Prevent, reverse and/or prepare?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded there’s a 95% certainty climate change is human-induced.

There are several possible responses to that including work to prevent or reverse it, panic and/or preparing for it.

New Zealand contributes such a tiny amount to global emissions there’s little we can do to prevent or reverse it, but Climate Change Minister Tim Groser said we’re doing our bit:

. . . “New Zealand has been an active participant in the IPCC process. It is important that we contribute as addressing climate change demands collective action, and it keeps our scientists and officials up to date with the latest in climate science. This assists policy development and decision making at home.

As well as making an important contribution to the IPCC scientific process, New Zealand is playing its part to achieve fair and binding international rules around greenhouse gas emissions.

“New Zealand actively participates in international climate change negotiations and supports collective, collaborative action. We recently convened and hosted an informal dialogue to inject some fresh thinking into negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, by the end of 2015.

“New Zealand is committed to doing our fair share without imposing excess costs on households and businesses, while the Government focuses on jobs and strengthening our recovery,” says Mr Groser.

“The Government recently made an unconditional commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to five per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and maintains a conditional commitment to a reduction target range of 10% to 20% below 1990 levels.

“We have implemented the Emissions Trading Scheme, we are making progress towards our 90% renewable electricity target, and have launched the Global Research Alliance, committing $45 million to research ways to grow more food without growing greenhouse gas emissions.”

As well as playing our part in prevention and reversal we need to prepare for the consequences should the forecast effects eventuate.

One way to prepare for the increased heat and droughts which are predicted is irrigation some of which requires water storage.

Federated Farmers vice president William Rolleston has been calling for more water storage systems for some time.

He says the Opuha dam in Canterbury has proven to be effective in times of dry weather, and more opportunities for water storage around the country need to be sought.

Dr Rolleston says the discussion around a proposal by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to build the Ruataniwha dam needs to continue and the dam could be positive for the economy and the environment.

The Ruataniwha dam is controversial, because of concerns it could lead to an intensification of farming, with nutrient run-off potentially proving toxic for the Tukituki River and its fish species.

But Dr Rolleston says climate implications need to be considered.

He says farmers need to prepare, and water storage systems, like the Ruataniwha dam, could help mitigate extremes of climate.

Dr Rolleston says like the Opuha dam, the Ruataniwha dam could prove effective in times of dry weather.

While New Zealand has plenty of water, he says it’s not always in the right place at the right time.

“Certainly in South Canterbury we’ve had the Opuha dam for some years and it’s proven to be a real bonus for both the economy and the environment and we need to be aware that water storage can have a positive effect on both.”

Dr Rolleston says discussions about the Ruataniwha dam need to continue.

Ironically  the people who are most vociferous about climate change and adamant we must do something about it are often the ones who are most vehemently opposed to irrigation and the water storage which enables more of it.

They fail to see the benefits which aren’t just economic but environmental and social too.

Whether or not climate change eventuates as forecast, droughts have always been with us and will continue to occur.

Water storage can insure against that and should be pursued where at all possible, with the necessary safeguards to ensure that increasing the quantity of water available doesn’t compromise the quality.

65 Responses to Prevent, reverse and/or prepare?

  1. robertguyton says:

    New Zealand can do plenty about it. Groser is bullsh*tting. Water storage is the wrong direction to take.
    There- cleared up your misconceptions for you, Ele.

    Like

  2. Andrei says:

    The IPCC is in panic mode – nothing they have predicted has come to pass eg the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by now but we have just seen the greatest Arctic summer sea ice extent in a century – Hah.

    They should be prosecuted for fraud along with any MP that has alone along with this scam which has actually cost poor people in the third world their lives while these useless fat troughing dolts feed their faces at the expense of the productive classes who they demonize.

    The climate will change, always has and always will – get over it and roll with the punches

    Like

  3. Armchair Critic says:

    “Prevent” and “reverse” have never been on the table as serious or credible options. A little research (those five W’s) would have saved you from that particular Hooton-like misdirection, Ele. It’s minimize and prepare that we can still do.

    Like

  4. JC says:

    Farmers should be very wary of tying their water ambitions to the climate gravy train because it reduces them to the status of troughers on the public purse.

    Water storage is a good idea in its own right, make the case for it, sort out who benefits from it and let those people pay for it.

    JC

    Like

  5. robertguyton says:

    Andrei – I never delve into the details of the global warming argument as there in lies madness, but could you please tell me how the thickness of that Arctic summer sea ice compares with that of the past?

