
    My favorite motor 24v71 detroit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m48vyc5beNg&feature=related

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Ross12 (1,413 comments) says:

    Some history just for Griff.

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Nice motor Griff.

    I want to put one in a boat, so I can chase down those racist pirates on the Sea Sheppard.

    I hope I don’t run over and kill any poor fisherman in their canoes, paddling out to feed their families, as Pete Buthune and his boys did while promoting saving the planet (from global warming) by racing around it in speed boats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Griff without population control there is no solution. But the UN can’t stomach that because it would mean the wealthy nations telling those third worlders what to do again and spc would get upset because no wealth redistribution.

    Kea but I bet those socialists won’t mind spending all that capitalist money when they get into power. Wussell will say McDonald’s good, my bank account happy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    A true greenie would kill them self :lol:
    Voluntary Human Extinction Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    I am a “greenie” but not a communist. My type have no party or organisation :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. labrator (1,847 comments) says:

    …Sandy! The 4th ranked storm of 2012, in terms of energy…

    Citation required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Ross12

    The trouble with science is that it is true, whether you believe it or not.

    From those who place the cause of increasing weather extremes to natural variation, without offering specific, plausible factors in support of that hypothesis, to those who say climate models, which only play a marginal role and ignore that the observed facts stand without resort to models, misrepresent reality, to the Tom Hunters of this world who deny the reality of storm surges, even with eyewitness testimony flooding the airwaves.

    From the malcontent to the malintent to the willfully ignorant, we behold the reason why humans are eventually doomed as a species.

    Alone amongst all the species that ever existed and currently exist, we have the intelligence to ensure our prolonged survival but unlike the dinosaurs, who perished from without, we will implode.

    God speed in the name of the planet!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Talking about models, this pdf file is a recent presentation James Hansen made to that ultimate idiot who has the GOP tied up in knots:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2012/20120917_GroverNorquist.pdf

    Here is an important extract:

    Discussion. Global temperature simulated by climate models depends upon a number of
    factors, especially the model’s climate sensitivity and the forcings used to drive climate change.
    Scientific understanding about climate sensitivity and about climate forcings have improved
    substantially over the past few decades, but enough uncertainty remains to allow cherry-picking
    among many different climate model results. However, an important point is that climate
    models are not the principal basis of our concerns about future climate change, as
    made clear in my presentation (Appendix B), which relied on observations, not climate models.

    Those not in one of the three categories in my previous should follow the link and familiarise themselves with the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    So all we need is to have more volcanoes erupt!

    Sadly, it’s not that simple. Ocean acidification will proceed apace and somewhere on the path to burning all the fossil fuels, methane clathrates will rise up and destroy everything, except, possible, cockroaches…oh dear…no, I won’t say it. DPF might get upset :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    The trouble with science is that it is true, whether you believe it or not.

    Well, that’s a self-evident false statement.

    Yes, in the long term science is about finding the truth.

    But in pratice, it’s trial and error. What is “truth” and “good science” today is “false” tomorrow. Spontaneous generation was once considered scientific remember.

    Climate science has produced model after model which has predicted more warming than has actually happened. In reality, science can give us the best data available, and goverments need to balance that data with other data in other areas (say, a housing shortage) as they make their decisions on where to put their effort and money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ross12 (1,413 comments) says:

    Luc — you are not saying the historical record I posted is not real and all the computer models are real science !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. hj (6,923 comments) says:

    If human induced climate change was real the developers would be building for it, so it can’t be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    I’d just like to also point out that saying the climate is changing is like saying water is wet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Dont bother with the science luc the nutters don’t believe in science witness some of the crap posted as fact above
    I have found that just laughing at them stops a lot of the stupidity.
    look at Wilkes no warming since 1997
    1 Is wrong global surface temperatures are warmer we have twice broken the twentieth century record in the last ten years once a century is now happening once every five years
    2 The sea is still warming far more energy is going into the sea then into the air 3 Hiroshima bombs a second worth

