The off grid was not because I am a green nutter it was because you can not run a power cable to a boat on a swing mooring!

I & others have provided links to numerous suitably qualified scientists. A number have written papers for the IPCC. They are not nutters and are not being paid by off by the oil industry. The IPCC is being paid to promote AGW. It is the entire reason for their existence and is the basis for an enormous global industry.

One thing I have been meaning to ask is : Do you personally profit from public concern over AGW ?

Yes a link to the denial echo chamber or a newspaper opinion piece that does not link to a source or paper is not valid science.
They are merely made up anti science and spin.

The science Of AGW goes across chemistry, physics, paleontology, biology, cosmology, as well as untold more specialized fields
To discredit the present consensus would mean the discovery of new information that would change the whole bases of Modern science

There are multiple lines of research that all back the consensus view global warming is happening it is man made and it is going to be a major problem in the not very distant future.

There is no flat line for sixteen years there is a steady rise in temperature see Foster and Rahmstorf The scientist and law makers dont go to the daily mail to learn about climate.http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

The current best estimate is we will warm by 3 degrees c by 2100 The impact of this is major disruption to agriculture, species distribution, rainfall, drought, health, economics , infrastructure, national and international security. You will see whole countries abandoned as no longer viable

Here is all common denial talking points refuted with proper links and rational discussion.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

You will not stop believing you rubbish
mother nature is not listening to your denial
It may not be this year or next but in time your views will be as unsupportable in political discourse as they are in scientific circles now

I am increasingly indifferent about links. We can all find a link on the net to support any position we choose to take. You either attack the credibility of the source, or the person providing the link. Usually both. That gives you three well worn tricks to avoid addressing the actual content or substantive points.

Ps Griff has lived of grid using wind and solar for six of the last seven years.
1 not a hypocrite.
2 has a better understanding of costs and down sides of both wind and solar in real world conditions than most
3 understands and has built and used modern electrical usage reduction methods like highly efficient h2o cooled refrigeration led lighting and Hybrid alternative energy systems.

Good on you and I mean it !

I am all for lessening our environmental impact and trying new forms of energy production and conservation. One of my concerns is that if (when) AGW is more widely discredited, people will be less likely to engage other environmental concerns. We do have problems with the way we are living and we need to address those issues urgently. I just object to those goals being promoted on the unsound platform of AGW theory.

Carbon price
https://www.commtrade.co.nz/
$0.80
The state of our present ETS
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/02/newzealand-carbon-idUSL3E8LP1E220121102

Some of us can tell the difference from last decades attempt to derail the ETS and the reality as it stands now. your numbers are a wost case scenario of $25 a tonne Not the present $0.8 two for the price of one

The weather will continue to get more extreme just as the extreme warmth of 1998 is the new Global normal.
100 year floods in Aussie 2011 2013
100 year drought in the usa 2012 2013 These events will be considered normal weather in twenty years.
100 year wet in the uk 2012 2013

Glaciers retreating, sea ice melting, seasons changing,sea rising,extreme weather rising,global heating,permafrost melting, rainfall patterns changing,

If we dont save the remaining amount of safe co2 emissions now when we do finally try to stop global warming we will have far less options available to us. it is better to have gradual mitigation now than to have to stop all carbon usage dead in twenty years.

It is not my problem as I dont have children or the life expectancy to be around when the shit really hits the fan.

Ps Griff has lived of grid using wind and solar for six of the last seven years.
1 not a hypocrite.
2 has a better understanding of costs and down sides of both wind and solar in real world conditions than most
3 understands and has built and used modern electrical usage reduction methods like highly efficient h2o cooled refrigeration led lighting and Hybrid alternative energy systems.

To date the cost burden on the average family of four has been estimated to be around $750 a year. This is expected to double over the next three years to around $1,500 a year.

Of course the overall cost of the government buying into the AGW industry is far higher, but they are careful to hide the true cost from those who have to pay it. Us.

So how is that international effort going, I hear you ask?

Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent. That means the new agreement is legally non-binding and covers only at best 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.propbd.co.nz/afa.asp?idWe…&SID=569083355

Published 28 January 2013
Auckland Council is looking at a betterment levy & inclusionary zoning as 2 options in its housing strategic action plan.

The council’s Auckland Plan committee approved the first stage of the action plan on 17 December and the council will post more information about the plan on its website at the end of this week.

The plan contains 12 priority areas & 32 council actions.

Deputy mayor & committee chairman Penny Hulse said on Friday the council was working closely with the Government and a range of external housing-sector parties through the plan to improve housing supply & affordability.

The 12 priority areas are:

1. Driving housing opportunities on council-owned land & property
2. Encouraging take-up of existing development capacity that is available to be used
3. New money, new thinking to secure investment and improve housing supply
4. Financing infrastructure, increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability
5. Value capture through a betterment levy
6. Inclusionary zoning options to be tested through the draft unitary plan consultation process
7. Regulatory processes
8. Improving the quality of existing & new housing
9. Papakainga & housing for Maori
10. Housing for Pacific peoples
11. More secure rental tenure
12. Removing legislative barriers

The scope of stage 2, to complete the plan, will be reported to the council’s Auckland Plan committee in March.

Expansion of land available for building does need the development and the building of houses on them to have an impact on property values.

The real value of building 100,000 new homes is the downward impact on overall property values.

For the first half of the programme – the only ones affordable for those struggling now will be the terraced housing.

There will still be some dependent on the Green option throughout the roll out.

Doing nothing but making more land available (not the same as development or building on the land) leads to the problem of what to do about all those who retire without owning property and who need accomodation supplements throughout retirement. That would be deferrring a rather large blow out in the budget for a time when super costs are rising.

Guess that means for every house in AKL, WLG or CHC they’ll have to build 10 in Invercargill – should be OK, as long as they don’t need anyone to live there.

Of course not.

Shearerpisos will live in the big house on the hill.

Because cheap apartments aren’t places anyone in their right mind would want to live, much less “invest” their “life savings” in.

A vertical slum full of people who couldn’t save money if their live depended on it. Sure as hell the body corp fees will be in regular default. Then the lift breaks down, and because there was no sinking fund, no money to repair it.

Don’t go out in the corridor late at night.

If Labour are going to keep spending like Greeks, I shall have to start calling the leader David Shearerpisos.

I think Shearer is planning to tax rich pricks for the short fall of 250K per house and subsidise the 550K house for 300K.

Yip, via a Capital Gains Tax. What will be interesting is how much Labour intends to spend from the revenue gained by the CGT. Of course, the revenue might never be as much as they are hoping. Then again, Labour never really gave a shit about lies and chequebook politics.