    Like

  6. Paranormal says:

    RG clutching at straws (or floating ice) again?

    Like

  7. David Winter says:

    The Government recently made an unconditional commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to five per cent below 1990 levels by 2020

    Oh, great, a “commitment”. How are we going to achieve that commitment? If we just keep everything as it is they are expected to more or less double 1990 levels

    And Andrei, it hardly matters but the IPCC did not predict the arctic would be ice free this summer, and this summer’s sea ice extent was not the largest in a century ( in fact, it was considerbly lower than the long term average).

    Like

  8. robertguyton says:

    Thank you, David. I thought as much. Para, you sound silly, talking like that.

    Like

  9. Andrei says:

    Don’t worry David keep believing your scientific double talk fairy tales.

    The jig is up hardly anybody believes this crap anymore – this whole business is sheer foolishness helped along by politicians who never met a tax they didn’t like,

    Anybody with a real education knows, for example, that the richest Roman provinces in the time of Augustus Caesar were the North African ones and then the climate changed (as it does) and those provinces are no longer the regions of great fertility they were

    And it wasn’t SUVs pumping out GHGs that did this – it was just the way the climatic systems of the world evolved about 1800 years ago and they have continued to evolve since then and will continue to do so long after we have turned to dust.

    And anybody who actually believes the empty headed chattering classes can actually control the way the earth’s climate is going to evolve in the near to long term future needs their heads read.

    Whatever humanities actual impacts on these processes really are they can only be eliminated by eliminating human activity and the only real way of doing that is to eliminate humanity itself. In other words kill everybody off and leave the earth to the termites

    Like

  10. jabba says:

    yeah Para .. it’s silly to suggest that climate will change .. always has always will. Listen to bOb, he knows everyting, always has, always will

    Like

  11. Viv K says:

    Climate change is bringing more extreme weather, such as the storm that damaged hundreds of irrigators in Canterbury earlier this month. An increase in intensive agriculture which relies on expensive infrastructure and huge amounts of electricity to run irrigation systems is an inappropriate response. New Zealand has one of the highest per capita carbon footprints in the world. That, along with this government’s obsession with increased fossil fuel extraction, means we will have no credibility in international negotiations which are necessary in the desperate attempts to try and keep the temperature rise to 2 degrees. Only on planet Key could anyone believe that a 5% reduction by 2020 was doing our ‘fair share’.

    Like

  12. David Winter says:

    Others can decide for themselves how gullible I am, or how important my lack of classical education is.

    But don’t you think it’s telling that your prior belief that climate change is bunk allowed you to accept, or perhaps misremember, the idea that the IPCC had predicted an ice-free summer and that this summer was among the lowest in a century? Both of which are not true, of course.

    Is it not possible the biases that led you astray here are influencing the way you examine the evidence for climate change more generally?

    Like

  13. Paranormal says:

    That’s not the evidence shown in the science Viv. We are not getting more severe storms. Suggest you also have a look at Miletti’s disaster by design. It’s not the storms that’s the problem, rather how and where we’re building.

    http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/disastersbydesign.html

    Like

  14. David Winter says:

    Yup, those are the stories you misconstrued when you thought the IPCC (and not a single paper) had predicted an ice-free summer in 2013 and that this summer was among the lowest in a century (rather than regression to the mean following the lowest year on record) . Neither of which are true.

    Like

  15. Paranormal says:

    Unfortunately Jabba, I’m not young enough to know everything.

    Like

  16. Andrei says:

    David you can twist and spin all you want but this is politics and it is not science

    The Earths climate systems are complex, non linear, dynamic systems with an almost infinite number of variables and things like Arctic ice cover never repeat themselves – each year is a unique event.

    Furthermore the future is unpredictable, there is a direction to time, the past is knowable while the future (except in very restricted and tightly controlled circumstance is unknowable)

    But based upon the Earth’s history of the past 5 million years or so it is a fairly good bet that sometime in the future the glaciers will be marching down the Rhone Valley again all the way to the Mediterranean and there is not a damn thing the UN or the IPCC will be able to do to stop this happening because the only thing they are good for is talking bullshit and bullshit will not stop glaciers.

    Like

  17. TraceyS says:

    So, David, if you are prepared to say that Andrei is wrong about this summer being among the greatest Arctic ice extents in a century, then you must have access to all those years data right?