    And Ross sandy was a ex tropical cyclone before she hit the warm gulf stream She then increased back to cat one storm not even a strong cat one storm yet she still caused record flooding. What will happen when New York gets a cat three or more?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RightNow (6,988 comments) says:

    Talking about models, I heard Michael Mann has a model of a Nobel prize.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Ross12 (1,413 comments) says:

    Griff –damage from storms depends on its direction, relation to tides ,other weather systems nearby ( like what occurred with sandy ) etc etc . The actual figure put on its strength is not a guarantee of more or less damage.
    We learnt this from the Christchurch earthquacks —you have a earthquack of 7.0 at 100 kms depth that will result little or no damage but you have one of say 4.0 at 5 kms depth and we know what can happen.

    BTW. Some bedtime reading for you
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    I tend to duck all the earthquacks if I can! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    If humans weren’t here it would even be called damage, ot would just be erosion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Most sane comment tonight Kevin if you change it to “wouldn’t” as you meant! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    No, ot should be it though. Damn iPad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    “If humans weren’t here it wouldn’t even be called damage, it would just be erosion.”

    That’s what you meant to say Kevin and true as well as fuckin profound into the bloody bargain!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    If they try to put some satellites into orbit to shield us from the sunlight I wonder if pwenny will help us pwotest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Climate change religionists like Luc and his mate Al are deriving great heart from the Curiosity photos! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Thanks Johnboy, not only the iPad having problems tonight. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    All those little green Martians denied climate change and what happened to their great civilisations… gone! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Even their great canal systems have eroded away! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    … the observed facts stand without resort to models, misrepresent reality, to the Tom Hunters of this world who deny the reality of storm surges, even with eyewitness testimony flooding the airwaves.

    Speaking of misrepresentation, that statement is a great example. Here’s Luc’s original dopey comment praising New York mayor Bloomberg:

    It’s funny, Mike Bloomberg is a neoliberal, ruthlessly successful capitalist and he has no problem grasping the science.

    The usual Luc snark of course, to which I pointed out that Brendan Loy – warmist and self-proclaimed Weather Nerd – considered that Bloomberg’s statement that “With this storm, we’ll likely see a slow pileup of water rather than a sudden surge” was an incredibly stupid thing to say since a surge had been predicted. Loy, identifying Bloomberg name as the author of that quote, added the word “idiot”.

    In fact Loy was so pissed off with Bloomberg saying this, combined with a decision not to order an evacuation of certain areas of NYC, that he also posted another twitter comment, which I also quoted;

    Brendan Loy @brendanloy

    Bloomberg’s “less dangerous” non-”sudden surge” was every bit as ignorant junk science as Akin’s comment, & far more consequential. #resign

    You’ll notice the key bit in there that I bolded, to draw attention to the fact that Loy, somewhat more of a weather and hurricane expert than Bloomberg, considered the latter to be anything other than someone able to grasp the science. In short, a direct rebuttal of Luc’s standard, pulled-from-his-ass assessment of a person’s scientific judgement – and a rebuttal from a warmist like Luc no less.

    Instead, I discovered that – in addition to all his other limitations – Luc has a reading disability, because he then posted an incredibly stupid counter that cut and pasted the above and then added some inane argument about how a surge had actually been observed – as if that had been the original point of argument.

    This seemed so sad that I did not respond, but obviously I should have, for now I find that Luc has wrapped this up in his own mind as some weird additional “fact” about denying observable reality.

    If this is the standard of argument and reasoning on the Left it’s no wonder that AGW and so many other lefty causes are going down the tube.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Billions of UN dollars to travel the globe proposing bullshit solutions like using energy to bury carbon underground vs not a red cent for the counter opinion doesn’t look like these lefty causes going down the gurglar to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    So Tom, I’m sure I recollect seeing Bloomberg on Fox or CNN warning of the storm surge. Are you sure Loy didn’t make his bit up as part of a political agenda?

    Anyway, although it appears I understandably misread the intent of your post , given the constant stream of drivel you post here on AGW, do you disagree that Bloomberg gets the science?

    Do you disagree that that this storm was accentuated by AGW?

    Do you disagree that NYC has been engaged in a long process of costing defences against the inevitable rising sea level, including the defence of moving?

    Just asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I haven’t caught up with this whole thread, but surely speculation about geo-engineering is at best an amusing diversion. The costs of significant geo-engineering are likely to outweigh by a long, long way the costs of addressing climate change in the short term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yep that’s what the scientists are saying. Give us one hundred million pounds and we’ll go away and amuse ourselves for 10 years. It’s all about jobs and wealth redistribution and not about conservation, just like the whole of the modern “green” movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    I think I’ll take the first post you put up before you deleted it ….. Luc

    Luc Hansen (4,189) Says: 
November 1st, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    It seems I misread your post, Tom.

    Fair enough.

    However, and forgive me my disability, maybe Hobson Middle School can help me out, I still have a problem with working out your point.

    You do deny observable reality, all the time.

    Surely you don’t deny that?

    Hide the decline! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    You have that a little crossed I think luc tom has toned down the climate denial except for political expediency
    Bloomburg definitely ignored the advice he was giving re the chance of the subways going.Tom and I both watched the storm closly and knew of the risk far before bloomberg admited it.
    Bloomberg still is in denial about the time and cost it is going to take to get it all back up and running

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I thought my second was better.

    But that one is still pretty good!

    No answers forthcoming from the master of diversion, I see.

    Does performing disservices to the human race come naturally to you, Tom, or do you have to work at it?

    I’m curious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Thanks Griff.

    That switch had passed me by.

    My brain has been busily engaged elsewhere recently (exam week) so I think he’s got one on me here.

    So Tom, what’s your current take on climate change?

    Do try to get past the gotchas!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Kevin
    Yep. those bad scientists eh? Why bother investing trillions now when if we do nothing for a few decades we could, possibly, spend a few thousand trillions on some magic beans that are yet to be invented. And if that doesn’t work maybe we’ll be able to terraform Mars in about 150 years for only a few trillion trillions just in time for a few thousand people to bugger off there. Or time travel or practical interstellar flight might be viable options by then too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    We are going to live to see this AGW hoax exposed. I will enjoy taunting the lefties with this to their graves.

    The more serious issue is how it will undermine the credibility of science in the public eye. We have now all seen how some are willing to lie for political reasons and to gain much needed research funding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Hope you pass NCEA Luc! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Kea
    yes it a massive global conspiracy I am in the pay of the UN and luc works for the one world government
    Every major scientific body in the world and all major government have been infiltrated at the highest level
    We will take over the world MAHhahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahhahahhaha ha ha

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Helen is your boss Griff?

    You poor c**t ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    No Griff. It is all about money and power. Simple really.

    Would it help if a grown up made a little computer model to “scientifically prove it”, sort of like your playstation :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Griff
    Well, we all know that there were successful conspiracies to conceal extraterrestrial landings, assassinate JFK, fake the moon landings and stage an attack on 11 September 2001. It’s only reasonable that given the large numbers of people who continue to deny those well-known facts that many would still be taken in by the conspiracy you so succinctly described.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    Before on kiwiblog here I have contributed –

    I too perouse the atmosphere
    And ask the quintessential ‘Where
    May global warming cease, and nuclear winter begin
    To keep solar heat out, rather than hold it in?’
    So it’s evident, so very clear
    The answer to global warming
    Is to get more krap up there

    forgive me – “creating an artificial sun shield for the planet”?
    Holy Krap! it was a fucking joke, alright? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Why kea. The socialist hoax has been exposed but many of them still worship at the frecken altar.

    Indeed the poor human race has been scammed so often it doesn’t know wtf to believe – piltdown man, obesity pandemics, psychic surgery, …..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Mike makes the assumption that climate,change is one of the top issues facing mankind. It isn’t. It’s a small symptom of overpopulation, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Psychic surgery worked for me. I have been far more sensible since the faulty part of my brain was removed. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes Kevin, we have all been wrong too many times in the past to ever be confident that anyone might be right about anything. Given this conundrum, who can we trust on any issue? Obviously we should just believe whatever we want to – what could those pesky scientists know about the real world with their ivory-tower theories?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Kevin is quite right. The world is being fucked by too much rooting, particularly by the poorer classes.