    I have no doubt that Andrei is wrong – he may have been recalling reports regarding Antarctic ice which is greater than normal. It’s just that I would like to see those 100+ years of ice data for the Arctic if you don’t mind providing a reference please.

    Like

  18. robertguyton says:

    How thick, Tracey, was that ice? Just wondering aloud.

    Like

  19. TraceyS says:

    ““About half of the events … reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,” said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl today at a press conference accompanying the release of the report.”

    http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/half-extreme-weather-impacted-climate-change

    But do we know the size and extent of that “contributing factor”? And more importantly, what are we doing to understand the balance of factors? Where is the publicity of those other factors?

    In the meantime no one should be ruling out any response, water storage included. Of course it is hard for the anti-conventional-farming fraternity not to seize a convenient opportunity.

    Like

  20. TraceyS says:

    Not saying that fact re. the Antarctic is proof of anything Robert. Just keen to see the 100 years of data for the Arctic if David W has it. Long term trends are rather important to this debate don’t you agree?

    Like

  21. David Winter says:

    Tracy

    So, David, if you are prepared to say that Andrei is wrong about this summer being among the greatest Arctic ice extents in a century, then you must have access to all those years data right?

    Everyone has access to that dataThe secon last column is the summer sea ice extent, this years minimum was 5.1 million sq km (the 6th lowest). The long term tren in arctic sea is is very clear, an rather puts paid to the idea that climate is too complex to predict. All the chaos that goes into climate is still acting, but it’s acting on top of a very clear trend.

    Like

  22. Andrei says:

    LOL David, you throw up a text file begins in 1870 and ends in 2008 without any indication of provenance nor how the data was collected and expect us to be convinced? Phtttt

    Anyway I sought out the provenance and the rubric, such as it is that goes with the data

    How the pre satellite data was collected – no indication but from 1973 on it is Satellite married to the earlier data (how? who knows) and then there are changes in collection methodology 1978, 1990, 1998? We are warned however that the pre 1953 data is not particularly robust, Why 1953? We are not told, or I can’t find the explanation anyway.

    All very interesting to the leisured classes, I’m sure, but as a reason to make the lesser privileged forgo the benefits of industrialized civilization somewhat thin IMHO.

    Of course in 1870, when the data starts most of the Arctic was entirely unknown, the best records of sea ice extent are Russian ones collected by those who navigated the so called North East Passage for centuries (or to be more accurate parts of it since the complete passage of it wasn’t completed until 1915 or so). And the only two ice free ports on this route are Murmansk in the West and Vladivostok in the East, the terminal points. So sailing dates and how long the partial routes remained navigable were matters of interest and the records do exist going back 250 years or so. And I’m told that these records matched with their modern equivalents do not show anything alarming but those who have done this work cannot get their papers published in these days of highly politicized science

    Like

  23. TraceyS says:

    Thanks David. Labels are always useful when looking at data. What are they?

    Like

  24. Paranormal says:

    Andrei the pre 1950 data is essentially anecdotal with no real accurate measurement. 1950 to 1973 data is only slightly more accurate. That would be one of the reasons for the relative uniformity of data prior to 1973.

    Like

  25. Viv K says:

    Are you EVER able to comment without making stuff up Tracey? I have have never said I was anti conventional farming. I do object to an increase in intensive dairying because many of our rivers are polluted enough already, and yes I know not every bit of pollution is from dairying . Climate change is already having an effect on extreme weather events, it loads the dice. Do you want to wait until things are so bad that they can prove every event is twice as bad because of climate change? Or three times as bad? What is your threshold for actually admiting there is a problem with fossil fuel use?

    Like

  26. Gravedodger says:

    Viv you comment is kindly described as complete bollocks.
    Viv you are clinging with those who, having AGW modelling fail them, moved to Climate Change, a very natural phenomena that has been occurring since when ever and now are hanging your colors to the adverse event meme.

    Adverse events have been also occuring for all time, imagine the rainstorms that carved the Grand Canyon out of mother earth in the light of those recently filmed and broadcast world wide in the Southwest of the US.
    The windstorm you referred to in your comment was eerily similar in strength, direction and timing to one that occurred in the AM of a Sept day around the early 1970s. We were living at Waipara at the time and swmbo was required to take our two littlies to Amberley to the South and was forced off the Glasnevin Straight by a windstorm that caused visibility to reach almost zero and had large vehicles in its grip causing roadlanes to become meaningless.
    There were absolutely no Center pivots (allegedly the most efficient delivery system of water to pasture ever developed), but had there been, I am certain most would have suffered similar damage.
    New Zealands carbon footprint, another very convenient weapon for the anti wealth creating muppet policies of those you support.
    We burn minimal coal for electricity and that which we do is in modern and efficient plants, Natural Gas is the lowest emmitting of all hydrocarbon burning generators. We are the only nation state on the planet that generates electricity from wind sans any subsidies.

    Yes we have a large herd of ovines and bovines creating the entirely natural “carbon emmissions” that are a vital component of the Carbon Cycle( a fact I learned 60 years ago) and our human population is a very low density ( boy do I enjoy that fact).

    However your inane baseless comment perpetrates the myth you and your fellow travellers employ in the pursuit of electoral success and until the ever unquestioning media start anylising it for veracity, we will be forced to endure the rubbish (polution) produced.

    Like

  27. Viv K says:

    Climate scientists, you know people actually trained and experienced in the subject, have told us there is a 95% certainty humans are causing climate change. Yet so many of you, Andrei, Paranormal, jabba, Tracey, presume you know better. I’m 99.9% certain none of you are climate scientists, yet you want more data on Arctic ice cover and then to have a debate on what you have googled. While you are online doing your ‘research’, maybe you can find ‘evidence’ that tobacco smoking isn’t harmful and that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Like

  28. robertguyton says:

    The Left will win the election by a country mile.

    Like

  29. Viv K says:

    Gravedodger, you will be long gone when the worst effects make your grandchildren’s lives so much harsher than yours. The kindest thing I can say to you is don’t tell them that you think climate change is bollocks, it would be nicer for them to think well of you. Check out Graeme Dyer’s latest column, in most newspapers, ‘Its the feedbacks, stupid’.

    Like

  30. Andrei says:

    Climate scientists, you know people actually trained and experienced in the subject, have told us there is a 95% certainty humans are causing climate change. Yet so many of you, Andrei, Paranormal, jabba, Tracey, presume you know better.

    Then

    Check out Graeme(sic) Dyer’s latest column, in most newspapers, ‘Its the feedbacks, stupid’

    Graeme Gwynne Dyer the famous “Climate Scientist” – Huh?

    I believe his Phd is actually in Middle Eastern History which of course gives him great insight into non-linear differential equations which is what is required if you wish to talk about “feedbacks” intelligently.

    Sorry got to go, there is a nice Indian man on the phone from the “windows service center” who wants to help me fix my computer that is messing up the internet or something

    Like

  31. Marc says:

    So Viv, what caused the 1975 storm in Canterbury that was MORE severe than this years?

    Like

  32. Gravedodger says:

    Viv that was harsh, through no fault of mine it is determined that I pass on sans Grandchildren, you could not have known that fact.

    That said I am very comfortable that I have lived my entire life leaving behind an improved environment in all my endeavors to create my retirement.

    If there was no tax for politicians, no financial rewards for those on the gravytrain and no political power to be hoovered up from the ignorant voters. I am 99% no make that 100% certain the whole AGW, Climate Change and adverse weather event rort would wither and die in weeks.

    Al Gore and his thieving rorting co-conspiritors have ammassed enough money from the rort to “save a Somalia” single hande every year but he and I assume the others have just spent it on themselves. Just research Gore’s homes, his lifestyle and his travel footprint.

    One Pinatabo puts more of your poluting gas into the atmosphere than the whole world does in a year from burning carbon.

    If it could happen and the whole world stopped burning carbon completely, all methane emitting animals were killed, the world population plummeted to just the few demented, manipulative, power fed merchants of doom, and no significant change to the worlds weather and climate occurred, would those few admit they just might have got it wrong as their precious computer models have for the last 17 years have demonstrated over surface temperatures around the globe.

    I dont think so.

    Like

  33. Viv K says:

    Do I have to agree with everything else Dyer has ever said Tracey? Yes Andrei, Dyer is a journalist, he has written an opinion piece. You have already made clear that you are disregarding the statements of the climate scientists who wrote the IPCC report. For an actual climate scientist who writes for the media may I suggest James Renwick.

    Like

  34. Viv K says:

    Gravedodger, I was making the point that history will prove you wrong, my apologies for any hurt caused. Pinatubu released 42 million tonnes of CO2, humans release 30 BILLION tonnes a year. As for following the money, the top 5 oil companies made $137 billion in 2011. The bulk of the scientists who worked on the IPCC report, including NZers, did so voluntarily.