    Something that pleasurable should be reserved for the rich and only on special occasions. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Johnboy
    Was the psychic surgery a prerequisite for settling in Wainui?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Johnboy (16,077 comments) says:

    Not at all old chap it cured me from a phobia regarding the odour of lanolin and dags which made it very difficult to continue in my present situation. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    No yvette, unfortunately there are nut bars out there seriously proposing that if we can’t get get carbon emissions down we will waste valuable resources doing dangerous experiment unilaterally trying to cool the planet down. It beggars belief that anyone can think of such things but there you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    “lie for political reasons”
    I think you will find more lies on the side of denial than from actual scientist kea
    Climate e mails after nine reviews and the only fault found was being pissed of with time wasting fuck around by the denial networks and still its on the denial blogs as true.
    Four interdependent temperature records and still we are told that the figures are fudged Even after BEST came out the same as the other three.
    Arctic melt drought extremes recorded world-wide sea level rise growing costs due to weather advents all point to global warming still not enough.
    Look above notice that it’s the same old discredited arguments trotted out time and again Here is the list of denial arguments and the rebuttal http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/#Types of Argument

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Ok I will play along Griff:

    Who is behind the denial movement. Let me guess some ill defined murky “big business” or “big oil” or George Bush, America, The Bilderburg Group, America, America… working with the illuminati and the lizard people ????

    Look Griff, if you hate democracy, freedom, science, people and capitalism, then just say so man !

    Your among friends, just blurt it out ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    … tom has toned down the climate denial except for political expediency

    Oh I still think it’s as screwed a piece of “science” as I’ve ever seen in my life Griff – and I say that as someone who actually graduated with a science degree: setting up experiments, trying to control all the variables in order to lock down the hypothesis, sweating the endless detail of seemingly straight-forward tasks such as calibrating measuring instruments and the measurements themselves, repeating the tests endlessly to compile a swath of statistical data, followed by the effort of sorting through that to exclude the “outliers” (and all the arguments that had to be run through to justify that). And this was before building the computer “model” to sort through it all, with all the tweaks involved there.

    That’s for lab experiments of course: multiply that a thousand-fold when modelling the real world and you’ve got some idea of the traps that lay in wait – and that’s assuming the damned variables are not changing their interactions as they themselves change values.

    All those were technical arguments I waged years ago on this blog before you or Luc turned up. However I also pointed out that AGW had the same characteristics as previous “doom” campaigns and would likely meet a similar fate.

    It’s not simply a question of political expediency. I’m not even sure what you’re implying there, since it has been a non-issue for both US Presidential campaigns in 2012, as just one example. And that’s no surprise to me. In parallel with the inadequacies of the science as the building blocks of the demanded solution, were the other-worldly solutions themselves that were being demanded to “solve” AGW. Here’s a quote from moi years ago on this blog:

    One note about how “the debate has ended”. It certainly has for Kyoto. Only the politically naive could think that thing is still alive after the comments of Putin’s advisors and none other than Blair himself. Not to mention the fact that most signatories will miss their targets by a country mile – something that was obvious at least six years ago – not to mention the backsliding of the Labour government here, something that again was obviously going to happen when the costs of compliance came home to roost.

    Waiting out Bush’s departure won’t help much when there are 92 Senators standing in the way, and since I am not wedded to any particular party the idea that the hopeless Tories desperate gab for a piece of climate catastrophe action should somehow cause me to to jump on board here is a laughable projection of ideological blindness.

    The very claim that Kyoto was but a first step on a journey is precisely what doomed it. No one was ever going to put themselves through that tortuous negotiation again only to be kicked hard by their electors back home

    And this in 2009:

    Only a tiny minority are going to change their lifestyle (and that includes 90% of the warmenists) to the drastic degree implied by all of the CO2 reduction targets being sought. Few in the West will change and certainly not China or India. So we will see targets pushed off into the future, or so watered down as to be meaningless, penalties not pursued (think how useless UN economic sanctions are now when applied to specific countries), or so covered by subsidies that the demand reduction effect will never kick in at the consumer level where it ultimately has to.

    This international Kabuki dance is simply being repeated further down the food chain as we see the effects of tackling the “polluters”. In the US the “Cap and Trade” bill is already on the back burner as various members of Congress and Senators from places like coal-dependent Indiana, Virginia and other states get frightened off – not by “big business muscle”, but by the simple fact that they will close down rapidly (as Obama explicitly claimed they would be) and thereby smash the economies of those states.

    The result will be the same as our ETS, such groups will negotiate loopholes and poke so many holes in the agreement that it will be worthless even if passed.

    But we will play that game to avoid the pointed fingers and we will focus on trading with places like China and India rather than increasingly fucked up outfits like Europe.

    By the time you arrived on KB it had become clear that the whole thing was dead on arrival: Kyoto stuffed, Copenhagen a failure as I predicted, carbon-trading markets collapsed, Cap and Trade dead in the US House and Senate, wind and solar power subsidies being withdrawn as countries as varied as Spain and Germany stared down the barrel of tight budgets and unstable power networks. I see the ETS here in NZ is now forcing some farmers off their land because they bought (literally) into the whole scam.

    Luc yammers about “observable reality”, but he and the rest of the AGW crew never recognised the one identified by Peter Huber in City Journal:

    “Ten countries ruled by nasty people control 80 percent of the planet’s oil reserves—about 1 trillion barrels, currently worth about $40 trillion.
    ….
    If $40 trillion worth of gold were located where most of the oil is, one could only scoff at any suggestion that we might somehow persuade the nasty people to leave the wealth buried. They can lift most of their oil at a cost well under $10 a barrel. They will drill. They will pump. And they will find buyers. Oil is all they’ve got.”

    Indeed – and that’s before the fracking revolution kicked in. That’s reality and it simply works its way into “political expediency”. And the great irony is that fracking first hit the Natural Gas market, resulting in vast increases in recoverable reserves and huge drops in price, which in turn has led the USA to the verge of cutting GHG emissions in line with Kyoto anyway.

    Fracking is alive and the Chevy Volt is dead.

    Which brings me to my last point:

    I’m afraid the climate change crowd are now stuck with those of us who always argued that the relentless march of technological innovation, without targeted subsidies and government planning, would solve both the “problem” of ever-increasing CO2 production and provide the ability and the wealth to adapt to future environmental change – just as we have for thousands of years.

    Yes. That’s me again, about eight years ago on this blog, and all is proceeding as I have foreseen. Muhahahhahaahha

    So if you, Luc and Wat Dabney want to continue to chuck AGW science papers at eachother, and stats, knock yourself out. I’m not interested in continuing to fight a war that my side has long since won.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Yvette (2,786 comments) says:

    In other words, Mount Pinatubo alone offset all temperature increases from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
    So we just need some scientific/political arsehole to cotton onto the fact that war is not only geoengineering, also a means of population reduction that returns a lot of living material to the ground as fertilizer – a three prong solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Tom Hunter, Don’t think you can prove anything with facts , your proven smart arse “accurate predictions” & observable reality.

    The promoters of the global warming doomsday cult have MODELS !

    Beat that smarty pants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    Naughty boy Kea – your baiting me to comment further on this nonsense ….

    ….

    So I will. But merely to say that this “proposed” solution – and let’s acknowledge that it’s simply a discussion topic from 2009 among a bunch of scientists at the Royal Society – is simply another result of the complete and utter failure of the AGW campaign.

    Now we’re flailing around with Green Mars planet-sized sunshades? Admittedly this science and technology geek loves the SF nature of it but …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. burt (8,241 comments) says:

    In other words, Mount Pinatubo alone offset all temperature increases from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

    Lets hope we don’t get three or four Mount Pinatubo’s in a decade then eh… Burning coal and driving big V8’s for miles everyday will be fashionable again …. The impending ice age will dominate our media for a few decades then … Eventually a new Al Gore will arise and disciples will selectively publish poorly peer review scientific conclusions about man’s effect on the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    People who actually know what they are talking about seem universally convinced that we are affecting the climate.

    That’s just a liberal plot. The Bible clearly states that people who actually know what they are talking about are agents of the Devil sent here to mislead and befuddle the righteous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Oh I still think it’s as screwed a piece of “science” as I’ve ever seen in my life Griff – and I say that as someone who actually graduated with a science degree

    Domestic Science doesn’t count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    AGW is a con. No action is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s fascinating to see tom hunter post some fairly average personal credentials, dismiss an overwhelming current scientific consensus as a doom campaign and declare that humanity just needs to wait it out. Oh, and it seems to be the fault of those nasty Arabs too.

    In the world of rationality, many people still argue that it is sensible to pursue efforts to move towards a more sustainable human impact on the environment. Only a true Pollyanna would expect success from the initial attempts to address the problems. Sure, Kyoto has died and prospects of a successful revival seem dim. That doesn’t imply that efforts in the medium term to achieve low-impact solutions might be prudent considering their likely trivial cost in the face of the much higher impact and much higher cost of long term solutions that won’t move beyond a concept for many decades, if at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Bogusnews (473 comments) says:

    OECD,

    you are absolutely right. I can understand how some people however still think there is something to this given the poor reporting we have on the issue. For example, how many papers did we read about the UK met office releasing the stats showing no global temperature increase for the last 16 years? There is so much information debunking this nonsense that we are simply not told by the MSM.

    Then of course we have the Geobels trick that “if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.” Never a truer word said when mentioning the “consensus” among all the scientists that study this. From memory, the original IPCC paper that triggered this ridiculous claim had only 70 contributing scientists, and less than 16 when asked, agreed with it. But when did you hear about the 700 climate scientists who recently authored a petition rubbishing this nonsense.

    All I can say is, thank goodness for the blogs. The MSM becomes more irrelevant every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. UrbanNeocolonialist (286 comments) says:

    Yep, geo engineering is a fix for climate change. But its anathema to Greens because they don’t actually want the problems fixed – they want an excuse for controlling other peoples lives (like all religions and priests do)

    Want to lower the sea level? Just pump sea water up onto the central Antarctic plateau (would only cost about 1% of earth’s GDP)

    Want to cool the tropics and warm the temperate regions? Use millions of floating solar or wind driven pumps to pump cold water from the depths to the surface – can create a La Nina any time we want it, or kill an El Nino, again for less than 1% of global GDP. This would also make it possible to stop typhoons, hurricanes and cyclones – by cooling the sea surface. Such control exercised over long periods of time would probably enable us to reduce desert areas and generally improve the habitablity/productivity of other land.

    To put that cost in perspective we currently spend something like 3% of Worlds GDP on oil.

    Hopefully we’ll be able to use techniques like this to prevent onset of next ice age, which is the real concern now that it’s obvious that IPCC models have all greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that increasing CO2 produces (due to their erroneous and excessive water feedback assumptions, and their total failure to include the dominating effects of global oceanic heat circulation). Eg a mathematical demonstration of how far IPCC models have missed the mark (in many cases to the extent that they can be totally dismissed as failures using statistical tests):
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    What percentage of the world’s GDP is currently expended one fforts to control climate change?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    It goes to show how wedded people truly are to their disposable plastic shit that they could see this as a preferable option to cutting down on hydrocarbon emissions in the first place…

    Geoengineering sounds like a means of maintaining an atmosphere of ever-increasing chemical density and complexity at about a constant temperature. I wonder how thick and tasty the air would need to get, before the political right would acknowledge there was a problem?

    “No no no, we’ve fixed climate change by geo-engineering, so there’s no problem anymore, stop being socialist luddites, all you greenies. COUGH, cough cough cough cough. HACK. Spit….

    Repugnant or not, with the globe failing to develop other ways to halt climate change, geoengineering is increasingly becoming an option. The science and engineering are relentlessly marching on: Most research so far has focused on computer modeling, but some has started to move beyond — trying to test, for example, how to deliver particles into the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

    David Keith, a leading thinker on geoengineering, calls it “chemotherapy” for the planet. “You are repulsed?” he says. “Good. No one should like it. It’s a terrible option.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s going to develop as a more powerful political approach to something that’s many would like to put in the too-hard basket. I still prefer that we look at terraforming Mars – likely to be just as practical and cost-efficient, i.e. not at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    I wonder how thick and tasty the air would need to get, before the political right would acknowledge there was a problem?

    I thought the issue was the climate, not peoples political beliefs ?

    I suggest; you believe in AGW on the basis of faith, not evidence. You do so in order to identify with the political left, as you imagine it makes you look liberal and enlightened. But it does neither.

    If climate alarmists really believed in AGW, they would make it a climate issue not a political issue. They would be careful not to create a them and us mentality, for the good of the planet. Clearly they have not done that and breathlessly rant about America, big business & capitalism. Nothing to do with climate science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. nasska (11,277 comments) says:

    As Kea succinctly put it in his 7.01, if such a thing as AGW exists it has been obscured by the political Greens. The whole spurious argument was taken over & used as a smokescreen to introduce a concept of socialist world government.

    Shortly, if not now, we’ll see this proved as the proponents of a NWO abandon the good ship AGW in favour of something else they think will scare the sheep back into submission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    Domestic Science doesn’t count.

    Now that I laughed at!

    But on a more serious note is mikenmild …

    It’s fascinating to see tom hunter post some fairly average personal credentials, ….

    Meeee… Yowww. As opposed to all the liberal arts graduates who dumped math and science when they were 14 because “it didn’t float my boat” (i.e. they couldn’t do it), but who now lap this stuff up and run around telling people like me that “you don’t understand the science”.

    However, that response does sum up one of the standard left-wing approaches to almost any such argument: that qualifications and expertise count for all and more importantly, that one must not question your betters – until they start promulgating a cause the left objects to, like nuclear power or genetic modification. In those cases it’s any skeptic to hand and bugger the personal credentials.

    … and declare that humanity just needs to wait it out.

    Read what I wrote. Humanity does not stand still. We are solving this “problem” in many small, incremental ways, as shown by the NG revolution in the USA that has succeeded in reducing GHG emissions where all the rest of the nonsense pushed by the doomsters has failed. What I object to is the usual dopey left-wing desire for more government effort as the solution, in whatever form it takes.

    And as an aside on that aspect: doing nothing rather than Think Big would actually have been the optimal solution in that case, so I would not be so entirely dismissive of the former approach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. kowtow (8,326 comments) says:

    Scientists on the make is what this is. There’s taxpayer’s money to be had from thicko politicians who feel the need to be seen to be tackling a problem.(That doesn’t include Greens who want to control and manipulate the populace on the back of this alarmism).

    Anyway there’s nothing humans can do about climate change. Climate is always changing, currently we are in an interglacial,enjoy it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    As I said tom you have posted a very weak rebuttal of the science then gone on to why the solutions purposed will not work. That is the political expediency I was referring to. In that you have my support. I don’t support the movement to limit oil use. I have repeatedly posted that we In new Zealand will burn the coal we have. If the greens were real they would be crying for every river to be dammed for power not stopping one of the clean cheap solution we have available in NZ.
    As to the science its real it’s happening get used to it and most important plan for it because in the next fifty years the world will have to respond to a changing climate. There will be war, starvation and death not for us In new Zealand but the tropics and continental climes will find their food and resources shrinking at an alarming rate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Griff, climate change is a fact. It always has been and always will be. The history of earths climate has been one of constant and never ending change.

    It is wrong to assume that nature will provide a climate conductive to maintaining our current way of living. Underlying the AGW cult, is the mistaken belief that humans are a cumulation of something, the pinacle of life. We are not. If climate change wipes out humanity, it won’t bother nature. Life will go on. Personally I think we will survive as a species for a long time yet, though there may be big changes in our way of life in order to adapt.