    Like

  35. Viv K says:

    Marc, climate change ‘loads the dice’ making extreme weather events more likely and more severe, it doesn’t cause them. Lung cancer killed people before smoking became popular, that doesn’t mean cigarettes aren’t implicated in causing lung cancer.

    Like

  36. Gravedodger says:

    Viv no apology required, as I said you could not have known that.
    The polution I was guessing at was from burning Coal not Transport oil, animal methane or all the other naturally occurring carbon emissions, that constitute a lifestyle that will only grow with advancing lifestyles.

    One bit of common ground we possibly inhabit is the destruction of rain forest in large part to grow biocrops, a sad event that largely happens due to state subsidised production incentives.

    Growing ‘corn’ for fuel substitution is a crime against humanity while many are starving in areas where governments incompetence and preservation of powermoves create needs that in bygone days mopped up grain surplusses.

    Like

  37. robertguyton says:

    From Ele’s latest post (emphasis mine):
    “Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy declared this year’s drought officially over yesterday.

    “Earlier this year I extended the official drought declaration covering the entire North Island and West Coast of the South Island until the end of September. This was in recognition that the drought was the worst in 70 years and the need for support would continue through the winter.”

    Like

  38. robertguyton says:

    This too, from Ele’s post (emphasis again mine):
    You have lost the argument, chaps and Tracey.

    “Federated farmers climate change spokesman Dr William Rolleston says the logic for water storage is irrefutable with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicting New Zealand could face a future climate of heavier extreme rainfall, stronger and more extreme winter winds as well as longer periods of drought.”

    Like

  39. TraceyS says:

    It is interesting to look at global sea ice. The recordings for 2013 are bang on the long-term mean (1979-2008).

    So there is less ice at the North Pole and more at the South.

    I don’t think there’s any doubt that human activities do change the environment. Where people appear to differ in their views is whether or not this is to a catastrophic level.

    Like

  40. TraceyS says:

    There has always been a compelling logic for water storage Robert.

    Like

  41. Paranormal says:

    Viv, sad to see you’re placing your faith in the corruption that is the IPCC. So how many of the greenpeace terrorists and WWF activists that contribute to the report are climate scientists? What are Pachauri’s qualifications again? It’s unfortunate you rate your faith above any critical thinking into what is being said and how realistic it is when compared to the raw data.

    BTW just how is that 95% certainty figure arrived at? http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-sausage-factory-95-figure-meat/ Now you should believe that one Viv, DOCTOR Judith Curry is a qualified climatologist. Just wait, there’ll be more to discredit the latest steaming pile that is the latest IPCC report

    RG – why do you continue to try and use politics as proof of science? To paraphrase Viv – ‘its the money stupid’.

    Like

  42. robertguyton says:

    “I don’t think there’s any doubt that human activities do change the environment.”

    Really???
    I laughed and laughed. Then I wept.

    Like

  43. robertguyton says:

    And compelling logic for not storing water, Tracey.

    Like

  44. TraceyS says:

    And what is the compelling reason for outright rejection of the practical experience of people like Ele? Academic knowledge?

    Like

  45. robertguyton says:

    Two things: her blatant and heavy bias toward the National Party, its Ministers and their claims and secondly, her track record regarding global warming claims.
    Mike Joy, otoh, has been on the button for some time now. I thought you had Great Faith in Science, Tracey? Only when it suits you, I guess.

    Like

  46. Viv K says:

    Para, you are right about one thing, ‘it’s the money stupid’. $137 billion in oil company profits versus 97% of climate scientists and those who care about leaving a benign climate for our descendants. Those getting rich are the oil companies and their supporters, not the IPCC, WWF or Greenpeace. You have to be truly deluded to believe that climate change activists, or scientists, are in it for the money.

    Like

  47. Paranormal says:

    Au contraire Viv, you are seriously deluded if you think the lies, cheating and bullying carried out in the name of climate change is for the good of the planet. There’s filthy big government money behind it. At least the oil companies and other corporates are beholding to their customers and shareholders. Al Gore didn’t care a jot that his film was a pack of lies, he’s made a massive amount of money out of the gullible.

    And spare us your bogus 97% of climate scientists mantra. It’s just another fallacy. the ‘consensus’ you’re referring to is politics, not science.

    Like

  48. TraceyS says:

    And only when it suits you are loyalty and committment qualities to be valued.

    Experts have their place. But they don’t have all the knowledge.