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    You just came out with the Gaia hypothesis, naughty naughty kea we dont do that on the right :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. tom hunter (4,748 comments) says:

    … the world will have to respond to a changing climate.

    As we always have Griff ….

    The first 3 miles (4.8 km) of the 17-foot (5 m) high Galveston Seawall was built beginning in 1902 under the direction of Henry Martyn Robert. An all-weather bridge was constructed to the mainland to replace the ones destroyed in the storm.

    The most dramatic effort to protect the city was its raising. Dredged sand was used to raise the city of Galveston by as much as 17 feet (5.2 m) above its previous elevation. Over 2,100 buildings were raised in the process,[36] including the 3,000-ton St. Patrick’s Church. The seawall and raising of the island were jointly named a National Historical Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2001.

    In 1915, a storm similar in strength and track to the 1900 hurricane struck Galveston. The 1915 storm brought a 12 ft (4 m) storm surge which tested the new seawall. Although 53 people on Galveston Island lost their lives in the 1915 storm, this was a great reduction from the thousands who died in 1900

    Geo-engineering is not exactly new – but past efforts did not acquire such a glamorous title.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    Maybe one day we will see a blue-green conciseness evolve in this country were we build hydro and geothermal energy capacity
    Killing the RMA would be a good start Let the market decide on cost benefit rather than stop good development because the nimbys don’t want to scare the horses :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. RRM (9,841 comments) says:

    Kea (536) Says:
    November 2nd, 2012 at 7:01 am

    I suggest; you believe in AGW on the basis of faith, not evidence. You do so in order to identify with the political left, as you imagine it makes you look liberal and enlightened. But it does neither.

    Well I SUGGEST that your mother didn’t give you enough hugs as a small boy, and when you were 13 you got caught wanking in the toilets while on a school camp.

    So THERE, Mister I’ve-got-my-opponents-all-figured-out :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    news just in
    http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/bloomberg-endorses-obama-over-climate-change-5188267

    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has endorsed US President Barack Obama for a second term, citing the importance of Obama’s record on climate change.

    The endorsement follows the devastating blow dealt to the New York area by superstorm Sandy.

    “Our climate is changing,” Bloomberg wrote in an opinion article for Bloomberg View .

    “And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    American Presidents are not the driver of climate change. Natural process is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Griff (3,291) Says:

    November 2nd, 2012 at 9:13 am
    You just came out with the Gaia hypothesis, naughty naughty kea we dont do that on the right

    Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change’s deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were ‘alarmist’.
    The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening – just not as quickly as he once warned.
    He added that other environmental commentators, such as former vice president Al Gore, are also guilty of exaggerating their arguments.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html#ixzz2B0WPO2BL
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Read it and weep commies :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    The daily mail
    Tits and bums for weirdos

    The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening – just not as quickly as he once warned.

    If you had read his books you would put this comment into context He originally was talking total doom and gloom in a very short time frame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    Denial is the first part of the grieving process Griff.

    On your on the way to healing. I am here for you brother :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Griff (7,520 comments) says:

    A picture is worth a thousand words
    daily mail= http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/01/article-2226241-15CD1949000005DC-131_634x512.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. RightNow (6,988 comments) says:

    RRM (5,650) Says:
    November 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Well I SUGGEST that your mother didn’t give you enough hugs as a small boy, and when you were 13 you got caught wanking in the toilets while on a school camp.

    OMG! Is that what happened to you?

    You’re still my favourite lefty on Kiwiblog (although Ryan Sproull is a contender)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    She is representative of a typical climate alarmist Griff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Kea (12,448 comments) says:

    I agree RightNow. RRM has lifted the standard, of climate alarmist debate, with that observation. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. ben (2,377 comments) says:

    This kind of argument, which allows development while saving the environment, nicely separates actual environmentalists from watermelons. Hint: if you instinctively reject these kinds of proposals then you’re probably a watermelon.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.