    Like

  49. robertguyton says:

    Your first claim seem random nonsense and your second, laughable. Do you know what ‘expert’ means?

    Like

  50. Paranormal says:

    ‘Ex’ is a has been and ‘spurt’ is a drip under pressure. Quite often sums it up really.

    Like

  51. Captain Fantastic says:

    It is quite clear that Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling, “Doom & Gloom, The End is Nigh” mantra is human induced. In fact the whole shebang is human contrived or invented.. Very short on actual facts, “facts” had to be invented. It is a very serious attempt by socialist, control freak, AKA greenie types to boss & bully the rest of the world. It had a lot to do with money, and thirst for power.
    Fortunately, the world is beginning to see past the nonsense. The green types have put too many bullets thru their feet.

    Like

  52. robertguyton says:

    That you dismiss expertise is no surprise to me, para.

    Like

  53. robertguyton says:

    ‘the world is beginning to see…’

    Ha!

    Liking this line of ‘thinking’.

    Like

  54. Viv K says:

    Oh for goodness sake Para, most governments are in debt. The big money is on the fossil fuel side, not the climate change concerned side, get real. Al Gore is one rich american and is no longer at the forefront of the climate change movement, people such as James Hansen and Bill McKibben are and they are not doing it to get rich. Some recent research (the consensus project) showed that 97% of climate scientists actually agree on global warming while only 45% of the public think there is scientific agreement. The deniers, like you and many others here, will be proved wrong over time. Perhaps you’ll be dead and gone and won’t see the anger of the young who will have to survive in a deteriorating world thanks to your, and others like you, bloody minded refusal to take effective action. Effective action is building a renewably powered society and leaving fossil fuels in the ground, not building irrigation schemes to increase dairy farming.

    Like

  55. TraceyS says:

    Laugh all you like Robert, but experts don’t know everything and a true expert will be the first to tell you this.

    Like

  56. Paranormal says:

    Self proclaimed experts such as you deserve to be dismissed RG.

    Like

  57. Paranormal says:

    For goodness sake indeed Viv. Governments are in debt but they’re still spending on this AGW rubbish like drunken sailors in a brothel. Captain Fantastic sums it up nicely. Sorry Viv consensus is politics, not science – you need to understand that. Having said that, as the good Captain says consensus is building against the liars and alarmists. As more and more of the dire predictions fail to fire people will wake up to this as just the biggest global scam ever.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

    Like

  58. Armchair Critic says:

    You are making stuff up again Tracey. Robert has, as far as I am aware, never claimed “experts know everything”.
    It’s commonly accepted that experts know a lot about their specific field of expertise. That’s pretty much by definition
    Ele’s areas of expertise might be farming, or journalism. Neither are particularly useful for claiming expertise in climate change, which leads to the question of why we should consider Ele’s opinion on climate change as more important, or relevant than any other farmer or journalist. Or, on the other side of the coin, why we should look to a climate scientist for advice on how best to apply fertiliser, treat mastitis, build a seven wire fence or write an article for a newspaper.

    Like

  59. Viv K says:

    You need to understand that consensus is a word that means agreement. 97% of climate scientists agree. The politicians don’t. Time will show you have been duped by the propaganda of the fossil fuel companies. Care to meet in 2050 and talk about it again Para?

    Like

  60. Paranormal says:

    I’ll talk about it any time. The ones being duped are good people like you. What we can talk about in 2050 is how so much money has been wasted on climate change that could have been spent on solving real problems. That’s something you and your fellow dupes will have to take responsibility for.

    The IPCC has been rotten right from the start. I spoke to one of New Zealands attendees at the original Rome conference who was stunned at the corruption he saw. Essentially the Chairman took the findings of the conference that said there was no proof of a link between man & climate change, and rewrote the findings to say there was. It’s been the same ever since.

    Unfortunately you’ve been led astray by the lies of the left blaming it on the bogey man ‘big oil’ when the real bogey man is ‘big government’. Follow the money Viv, who really has the most to gain from Climate Change lies. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not big oil.

    Like

  61. Paranormal says:

    BTW I’ll repeat it again. Science isn’t done by consensus, that’s politics. Science is done by rigorous testing and repeated results that prove an hypothesis. Climate Change fails the repeated testing providing results consistent with the hypothesis. Galileo didn’t follow the consensus thank god, he did science.

    Doesn’t matter how many people are paid to say otherwise, AGW is a scam.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: