Yesterday was supposed to be the first day of summer but the weather wasn’t co-operating with the calendar.
It got down to 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon with a wind chill that left it feeling even colder.
We woke to a light frost this morning but now the sun is shining and the forecast promises us a balmy 14 degrees.
Whoever first came up with the name ‘global warming’ made a big mistake.
What we’re experiencing is weather and a few unseasonal days isn’t enough on which to base climate science but the name ‘warming’ sticks and makes it much harder for those with genuine concerns about climate change to get their message across.
Homepaddock 
An excellent point about labeling and marketing Hp.
Those of us with sufficient brain function and a desire for knowledge to understand the massive difference between Weather and Climate, were always going to treat clear propaganda around research funding and its connection to academic fashions with a liberal dose of skepticism.
As the main proponents of impending disaster from Anthropogenic Global Warming were often the very same people who preached around “peak oil” and anti business in general, that natural desire to look for significant salt as was necessary to make such snakeoil sales pitches palatable beyond the status that had us reaching for anti vermin control enablers.
When failed politicians and very average academics teamed up with such fervor it was not very long before the cracks appeared to the sane that heralded the basic dangers from the facade.
If my recall is on target we were to witness now in summer 2015 an ice free sea across the Arctic, Hymalayan Glaciers and thus the massive rivers they spawn gone or almost gone by 2015 and sea levels of over a meter higher.
Now as we rely on realtime data that is little more than a blink of Gaia’s eyelids as predictive information on which to base computer models that are used to base the plunge to disaster predictions on, it is of little wonder that almost every prediction from those whose entire raison d’etre is founded upon has failed spectacularly to emerge
Both the weather and the climate are changing, in living memory(not mine) the American Mid West was devastated by prolonged severe drought that led to the “Dustbowl” legends, There is irrefutable historical evidence of the Euphrates valley being a veritable forest, The Sahara Desert likewise and there are many more examples of lesser moment such as a frozen river Thames, ‘Icebridges’ that created passage for pedestrian movement between Alaska and Asia, between Britain and Europe.
The rorts we are witnessing and sadly being taxed on, are just that, a tax base, predicated on oil and coal conversion from mineral to energy and evidently that creates an opportunity for wealth transfer and political agenda setting. created by the manipulative and born by the politically weak.
Consider for a few moments how things would be if politicians were not taxing the phenomena, academics were not being rewarded for producing alarmist propaganda and statists were forced to find alternative opportunities.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT!
Coal would still be overwhelmingly the main source of electricity, oil would be $70 a barrel and I was going to suggest the world economy would be stronger and more stable.
Then I remembered the political manipulators would have just been forced to find another way to survive.
Is Dr Jan Wright seriously suggesting the sea will rise by half an inch a year through to 2050.
Remind me again how much it has risen since the IPPC started this snakoil sales pitch 30 years ago.
LikeLike
Does this mean National is looking for the exits in regards to weather taxes? All other governments have called it quits, it’s about time we became ‘fast followers.’
LikeLike
Each of the past 3 decades has been succesively WARMER than any preceding decade since 1850. GLOBALLY the combined land and ocean surface temperature shows 0.85 degrees of WARMING since 1880. So maybe thats why the scientists called it that. Are you one of those with ‘genuine concerns’ about it Homepaddock?
LikeLike
Is this National government ‘genuinely concerned’ about global warming Homepaddock?
LikeLike
Even if Homepaddock answered “yes” RBG would argue “no” so not much point debating I would have said.
I took the post to be more of a n observation about the day than anything else. Of course some can read something into anything.
LikeLike
“Remind me again how much it has risen since the IPPC started this snakoil sales pitch 30 years ago.”
About 6cm but lately the rate looks a little lower. Sea level rise looks like a good thing cause the warmers say about 90% of the warmth is absorbed by the oceans.. they have responded by warming about 0.015C per decade, so more water in the ocean should slow this down plus soak up all that warmth pouring down on us at the moment.
Unfortunately we are not going to be able to murder tropical fish any time soon as it will take 700 years to raise sea temps just 1C.
JC
LikeLike
Backpaddock, Homepaddock chose the title of the post, she brought up global warming, I asked questions about the topic she wrote about. If she and/or the National party are genuinely concerned about global warming (and I would like to know the answer), my next question would be “in what way is genuine concern about global warming compatible with advocating for increased extraction of fossil fuels?”
LikeLike
Funny,
RBG challenges the use of fossil fuels, undoubtedly from a appliance manufactured using fossil fuels and likely using electricity from the grid – partly fossil fuel driven.
Question RBG
“in what way is genuine concern about global warming compatible with posting on this blog?”
Your high and mighty horse has run off and left you sitting amongst the daisies.
LikeLike
No Mr E, your ‘argument’ is as lame as your imaginary horse. Using your logic NO ONE living in modern society is EVER permitted to question or challenge the ever increasing use of fossil fuels in spite of the damage they cause. I also note that Homepaddock choses not to answer my questions.
LikeLike
RBG – can you point out any specific proof that fossil fuels have damaged the climate? And I mean proof, not vague unproven theories.
As for your “Each of the past 3 decades has been succesively WARMER”, the data does not back up your assertions, no matter how much you shout about them. There has been no warming for 18 years, and in fact a little cooling. Completely against the predictions, go figure. If you want some data proof have a look at:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.8/trend/plot/wti/from:2001/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.55/plot/gistemp/from:2001.8/plot/wti/from:2001/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000.9/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/rss/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.65/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/plot/uah/from:2005/trend
Even the IPCC has had to admit there’s been no warming for nearly two decades – although they do manage to bury it. Here’s a commentary: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/
LikeLike
Denying that the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuel use is causing global warming leading to climate change is common in right wing circles (the US Republican party being a good example).
After the 2014 temperature figures come in, you’ll have to find a new line from your ‘there has been no warming for 18 years’ one though.
LikeLike
“Using your logic NO ONE living in modern society is EVER permitted to question or challenge the ever increasing use of fossil fuels”
Rubbish
In passing, I discussed carbon emissions with an influential person the other day. No fossil fuels required to do that. It was a principled way of considering the issue. Unlikely your pollution supporting style.
Jeepers, some green supporters really need to clean up their act.
LikeLike
Is this National government ‘genuinely concerned’ about global warming Homepaddock?
Hopefully this government is ‘genuinely realistic’ about it, much like the Aussies .
The greens however, seem pretty relaxed about it at the moment, using Parliament question time to ask multiple questions, Norman 13 mentions in question 2 yesterday, regarding a blogger. Not a whisper of the impending doom they tout as climate change.
LikeLike
Ray,
As long as the left keep cornering themselves into using left supporting media, they will keep appealing to only the left supporters and continue to get left right out. It as repetitive as day and night.
Also Normans ‘one trick pony’ style questions are providing me with the good laugh. Apparently politicians should be “charming”. It is funny to watch him being sledged into the ground, seeing his blood boil before your eyes over apparent trivial matters.
LikeLike
I am sure Ele and those who generally comment here support the Government’s current approach to climate change:
-Weaken the ETS by subsidising polluters and allowing them to profit from through trading junk carbon credits fro Eastern Europe.
-Withdraw from the second Kyoto commitments and join the worlds largest polluters (US, India and China).
-While the EU is proposing 40% emission reductions and the US almost 30%, Tim Groser announced that NZ will aim for a 5% reduction by 2020.
-When major financial institutions are withdrawing investments fro fossil fuel this Government is opening NZ to exploration and subsidising the oil and gas industry, leading The Economist to note that concessions to the oil industry forms one of our biggest economic initiatives. While many countries are making genuine efforts to shift away from fossil fuel, New Zealand is embracing it.
-When questioned in the house the only positive action Groser can describe is our support of the Global Research Alliance into agricultural emissions.
Since 2008 our GHG emissions have shown a steady increase under this Government.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-progress-indicators/home/environmental/greenhouse-gas-emissions.aspx
Per capita we are one of the worst polluters in the world and now we are leading the world in our lack of action and increasing emissions.
For a country that had the moral fortitude to stand firm against the proliferation or nuclear weapons we are taking the opposite approach to climate change. It is actually an embarrassing and our Pacific Island neighbours are particularly appalled as the effects of climate change are more immediate for them.
LikeLike
Come now DK, we are trying to emulate the greenest country in the world.. Germany.
Admittedly we have a long way to go as we haven’t embraced dirty brown coal as the fuel of choice but we can but try.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is lined up to buy cheap hydrocarbons from the Saudis and others as the oil price nearly halves and green energy gets pushed aside.
Life is good.
JC
LikeLike
JC. we have a clear advantage in the clean energy stakes and I can’t understand why we haven’t used that to our advantage. We also appear to be favouring the research and advice of organisations such as the New Zealand Initiative that is stacked with overseas banks and oil and tobacco companies. Our local business people who favour the opportunities of a more sustainable and Green economy are being ignored.
Your idea of making hay while the sunshines with fossil fuel will end in tears: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/head-in-sand-leadership-is-driving-nz.html
LikeLike
“worlds largest polluters (US, India and China)”
“Per capita we are one of the worst polluters”
“It is actually an embarrassing ”
Reason 3153 why the greens will never be voted in as government. Silly rhetoric.
Carbon is a valuable gas Dave. So is Methane.
People are talking about emissions Dave. Lift your game. Drop the acidic rhetoric.
LikeLike
Mr E if you compare us to like countries in terms of wealth (OECD) our transport systems have a higher carbon footprint than most, our houses are hugely inefficient, and while we do have a high level of renewable forms of electricity production our incentives for encouraging households and the private sector to support renewables is limited. We actually subsidise coal and lignite to the extent it is a cheaper option than electricity.
Of course carbon and methane have some positive uses but it is actually all about balance and making sure the supply doesn’t exceed demand 😉
LikeLike
Weaken the ETS by subsidising polluters
Per capita we are one of the worst polluters
How glibly the word ‘pollution rolls off you tongue, Mr Kennedy.
A passing aquaintance with science, which you seem to lack, would show that carbon dioxide is not a ‘pollutant’.
Co2 is in our every breath. We breathe in 400 ppm and then exhale 40,000 ppm to keep us alive. The 40,000 ppm we breath out, can even be transferred to another human being needing CPR to keep them alive.
And you call it a pollutant!
The only thing polluted is your mind and the minds of the children you teach.
LikeLike
So RPG -, still lacking in evidence then. Situation normal, carry on with your crusade.
To help you on your way to discovering the emperor of climate change/gorbull warming or whatever has no clothes, have a look at what a qualified climate scientist has to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7-12y1GycI
LikeLike
“our houses are hugely inefficient”
I can see you are very concerned about efficient houses. How energy efficient is your house Dave? I know you principled greens like to walk the walk before your talk the talk. I bet you have considered yourself on the homestar system. Impress us all with your principled innovations…
LikeLike
“JC. we have a clear advantage in the clean energy stakes and I can’t understand why we haven’t used that to our advantage.”
At 77% renewable energy (2011) I’d say we were world leaders in the clean energy stakes.
“our incentives for encouraging households and the private sector to support renewables is limited.”
Ah.. subsidies.
“We also appear to be favouring the research and advice of organisations such as the New Zealand Initiative that is stacked with overseas banks and oil and tobacco companies.”
Fair comment. Its good to see you therefore have contempt for well funded foreign multinational conglomerates like Al Gore, Greenpeace, WFF and a zillion others whose only purpose is to indoctrinate the world’s youth and the terminally gullible.
Whilst we’re on the funding of these foreign plutocrats read this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/03/06/how-can-i-get-some-of-that-anti-global-warming-big-oil-money/
In truth there is a trillion dollar industry of warmers and their crony capitalists vying to steal subsidies of all taxpayers for their renewable scams.
Anyway, the bottom line to our Govt’s response to AGM is the same as most of the rest of the world, ie, its a giant scam that has to be managed for the least political fallout till it falls over like all the others. As with any Marxist scam its a long term project because the West is endlessly embarrassed by its wealth created on the back of capitalism and democracy and common sense and integral decency and laws, culture, tradition, religion, ingenuity, intelligence, history, geography, discipline, reason, incredible suffering, adherence to free will, sacrifice, ability to think of the future, resilience, education, curiosity and a million more things so hated by the losers and the Greens.
JC
LikeLike
JC says AGW is a giant marxist scam and paranormal calls the UN the most corrupt organisation on the planet, FFS you guys lead the way when it comes to conspiracy theories. Meanwhile Homepaddock remains silent on the question of if she is one of those ‘genuinely concerned’ about global warming.
LikeLike
Ray, you are right about the definition of pollution depends on how you look at it. Nitrogen on a farm is a very useful commodity but as soon as it is washed into our waterways it becomes a pollutant. Some people actually call this energy leakage and if it is harnessed appropriately it is good, if it isn’t there are problems. The same could be said of carbon. When too much is released into the atmosphere through human intervention we have major problems.
Mr E, making it personal again 😉 You may very well be right that I could walk the talk far better than I do. However, it is a little like the 1990 Toyota Corolla that I drive when not riding one of my bicycles. I could by a new electric car because that would be more energy efficient, but the old Toyota has already been made and there are issues around the environmental impacts of constructing a new car and the batteries needed for energy storage (I think we have had this discussion before). My house was built in 1931 but we have introduced more insulation, a heat pump, an HRV ventilation system, some double glazing and solar water heating (a topic of another past discussion). We also fitted in a wood burner at a time when people will still mainly using coal. Despite all of what we have done we only rate 2 stars on the Homestar system. It makes me realise that a large proportion of Invercargill homes must be even less.
Kevin Hague is our new housing spokes person and I drove him around different parts of Invercargill and had him speak to the Salvation Army about substandard and emergency housing. There is a lot of work needed in this area to lift our average standard anything close to much of Europe.
LikeLike
Dave,
Yep I made it personal, giving you an great opportunity to inspire us, expecting that I was doing you a favour. Giving you an opportunity to be Richie McCaw, to take the ball and to lead from the front.
Instead you have pointed out you are no Richie McCaw. More like the orange boys, reserve shoe shiner, having a sick day off, to watch a hockey game.
To my amazement you also pointed out the pointlessness of the game, with your shameful Toyota analogy. Why worry about building new to save energy when the extra energy exerted is a more than offsets the benefits. Instead you seem happy to pour resources into ‘old’ to still end up with a ‘poor’ result.
It kinda blows my mind that you would heavily criticise our inefficient houses then point out the failure of solutions. I guess that is what happens when you are heavily invested in energy inefficient. The solutions are just too hard and don’t actually work. Today you sound a lot like an oil giant.
For some strange reason this movie popped to mind.
LikeLike
Funny,
RBG asks is the government is seriously concerned about global warming, one week after a major, very public, PCE report on global warming.
Then RBG suggests this blog is full of conspiracy theorists.
Funny.
LikeLike
Mr E, the PCE is not a member of the National government. Your demand that Dave, Greens and others speaking out on climate change be able to live their lives virtually fossil fuel free appears to be designed to shut up anyone who is concerned.
LikeLike
RPG – did you want some proof about UN corruption – this has to be the prime example: http://www.economist.com/node/4267109
In general terms: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/
Then there are the lies and deceit all bound up in the IPCC reports led by a railway engineer (go figure). A quote: “the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published.” Go and have a read of: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-2013-ipcc-ar5-report-facts-vs-fictions/
The UN is corrupt on so many levels. Ultimately it is no better than the League of Nations. For background I can recommend you read the biography of Carl Berendsen who was the NZ diplomat that helped form the UN and who campaigned against the security council veto. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/4b25/berendsen-carl-august
LikeLike
RBG,
Such a sensitive soul.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is not a member of the Government ?
“appears to be designed to shut up anyone ”
Funny.. If you lose the debate, suddenly I am trying to shut people up.
Don’t blame me for your Hypocrisy. If you are feeling bad because you believe you are polluting every time you hit that button, it’s not my fault. If identifying polluters and shaming them makes me a bad person, what are you?
I’d suggest you suck it up, learn to chastise yourself in your own private way, when you commit polluting behaviours. Don’t blame others for it.
If you are trying to suggest, I’ve been tough on Dave, I don’t think so. I gave him a great opportunity to expose his green credentials, expecting I was doing him a favour. Sadly he failed to meet any expectations. He is chastising NZ and its people for having inefficient housing, and identifying us as polluters. Not only is he likely to be worse than average, but he doesn’t seem to believe in the solutions.
I think Dave bought nail clippers to a sword fight. He’s an Orderly trying to give expert medical opinion, with blood on his hands, at a High Court hearing. If you think I am going to sit and watch that, without politely point it out, you have underestimated me.
I have never wanted silence from Dave. I enjoy engaging with him, as I am sure he enjoys engaging with me.
From any radical green, I simply like to see a little humility, and sometimes a softening of the idealistic, sometimes bullying, approach.
LikeLike
“It kinda blows my mind that you would heavily criticise our inefficient houses then point out the failure of solutions.”
Rubbish, I don’t think that you understand the Homestar system, the average NZ house rates between 2-4 stars and many new homes would only get a 4. Our House may actually score a 3 since the addition of some retrospective double glazing. Our home is now infinitely healthier and more efficient than it was and is a palace compared to the old, poorly maintained and uninsulated villas that people still live in around Invercargill. Many Invercargill homes would struggle to score a 1 star.
“He is chastising NZ and its people for having inefficient housing, and identifying us as polluters.”
I’m sorry that you took that as my inference, my intent was to lay blame on successive governments that have not made improving our housing stock and transport infrastructure priorities. The standards expected of rental accommodation and new houses are well below Europe. An architect friend of mine recently expressed his disgust at the way a developer had built and positioned some low cost housing in Invercargill. These new houses were tightly packed in a limited space and the living areas did not face north to make best use of the sun and passive solar heating. Simple expectations can make huge differences in the energy efficiencies of a home.
As for my car: http://environment.about.com/od/environmentfriendlyautos/a/new_old_cars.htm
LikeLike
Dave,
I said you criticised our housing then pointed out the failure of solutions.
You said that is “Rubbish”
Need I remind you of the following comments:
“Per capita we are one of the worst polluters in the world”
“our houses are hugely inefficient”
“You may very well be right that I could walk the talk far better than I do. However, it is a little like the 1990 Toyota Corolla that I drive”
“there are issues around the environmental impacts of constructing a new car and the batteries needed for energy storage”
“Despite all of what we have done we only rate 2 stars on the Homestar system”
Now you are peddling backwards suggesting you’re not sure of you house rating, it could be higher. How do I take you seriously when you don’t even know your own credentials and care not to check them. I was wrong you haven’t arrived with nail clippers to a sword fight, you have a personally written citation that you are waving in the air.
Not only did you peddle backwards, you suggested you peddle on multiple bikes. Should I assume everyone needs lots of bikes? One for each arm and leg, just so we can burn up more precious resources and emit more ‘pollution’?
Strangely you still want to ” blame on successive governments that have not made improving our housing stock ” shortly after suggesting your own home is just fine retrofitted – possibly (who knows) retrofitted with new resources. And Homestar 3 is just fine – but not when it comes to the Government. How dare they not provide you with a home that is higher rated.
Its really hard to understand your point of view, when you seem to have one standard for your own conditions of living, but expect a much higher standard from the Government. Do you really want a government that spoon feeds you into lifting your standards?
LikeLike
Oh dear, Mr E, you are leaping to massive self righteous conclusions. If the rating of my house became the lowest expectation for our housing stock as a whole it would be a huge improvement.
“How dare they not provide you with a home that is higher rated.”
You often come to bizarre interpretations of what I say, I don’t expect the Government to provide me with a good home but I do think there should be a warrant of fitness for rental properties and higher minimum standards for the construction of new houses. We have much safer roads and cars because of the regulations around warrant of fitnesses, emissions, drivers licence standards and road rules etc. Why can’t we have a similar approach to housing when the quality of our houses has a huge impact on the health of our families and children. It makes economic as well as social sense.
LikeLike
Mr E, I haven’t lost the argument, the world continues to warm as CO2 emissions rise.
You have some weird idea that people concerned about fossil fuel use should not be entitled to comment about global warming unless they stop using fossil fuels. Using such warped logic no worker could ever comment about their job because they receive payment for that job. Doesn’t work that way (or maybe right wingers think it should)
Paranormal- one corrupt official and a global warming denialist site does not change the fact that the warmest 14 years ever have been this century.
LikeLike
RBG,
You are wrong. I am simply point out your hypocrisy. Not stating that you should stop it. Just pointing it out. If you want to stop because of that, it is not my fault. Perhaps just a guilty conscience.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Mr E, you are not making a lot of sense. You appear to be trying to construct arguments from side issues (often invented by yourself) rather than address the substantive ones.
LikeLike
Dave,
You want more expensive rentals and more expensive housing. OK. Very socially responsible.
I see now why you live in a 1931 house. You are determined to make house building more expensive. Perhaps you should build. Then you will see the amount of red tape.
Do WOFs really make things safer? Australians only test vehicles are vehicle transfer (decades for the likes of you), or as directed by Police, yet they have lower % killed than NZ. Perhaps their roads are safer, but WOF have not allow us to even the score.
Although I really dislike the idea, why only a WOF for rentals? That seems a bit unfair.
LikeLike
Dave
“I’m sorry Mr E, you are not making a lot of sense. You appear to be trying to construct arguments from side issues (often invented by yourself) rather than address the substantive ones.”
examples please.
LikeLike
RBG: “Using such warped logic no worker could ever comment about their job because they receive payment for that job.”
Actually workers do have to be very careful about openly criticising their employment. But then analogies of this sort are not much use anyway. Like RBG s/he him/herself points out – “warped logic” indeed!
LikeLike
RPG – you cl;early repeat the lie: “the warmest 14 years ever have been this century.” That’s only true if, like your brand of climate ‘scientist’, you ignore the middle ages warm period.
Or if we want to look for a longer, more realistic period that shows an even warmer period during Roman times: http://openyoureyesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Icecaps_and_Glaciers.jpg
Or then the killer blow to your argument – the graph showing we are at lower temperatures for a warm period and lower CO2 levels than ever before when looking on a geological timescale: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/geologic-record-shows-no-relationship-between-temperature-and-co2/
I notice you have still not provided any proof of the supposed link between CO2 and warming….
LikeLike
14 of the hottest 15 years since modern records began have been this century. Thats not computer modeling, the world is warming. Paranormal, I chose to accept the statements of the 97% of climate scientists who say that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use are causing global warming. You chose to go with the 3% who disagree. There is unlikely to be a link I could post that would change your mind (and unlike many regular commenters here, I have a job and don’t have all day to read online). TraceyS, no analogy is perfect. For another attempt though, consider a situation where parents are required to remove their children from a school before anyone will listen to their concerns. Mr E, fossil fuel use must decrease to try and avoid the worst climate change and your constant claims that people who are calling for reductions must stop using all fossil fuels, and anything made using fossil fuels, are illogical and ridiculous. It is a childish attempt to shut down discussion on the topic.
LikeLike
Sorry RBG, I had to laugh
“14 of the hottest 15 years since modern records began have been this century.”
Modern records – this century. That was brilliant. Are you trying to create conspiracy theorists?
“your constant claims that people who are calling for reductions must stop using all fossil fuels, and anything made using fossil fuels”
Ok RBG – you are right. I will change my wicked ways. EXCUSE ME – Greenies. Please use lots of fossil fuel technologies!!!!
I feel much better. Actually is that cooling I feel? Progress smells so sweet, or is that carbon from your place?
LikeLike
Modern temperature records began in the 1850s. Laugh all you like Mr E, but you, and all those who mock and obstruct efforts to take effective action on climate change, will be blamed by those in the future who will have to live with the effects of the global warming you scoff at.
LikeLike
Now you are just trying to be a comedian.
“Modern temperature records began in the 1850s.”
You might want to call it methodical temperature records.
You know – back when I run a weather station, records were pencil and paper, tipping out water, reading thermometers. No days much of the weather records are based on models. Records are a lot more frequent, computerized, some might say artificial. You might say modern.
LikeLike
RPG – Then you resort to politics and not fact. Consensus is not science. Further the 97% figure is bogus.
But hey, you’re right, as a true believer in the gospel according to the discredited Gore, you would never be persuaded otherwise.
LikeLike
RBG, as we know practically all national scientific institutions around the world support the climate science we promote. So do all the heads of state around the world (except Tony Abbott perhaps). This is not a conspiracy, the real conspiracy is from the dying throes of the fossil fuel industry and their merchants of doubt. Every time I have asked skeptics and deniers to provide links to the institutions or scientific bodies that contain the supporting science that they rely on it becomes clear who the real conspiracy theorists are.
I wonder if Mr E or Paranormal can provide a link or two to reputable institutions (not just one or two scientists in the 3%) that they would recommend are worthy of checking out. It used to be the Heartland Institute, but perhaps there is another one being funded by the tobacco and oil industry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
We have the new Zealand Climate Science Coalition that attempted legal action against NIWA
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10834154
LikeLike
“…consider a situation where parents are required to remove their children from a school before anyone will listen to their concerns.”
OK then.
The analogy is that;
(1) refraining from criticising fossil fuel until one has given up the use of it –
is like;
(2) refraining from complaining about a school until one has given up the use of it.
Sadly, I think that (2) is quite common – not to mention detrimental. So why does it happen? Well, I think it happens because we don’t want to burn the bridges before we are ready to move on. That is important because there is a high degree of reliance between the user and the school.
It is a useful analogy in that this is the same with fossil fuel use. No matter what our ‘beliefs’ regarding climate change some of us understand the intimate reliance on fossil fuels, not just in business-as-usual, but also in creating alternatives. Alternatives which may never be achieved to the greatest potential if the fossil fuel industry is killed off prematurely.
The other thing your useful analogy does is liken fossil fuel provision to a public service. And for that, I think it is spot on!
LikeLike
Here is a very useful word, Tracey: ‘Transition’
Most countries are implementing transitions away from their reliance on fossil fuels, the faster the transitions the more likely we can slow the rate of change.
I recognise that too much sugar is not good for me but that doesn’t mean that I should stop consumption of it completely, I just need to reduce it. It also doesn’t mean that I can’t talk about sugar’s harmful effects if I am still eating chocolate.
I think you need a more convincing analogy 😉
LikeLike
Every time I have asked skeptics and deniers
There you go again Mr Kennedy. Words of derision just dripping off your tongue.
Describing carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is just using an alarming word to promote your hype.
“Denier” however, is a calculated degogatory term, A catch-all term that implies that anyone who differs from your point of view is as morally reprehensible as those that “deny” the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews. It’s a nasty word used by nasty people to deliberately insult and demean those on the other side of a political issue, and advances the argument not at all. A bit like if I called you an “idiot”……Oh wait…I have. Several times.
I personally don’t mind it. After all it says more about you than it does about me.
Seeing you started the name calling….
Perhaps a word should be coined to describe those like yourself who worship the cult of global warming.
May I suggest, global warming “Gullible”
LikeLike
It’s not my analogy, Dave. It is RGB’s. Like him/her, I don’t think it is perfect, but what is?
You say that a faster transition will slow the rate of climate change. This makes me wonder what underlies that view. Is it ‘evidence’, as you often demand from others, or is it assumption?
More like wishful thinking with no analysis of the consequences.
LikeLike
Ray you’ve hit it on the head nicely.
OK BS ever heard of the Cato Institute or the Manhattan institute – who amongst many others say the science isn’t settled.
BS you should stop the lies. Here’s a Wall Street Journal article that gives detailed analysis of why the 97% figure is a lie: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Here’s a quote if you’re too lazy: Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
I would also reccommend looking to the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition denying (to use your pejorative term) Gorebull Warming: http://www.petitionproject.org
The real nasty thing this whole global warming scam has shown is the evil that big government money can create. The attempted stifling of academic discussion (Climategate etc.), the ruining of careers from those that speak out the truth (the high profile Bellamy case for example) right down to the individual nastiness that Ray points out above.
BS – fill your boots with nastiness, but think about all of this in the years to come when your second coming just doesn’t happen….
LikeLike
Dave,
What plans to you have to ‘transition’ away from your inefficient, pollution emitting house?
LikeLike
Dave, some weekend homework for you.
Read “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John P. A. Ioannidis.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
LikeLike
Paranormal, The largest organisations that oppose the science behind human induced climate change are not science based ones but directly funded by large corporations that stand to lose most from any restrictions in the use of fossil fuel.
The Heartland Institute was the largest and it was very secretive about its funding. It was backed earlier by Philip Morris to oppose the scientific criticisms of the health effects of tobacco and ExxonMobile has been a recent funder ($800,000).
The Cato Institute is closely connected to the Heartland Institute and one of its largest funders is Mazda and it had support from Philip Morris in the 90s. It is motivated by libertarian philosophies and the importance of free and unfettered markets.
The Manhattan Institute is another conservative think tank that is secretive about its funders but Exxonmobile and Merrill Lynch are said to be funders. The Manhattan Institute has been a strong supporter of fracking and have pushed the argument that the financial benefits of the industry are more important than the environmental concerns.
You take offense at my use of the terms skeptics and deniers for those who question the science around climate change, but Philip Morris used many of these think tanks to fight against the science claiming detrimental effects from tobacco use and secondhand smoke. Those people who claimed there was no health issue with tobacco smoke were denying the weight of scientific evidence that had been collected by many independent researchers over decades. The science around climate change has a longer history and a much greater weight of evidence.
When one tracks the funding from the corporates behind these think tanks to the scientists that front them then we find scientists for hire like discredited Fred Singer who is now in his eighties. It was revealed in 2012 that he was being paid by the Heartland Institute $5,000 a month plus expenses to promote their views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Also the lists of scientists who supposedly oppose the climate science have turned out to be fabricated. Many of the scientists listed have no idea that they are on the lists and our own Jim Salinger was included. Salinger was a lead author in the IPCC’s work that won a Nobel Peace prize in 2007.
Oil and gas companies are the most powerful multinationals in the world (they make up 6 of the top 10 and 17 in the top 40) and their influence is substantial. ExxonMobile is the fifth largest in the world based on annual revenue ($448 billion a year). Oil company lobbying power is immense and, despite their wealth, many countries subsidise their substantial incomes with tax cuts etc, including ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
LikeLike
“I recognise that too much sugar is not good for me but that doesn’t mean that I should stop consumption of it completely…”
If you are talking about refined white sugar then the evidence would suggest that you should stop consumption of it. The advice might be to cut down rather than stop, but then the advice takes in a lot more considerations than just the evidence. It takes in the practicalities and sociological factors as well – exactly what the advice in regard to climate change must also do.
LikeLike
Tracey, that was a great link and supports my argument well. It talks about the danger of funding influencing outcomes (Heartland Institute) and how the most inaccurate studies are the small ones. The climate science research is huge, multi-disciplinary and multi-national. The level of scrutiny and peer review is probably greater than most.
“a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice”
LikeLike
No transition Dave?
LikeLike
Mr E?
LikeLike
Again nicely ducking the point BS.
The issue is the scientific evidence you claim is either false or misrepresented by individuals in the sway of big government money. The nastiness from the left/gorebull warming believers against those brave enough to speak out continues. Your post discrediting scientific findings due to supposed industrial influence merely continues this. the real difference between corporates and big government money is that corporates are responsible to their shareholders and have to show a return on investment – a discipline completely missing from big government (and if your example is any indication – completely devoid of understanding).
DK said: “The level of scrutiny and peer review is probably greater than most.” Again more BS. Just look at how the IPCC reports have been discredited. And yet you believers cling to the naked emperor Pachuauri when he dissembles the clearly fraudulent findings of his report. As an aside isn’t it interesting that even the IPCC is changing its views to adaptation as a way out of the dead end they’ve painted themselves into. Over the next few years the politics will be very interesting to watch as they turn themselves inside out to match their findings with what actually happens in the real world.
LikeLike
Dave,
As above
“Dave,
What plans to you have to ‘transition’ away from your inefficient, pollution emitting house?”
LikeLike
“If you are talking about refined white sugar then the evidence would suggest that you should stop consumption of it. The advice might be to cut down rather than stop, but then the advice takes in a lot more considerations than just the evidence. It takes in the practicalities and sociological factors as well – exactly what the advice in regard to climate change must also do.”
Well said Tracey, which is why it is so frustrating that this Government doesn’t follow sound independent advice and has dismantled the main attempts to a manageable transition. By delaying action (until others take a lead) it will just mean having to make a rapid and difficult transition at a later stage.
LikeLike
“that was a great link and supports my argument well.”
Why yes, thanks, it is a fantastic link.
But your statement above also reveals your weakness – that of looking for support for your argument in the literature. This is bias. And it is the whole point of that paper…which you seem to have either missed or glossed over.
I’m afraid, Dave, that you played right into my hand (need I even point that out?)
I wrote the other day that subjectivity is human, but objectivity is a disciplined practice.
You have demonstrated ample humanness. Good day!
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816
LikeLike
“…it is so frustrating that this Government doesn’t follow sound independent advice and has dismantled the main attempts to a manageable transition.”
So don’t take your lead from the Government then. There…fixed!
The Government should take its lead from the people anyway – not advisors or special interest groups. You know, DEMOCRACY…
LikeLike
“But your statement above also reveals your weakness – that of looking for support for your argument in the literature.”
Tracey, I think you need to reread your own link and think about your own motivation for promoting it. The article talked about what contributes to inaccurate research and climate science includes most of the factors describe that would produce the most accurate research. These include the number of scientists and range of research involved, the number of international collaborations, the length of time the research has been conducted, the multidisciplinary nature of the research, the independence from single funders…in almost every case the elements that lead to inaccurate research is addressed in the way that climate change science is being managed. If you were to describe the ideal way of managing a scientific study to gain the most reliable result then climate change science would replicate it in almost every way.
LikeLike
Tracey, I think you need to reread your own link and think about your own motivation for promoting it.
which is?
LOL – you’re making your hole deeper, Dave!
LikeLike
The Government should take its lead from the people anyway – not advisors or special interest groups. You know, DEMOCRACY…
It would be wonderful if the Government took its lead from the people and then we wouldn’t have had the asset sales. But in reality I am not going to go to the ‘people’ to get a lead on what to do with cancer treatment or building construction. The Government needs to get the best advice from experts regarding scientific and technical matters. The Commissioner for the Environment and her office was appointed by this Government to independently evaluate the weight of evidence for environmental concerns, it appears they are ignoring her advice and the oil companies have more influence over their decisions.
LikeLike
Some Antonyms for ‘Transition’
decline
decrease
idleness
sameness
stagnation
stoppage
beginning
conclusion
end
finish
introduction
start
LikeLike
Put your head in the sand Dave, then you can’t hear anything, saves you having to argue.
Actually the whole head in the sand gimmick you are doing is quite apt. Ostriches don’t put their head in the sand to hide, it is a total fabricated story, so its very apt that you have chosen this made up crap to try and highlight some other made up crap. Isn’t it time you Greenies found another lame horse to ride, this one is getting you nowhere.
LikeLike
Mr E, as with Tracey, I appreciate your support for a transition to a low carbon future as it is definitely what we need to do because the opposite approach doesn’t read well. Having a clear strategic transition away from fossil fuels is crucial.
I can describe the Green Party’s approach, perhaps you can explain what the National Government has planned over the next three years (other than participating in the agricultural research that Groser continually mentions when questioned)?
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy
LikeLike
Dave,
“The Government should take its lead from the people anyway – not advisors or special interest groups. You know, DEMOCRACY…”
Ummm….. 20th of September ring any bells? Or have you conveniently forgotten about that?
Have you read the PCE report? It clearly says:
“1.2 What this report does not cover
This report does not include any detailed discussion or analysis of the following:
• Climate change mitigation
• Climate change adaptation
• Economic analysis of infrastructure at risk
• Other effects of climate change such as acidification of the oceans and increases in the frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts.”
The PCE has not delivered recommendations on mitigation – So no ignoring has occurred.
LikeLike
Southern, sadly so is this Government’s claim that they are doing something substantial to address our emissions and to counter climate change, it is a total fabrication.
LikeLike
Dave,
You don’t want to talk about your house efficiency anymore? Not interested in exposing your green credentials further?
Nope?
LikeLike
Paranormal says ‘think about all of this in the years to come’. Sure will, just make sure you follow your own advice as the global average temperature figures come in over the next decades. It would be better for the world’s people if you were right and I was wrong, time will tell.
LikeLike
DK/BS @ 11.48 – please refer to Mr E @ 8.47 & 9.49.
Have a look at the links in my comment of 4.26 yesterday for some perspective.
Just repeating the misinformation doesn’t make it the truth, no matter what your political doctrine tells you….
LikeLike
RBG,
With all that blogging you are doing, we might be lucky to see tomorrow 🙂
LikeLike
“You don’t want to talk about your house efficiency anymore? Not interested in exposing your green credentials further?”
A great example of creating a distraction thread Mr E, I have been very open about my house and you can even read about it in great detail on my blog. I would never say that my house is a perfect example of environmental efficiency but we probably do better than many.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/real-men-have-big-gardens.html
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/going-solar-in-south.html
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/big-southern-dry.html
Now about this climate change business… 😉
LikeLike
Paranormal, i guess it depends where you look for evidence 😉
https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C5CHFA_enNZ503NZ503&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Science%20of%20CO2%20and%20climate%20change
LikeLike
Distraction, not at all.
You have said NZ is a polluting nation and we need to transition to less oil dependency. To you it seems that simple.
You have also suggested your house is far from high on the efficiency scale. But you are reluctant to make any suggestions about transition. When asked repeatedly, you are either deaf to the question, reluctant to answer or really don’t want to ‘transition’. I suspect the latter answer is the closest to the truth, and this makes the obvious point that transition is not always a simple thing. I think, such behaviours parallel oil industry users, sounds easy but actually is not.
As you sit there reading this, you are burning oil, through the use of electricity from the grid, and owning oil laden products you are holding. Many would consider blogging a thing of luxury, not a necessity in day to day life. And changing blogging would help save emissions. Still this seem an environmental cost you are willing to bear. A transition that you are willing to avoid. A polluting behaviour you are willing to continue in ‘sameness’.
I’m sure you justify it with the thought that you are blogging for the greater good, for the green movement. I’d agree, but for me you have convinced me of very little. And I suspect the same stands true for others. Maybe if you ‘walked the walk’ better you would seem more credible to me.
LikeLike
I can now understand why DK and RBG are so panicked about this issue.. we just ran out of time to save the Earth!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/weve-got-5-years-to-save-world-says-australias-chief-scientist-professor-penny-sackett/story-e6frf7l6-1225806754392?nk=f1f6403e9ff891f406f9773da333433b
But us deniers know better.. at the same time in 2009 as the above Chief Scientist Prince Charles had a discussion with his flowers and then told the tens of thousands of warmers at the Copenhagen Climate Conference that the Earth wouldn’t hit the Tipping Point for seven years.
So keep pollutin’ folks.. we’ve still got another two years.
JC
LikeLike
DK – do you ever try thinking for yourself on these things? Did you actually look at the graphs/links I provided?
In your link it was interesting to note that Watts up with that was about third in the rankings. Interesting that your link was to a google search for scholarly work on gorebull warmening.
This one caught my eye as well: “Many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments agree with Dr. Hansen that 350 ppm is the “safe” level of carbon dioxide.” How many things can you see wrong with that sentence? It’s amazing you lot actually drink all this shoddy stuff up without any critical thought. Just look at the language used for a start.
LikeLike
Mr E, you obviously didn’t read my link to the Green’s election policies that laid out a good amount of a possible transition strategy.
There are many examples of countries and provinces/states around the world that have shown that a transition to a low carbon economy has economic benefits and is actually easier than one would think. It is these working examples the our party has used to help shape our policy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
As for your criticisms of my life style, that’s just petty nonsense and you are more than welcome to visit me and see for yourself how my family try to make a difference. Your suggestion that I should withdraw from society to be true to my principles is just plain silly.
LikeLike
Paranormal, my Google search was to show how that there is a lot of information on line and it is about what we choose to look at that defines our perceptions. We do agree on that, but I gravitate to the likes of NASA and national and international bodies, you support the Conservative think tanks and the odd scientist who agrees with you. No response to my 9:57am comments?
LikeLike
“As for your criticisms of my life style, that’s just petty nonsense”
What? Because I repeated your claim of having an house that is far from high on the efficiency scale. Or because I asked for suggestions on how you might improve your house efficiency. Or because I suggested using electronics uses carbon resources and emit what you call “pollution”.
Nonsense indeed.
Here I was thinking that transitioning was simple. I guess it is not so simple when faced with denial. Oh the irony.
It is really funny watching you try and point the finger in another direction but not take responsibilities for you own emissions.
What I was looking for regarding transition, was some comments about how your house could be improved further. Some examples might be.
Installing larger north facing windows
Injecting foam into wall cavities
swapping your wood burner for another heat pump (energy star rated)
Gap sealing doors
Installing double glazed aluminium windows
Installing PV solar
Collecting rainwater
Updating appliances with better energy stars
Install LED lights
Replaced older water cylinder with new more energy efficient
Wrapping cylinder
But instead you’ve got nothing? Nothing to inspire me. Nothing when I ask for transition suggestions. Nothing but denial.
Sad.
LikeLike
Dave, I’m real keen to find out what you think my motivations are. You seem to know. Don’t be shy now…I’ve nothing to hide!
what are my motivations? (and please don’t answer a question with a question)
LikeLike
Mr E, well done, you’ve sorted me out, but I think you have misunderstood my point. My house could be much better but at least 40% of our housing stock would be similar or worse than mine in terms of energy efficiency. It would be wonderful if all homes were as you describe but there are still an amazing number with no insulation at all.
Transition Towns have great ideas at a personal and community level and I also run a Green Drinks group in Invercargill that meets once a month. This isn’t a political group but a community of people who are into self sufficiency and green lifestyles. Most of the group are far more successful than I at lowering their carbon foot print. You should come along and sort us all out 😉 We meet on the last Thursday of every month upstairs in the Zookeepers Cafe from 5:30 (although we will probably meet on the 18th this month.
My youngest sister lives on a small lifestyle block near Tisbury and they have done all you have described and more (they produce all their own energy and are off the grid).
My transition focus is more at a national level where government leadership could help shift our transport systems to operate more effectively, set higher minimum standards for new housing and introduce warrant of fitnesses for rentals. Our Green policies I linked to earlier would also help shift our economy to a more sustainable one.
LikeLike
Tracey, you obviously provided the earlier link for a purpose (I thought you were supporting me), but when you suggested that I only took from it what i wanted it had me confused because I read the article and understood the broad intent. This is why I suggested that you review your own motivation because you’ve lost me again. Perhaps you came to a different conclusion about the meaning of the study…
LikeLike
Dave, yes I did. The purpose was to try and get you to reflect. That is being supportive I suppose. Reflection is good – at least it will be when you start doing it.
Why should I review my motivation on the basis that you are lost or, in other words, confused? Your confusion has nothing to do with my motivation. It certainly isn’t generated by my motivation. Your confusion has more to do with your ability/willingness to reflect. Own your confusion and you’ll know transition alright. But it may be long and slow.
I have not come to any conclusion regarding Ioannidis’ study. Let’s say that I am in transition. Why? Because I am reflecting on it in relation to my own research practice. That means I can, as not a climate change “denier”, objectively consider Ioannidis’:
“Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention.”
LikeLike
I wonder Dave,
If you have ever heard the phrase regarding getting ones own house in order?
LikeLike
DK – I have already answered your question, and will give you a fuller answer. But first, answer these questions (and there’s a bonus if you can pick why I’ve asked them):
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? ____cents
2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____minutes
3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____days
LikeLike
Tracey, what you have quoted is in regard to a ‘hot’ scientific field and refers to a competitive commercial environment where there are potential financial returns for leading that field. Any finding that hints at a new discovery is immediately promoted to gain a competitive edge, generally without proper scrutiny, hence the potential unreliability. This cannot be compared to the majority of climate science which has been ongoing for decades and is not in a competitive environment but a collaborative one.
Mr E, almost 50% of New Zealand households are in rented accommodation and I should think that if the minimal standard of rental housing was that of my own humble home then probably half of all rentals would need attention (25% overall). That would make a huge difference to energy consumption and the health of many children.
It is a bizarre approach to attack me because my home isn’t a model one environmentally when I suggested that the average standard of New Zealand homes is below the OECD average. I have no right to say such things if my own home isn’t perfect? Nonsense!
LikeLike
Paranormal, I will humour you despite the risk of trickery and ridicule:
1) 5 cents
2) 5 minutes
3) 47 days
LikeLike
Dave @11.31am. This is hopelessly naive! Bias arises for more than just commercial reasons. It arises any time someone sets out to prove a point. This is relevant to climate science and if you don’t believe that then you are perhaps a ‘denier’ yourself.
LikeLike
Tracey, questioning someones intellectual credibility is not an argument. I read the article and your attempt to use it to question the huge breadth of climate science is actually naive. The article was specifically related to medicine (not climate science or science in general), a highly competitive field both professionally and commercially.
The summary provided examples of what contributes to inaccurate research actually support the fact that climate science does not have the same pressures as medicine and its longitudinal and collaborative nature would logically produce more accurate outcomes. I’m sorry but linking to that article was an ‘own goal’ on your behalf.
I hope that you also appreciate that climate scientists tend to be very conservative in their predictions and over the last twenty years the rate of change has been far greater than the predictions.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/
LikeLike
I’m not doing either of those things, Dave. What I am doing is simply putting it to you (or anyone else) that climate science is not immune from these problems. In a recent opinion interview, Ioannidis says “All scientific fields face challenges, but they have adopted safeguards to different extents”.* Clearly he is not just talking about medical science. Quite possibly, climate science is one of the scientific fields which faces (at least some) challenges with bias and other problems. Only a denialist would disagree.
Ioannidis proposes a “credibility estimate” but you’re already one step ahead of him with your knowledge that all is good with climate change research.
I might have scored an “own goal”…really don’t care. But you’re yet to even pick up the ball.
*http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429960.400-10-years-ago-science-was-broken–im-making-it-better.html
LikeLike
“you’re yet to even pick up the ball.”
Sorry Tracey, you’ve lost me again, which ball and why have I dropped it?
The view that climate scientists are exaggerating the seriousness of the data or their findings are inaccurate is not brought out in the evidence. As I have said before most climate scientists have been cautious and conservative with their predictions and the extent of changing weather patterns, rising sea levels and even temperature increases (2014 will the hottest on record). If there is any inaccuracies, things are actually far worse than they say.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/04/368533781/2014-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-u-n-weather-agency-says?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=science
It also seems that many here, including yourself, are questioning the motivation of climate scientists. Most aren’t wealthy and most work for state funded bodies where their jobs are fairly secure. I have met James Hansen personally and it is obvious that his motivations are genuine and he is honest about his message. Here is what I wrote about him when he spoke in Gore a couple three years ago:
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/gore-hosts-hansen.html
LikeLike
I really hoped you’d come back and say that you do see some of the potential challenges in climate science (as outlined by Ioannidis). On the contrary, you appear to consider climate science exempt.
It almost certainly is not.
“The view that climate scientists are exaggerating the seriousness of the data or their findings are inaccurate is not brought out in the evidence.”
Have you any idea how circular that statement of yours is?
“…for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
That is worthy of serious consideration and discussion. Not door slamming and crying “personal attack” as you do!
LikeLike
As someone with a science degree it is extremely tiresome to read over and over TraceyS’s claims that we can’t accept what the huge majority of peer reviewed published papers on climate science report because science is about asking questions and there are some areas where bias occurs. (And I am paraphrasing you TraceyS, so don’t bother demanding that I provide you with exact quotes.) I am guessing that you (and paranormal) are not a scientists and that your objections to climate science are political, or business related, not science based. Yes there is a small chance that the IPCC reports are wrong ( though they are based on thousands of actual observations and measurements and the laws of physics) but we are risking extremely serious consequences for everyone living in the 2nd half of this century if we ignore the warnings. The whole f*cking issue is about risk and consequences! So you are prepared to risk condemning everyone’s kids and grandkids to living on a planet with a 2 to 4 degrees temperature rise? Well, I hope that one day those kids find out who you are and the way you were prepared to gamble with their future.
LikeLike
^ RBG aptly demonstrates the vast difference between being “someone with a science degree” and being a scientist.
“I hope that one day those kids find out who you are and the way you were prepared to gamble with their future.”
I am not gambling with anyone’s future any more than you are RBG. We are both committed fossil fuel users as I understand it. And what I have pointed out here in these comments is quite reasonable – not in the least extreme.
Anyway, that sounds awfully like a threat. Also proves having a degree smart.
LikeLike
* Also proves having a degree *does not equal* smart.
LikeLike
Tracey, returning to a discredited argument shows an extraordinary level of stubbornness. To question the huge mass of climate science, covering a multitude of disciplines, over decades, with a sentence from a minor piece of research mainly related to a totally different field is just plain ridiculous.
With such a large body of data and evidence, the general thrust of climate science cannot be discounted by claiming the odd bit may not be accurate and in most cases the conclusions drawn have been very conservative. The ‘credibility estimate’ has been applied to climate science with great energy for some time because most countries are reluctant to face up to what has been discovered for many years and it has now reached a point where ongoing denial and obfuscation can’t continue.
The theory of human induced climate change was first considered 118 years ago by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius and the first convincing scientific evidence started to be established in the 30’s. This is no random, half baked theory, it is practically as sound as the theory that the world isn’t flat and the accumulated evidence over time just keeps confirming the original hypothesis.
This isn’t door slamming on my behalf, just frustration that many people are so willing to allow corporate and political spin to influence their views above science.
LikeLike
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/
LikeLike
I think this has been a funny conversation. My past life was science. And it seems that people think science is a pure thing. It is not. All science needs money and a major chunk is NZ is commercial funding. For many CRIs they are facing at least 50% commercial funding. Commercial funding puts outcome pressure on science . It is an unavoidable outcome.
Then there is tax payer funded science, and some might think this is pure. It is far from the case. Scientists write find applications to suit the needs/lean of the government on the day. I think outcomes are influence not so much during the science but during the application process. Scientists are directed on what outcomes achieve funding and what does not.
Some of you might think I am suggesting science is crooked. That is not the case. I’ve simply been privy to many examples of political and commercial influence.
If this sounds bad to you, fair not. It still think scientists are generally a lot more moral than politicians.
LikeLike
“Extraordinary level of stubbornness”? Gee thank you Dave. Although there has been nothing said here which “discredited” my assertions. And I prefer “persistent”, but will take stubborn. At least it is better than “denier”.
As an aside, how on earth can you figure that someone as stubborn as me can be docile enough to allow “corporate and political spin to influence their views above science”? If I choose to take it as such, the last bit is a huge insult, but I’ll pass on that thanks.
So, let me deal with your other claims:
1) “To question the huge mass of climate science…with a sentence from a minor piece of research mainly related to a totally different field…”
Firstly, this is a blog for goodness sake. Single sentences are entirely appropriate! Secondly, it is not a ‘minor’ piece of research, and thirdly, the phenomenon of bias is not field-specific (you really do think climate change research is immune from bias don’t you?)
2) “The ‘credibility estimate’ has been applied to climate science with great energy for some time…”
Pick a study and show me the measure. Or is this just more of a gut-feely thing?
3) “…ongoing denial and obfuscation can’t continue.”
Can’t, as in CAN NOT continue. Plenty of hard evidence to refute that one. They’re here to stay!
4) “This is no random, half baked theory…”
Who said it was? I haven’t used those words or any like them.
5) “…accumulated evidence over time just keeps confirming the original hypothesis.”
What hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable. And the amount of warming attributable to human activity should be able to be predicted at x level of confidence. After all these years and studies, can it be?
6) “…it is practically as sound as the theory that the world isn’t flat …”
You really think the world not being flat is a theory? Oh goodness me! This is a fact. Facts, theories, and hypotheses are ALL different, yet you use them interchangeably. Wikipedia has a good article or two on the differences.
When you’re schooled-up we’ll chat again.
LikeLike
“Some of you might think I am suggesting science is crooked.”
Of course not, Mr E*. It can be dealt with by keeping all that understanding in cognisance when interpreting studies.
In all fields except climate change…where there is no need for such because all the thinking has apparently been done for you.
*except where there is intention to deceive.
LikeLike
That is a good way to approach the science of climate change, Mr E. Science is not pure, it may have honest intentions and sound process but because it is dependent on people it is tainted by human involvement. Science is never 100% certain and is heavily reliant on the weight of evidence and probability. There is a huge amount of evidence that gravity exists and therefore few will argue the toss over it as a reality. We only have to compare the two sides in the climate debate to see, based on evidence and probability, which is most likely to be true.
Climate Change has limited human cause:
– a much smaller % of scientists and science institutions support this.
-The main institutions that support this theory are not scientific ones but conservative think tanks that try to keep their funders secret and are actually largely funded by corporate interests including oil comapnies.
-The physical evidence of a rapid increase of extreme weather is hard to ignore.
-Lord Monckton is a leading skeptic, he is not a scientist, it is doubtful that he is a proper lord, many scientists he quotes claim that he misrepresents their work. http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-scientists-own-work-part1.html
-The highest earning companies in the world have the most to lose if there is any serious restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
Climate change is enormously influenced by human activity:
-Most national scientific bodies support the science (including NASA) http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18730
-The large majority of climate scientists support the finding that GHGs, through human activity, are seriously damaging our atmosphere.
-Most heads of state publicly support this.
-Most climate scientists work collaboratively and are not influenced by financial gain.
-The weight of evidence and data has considerably increased over the years.
– Major investors are pulling out off their oil company investments. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change
-Insurance companies are preparing for the effects of climate change
-The World Bank is promoting action. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/22/rockefeller-heirs-divest-fossil-fuels-climate-change
LikeLike
Here’s what scientists have told us over the last century about climate change:
There are dozens of actual quotes here so have a read and a laugh.. and here’s a couple below:
Hansen is always good for a laugh..
“[In New York City by 2008] The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Why? Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up… Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” -James Hansen testimony before Congress in June 1988″
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we
can’t.” —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, Climategate e-mail, disclosed Oct. 12, 2009″
Phyll Jones on the scientific method:
“…We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it…” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004”
““I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information
Act.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, Feb. 21, 2005
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008 (AR4 was the 4th Climate Assessment report released by the IPCC in 2007)”
“…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip…” —Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008″
On preserving all the raw scientific data so that other scientists can make their own evaluations..
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.” —Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, declaring that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011″
Read and enjoy the rest on our scientific heroes over the decades.
JC
LikeLike
I did have a good laugh from this
flight of fancybullshit from Mr Kennedy earlier in the thread.I hope that you also appreciate that climate scientists tend to be very conservative in their predictions and over the last twenty years the rate of change has been far greater than the predictions.
Thank you JC for a dose of reality.
LikeLike
Interesting DK – http://bigthink.com/praxis/a-three-question-math-quiz-that-predicts-whether-you-believe-in-god
My question related to the lack of critical thought you apply to accepting the climate science you believe in.
As for those vaunted institutions you worship – what possible desire would they have to perpetuate their big government funding? To ignore Climategate is to condone the behavior.
Interesting isn’t it that a part of NASA is promoting all sorts of climate change disaster but other parts are producing data that is most inconvenient for the climate doomsayers. The latest being the deep ocean temperature data that made mincemeat of the latest excuses for the ‘pause’ in warming.
RPG – misguided and incorrect again. I have a science background having majored in science at school and University. My realisation Gorebull Warming was a scam came from an understanding of climate science and talking to individual scientists back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. (Michael Crightons book was also interesting at that time). My job at that time aligned with significant scientific endeavour and I had great opportunities to discuss these issues and others first hand with some extremely intelligent people. Your accusations are laughable when you consider Cliamte Change is now firmly in the region of political endeavour than anything scientific.
For that matter you need to do some study yourself on Risk Management before you start pushing the BS around having to ‘do something'(tm).
Having seen the lies grow wilder and predictions unravel (thanks JC) it is even clearer gorebull Warming/Climate Change or whatever is nothing more than a scam.
LikeLike
JC, Ray and Paranormal when I have asked for examples of credible institutions who promote an alternative view to mainstream climate change science, all I have received from you are links to single items of research (some not even related directly to climate science) and think tanks funded by oil companies.
You imply that global warming and climate change are scams and yet the global recession was the result of fraudulent and dishonest behaviour (motivated by greed) caused by the very companies that are funding the climate science opposition. Yet you guys trust them and suggest the following institutions that support the science are part of a scam:
The UN
The World Bank
Most national science institutions
Forbes
Most Governments
If climate science is a scam, and all of these institutions are part of it, then who the hell is on your side? Perhaps some of those listed here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
LikeLike
It seems that science can’t be trusted but corporate interests and market forces can.
LikeLike
It seems that science can’t be trusted but corporate interests and market forces can.
Nope not even near the mark, Mr Kennedy.
Its common sense people trust.
LikeLike
Correct Ray.
DK – you just don’t get it. That’s fine, that’s your choice.
Part of your issue is you are so wrapped up in ideology I doubt you will ever see it. Take your comment above about the cause of the GFC. Way off the mark but never mind – it fits the socialist meme. That’s why the world is so close to a second GFC, simply because the socialists can’t bear the truth so have never bothered fixing the problems that caused the GFC.
I will restate that you are happy playing the man and not the ball in typical leftist nastiness. Your comments above and previously about Monkton are di rigueur for the cause. Discredit the man rather than the message. What about Dr Judith Curry, David Bellamy, Dr Patrick Moore and other high profile thinkers that in your words deny climate change? Just a casual flick through Watts Up With That should at least get anyone thinking, but not the true believers obviously.
LikeLike
Ray, informed common sense?
Paranormal, You have avoided my question and continued to name individuals. for every one you can name I could name 10. Dr Curry actually supports most of climate science but has been critical of some aspects of the process, David Bellamy is a botanist and based his views on the discredited Fred Singer and Dr Moore was a respected astronomer. Monckton discredits himself without my help. It doesn’t make sense that you feel you can name these individuals to discredit discredit the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society. That is why I challenged you to provide a list of respected institutions that have done a thorough assessment of the science and support your view.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/
LikeLike
Hey Dave Kennedy, google George Monbiot debates climate change with David Bellamy, it will cheer you up after the whatsupwiththat links.
LikeLike
Dave says: “Dr Curry actually supports most of climate science but has been critical of some aspects of the process”
Judith Curry comments (on Ioannidis’ work): “…groups such as the IPCC that are conducting assessments are subject to the same issues raised by the 6 corollaries.”
Here are the six corollaries:
Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“So what to do about this situation? There are no simple solutions, but the recommendations made by Ioannidis in the Scientific American article are a good start.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/
LikeLike
“…for every one you can name I could name 10.”
Word of Tomorrow: One-upmanship
LikeLike
“Word of Tomorrow: One-upmanship”
And here is the ultimate in that theme. The UN is running a poll on world wide concerns.. so far 6.4 million people have responded and of the 16 concerns expressed by the populations of the world climate change comes in dead last. You can sieve for age groups and gender but the results dont change.. the world knows its being sold a pup by the crooks of climate change.
http://data.myworld2015.org/
Not surprisingly those millions place education first.. its their main defense against the scammers who pollute the Earth.
JC
LikeLike
Tracey, Dr Judith Curry does not disagree with the majority view of climate science and her criticisms have some validity. She does think that the rate of change isn’t as great as most scientists do, but then again the predictions of the majority have actually underestimated the rate of change. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/
I should be able to name ten for every one against because the number of scientists in broad agreement about climate change out number the others by more than 10 to 1. Not one-upmanship, just fact.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
RBG, thanks there are numerous pages that set the record straight. While Bellamy is a lovable frontman for nature programmes, his scientific credibility is minimal outside his field of expertise. Even the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts that he once led has distanced itself from his views.
“Part of your issue is you are so wrapped up in ideology”
For anyone to claim that the World Bank, Forbes and the Royal Academy are promoting leftist ideology and the likes of the Heartland Institute and Lord Monckton know best is beyond logic.
LikeLike
Dave,
Some things worry me in that article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/
“What the new study does is attempt to change the angle of attack on the sensitivity problem. It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates — the behavior of clouds — into a strength.”
“…scientists have had a hard time representing cloud behavior in models, in part because there is little high-quality data on cloud behavior.”
“The trick here is we’re not using any trends…”
“We’re trying to get at the processes that drive sensitivity, instead of observing the actual changes themselves.”
“To get around the problem…”
“For years we’ve been trying to find relationships between quantities we can measure and climate sensitivity in order to narrow the plausible range for climate sensitivity.”
Things that do not worry me at all in that article:
“If the new results are correct…”
“The results are promising, Fasullo said, but he also sounded a note of caution.”
Promise, I am afraid, does not equal Proof.
LikeLike
Tracey, the things that have got worse faster than predicted are like extreme weather patterns, Arctic ice melt and the levels of GHG entering the atmosphere. You appear to be buying into the Merchants of Doubt spin. If you question the accuracy of some aspects of the science (and this will always be possible) you can discredit the bulk. This was attempted by many of the same scientists and institutions to discredit the science behind tobacco smoking and the effects of CFCs on the Ozone Layer.
LikeLike
“The UN is running a poll on world wide concerns.. so far 6.4 million people have responded and of the 16 concerns expressed by the populations of the world climate change comes in dead last.”
I can understand that if many of the respondents lack the basics of life. I wonder also how many are conversant with climate science. The other issue is the way that climate info is presented by the media. Too often those who don’t agree with the majority of scientists are allowed to give a counter view with equal time. This is nonsense as it is like United Future being given equal TV advertising time as National during the election, the amount of support they have doesn’t warrant equal status. Homeopathy shouldn’t be given equal health funding support as conventional medicine either. Because people have heard the Merchants of Doubt almost as much as conventional science there is some confusion.
LikeLike
Ray, informed common sense?
Your arrogance continues unabated Mr Kennedy.
You used the same argument when you disagreed with the election result, suggesting only the “uninformed” voted against your beliefs.
Common sense needs no qualifier.
It is just
COMMON SENSE
LikeLike
“You appear to be buying into the Merchants of Doubt spin.”
Is Dr Judith Curry too in your opinion?
LikeLike
Really Ray? Common sense tells you that the World Bank is part of a giant marxist scam? Yeah right!
LikeLike
“You used the same argument when you disagreed with the election result, suggesting only the “uninformed” voted against your beliefs.”
I have never said that Ray, I believe the opposition lost because Labours disorganisation and the issues Internet/Mana and Kim Dotcom did not provide a credible alternative. Despite the swing to National the Green Party actually achieved 10,000 more votes than in 2011 and held our ground. Our core support and membership has grown substantially.
Ray, I think it is important to not always be a follower and apply ones own judgement or “common sense” to an issue, but this is hardly a reliable method of determining what is right. What I regard as common sense would be different from yours, but you appear to be saying that your common sense has higher value than mine. I agree with RBG, if you think the World Bank is part of a climate scam and Lord Monckton speaks the truth then I would have to question what generally informs your personal judgements.
Tracey, no, Dr Curry is a genuine scientist making a valuable contribution, however her views make her an outlier rather than part of the mainstream.
LikeLike
Anyone with an once of common sense will quickly be able to work out that you exaggerate and make stuff up RGB.
LikeLike
“Tracey, no, Dr Curry is a genuine scientist making a valuable contribution, however her views make her an outlier rather than part of the mainstream.”
If you read my comments here about the work of John Ioannidis the concerns I have expressed are very similar to those of Judith Curry. Yet you attacked them when I made them. Maybe because of my political views on other matters?
You wear your prejudice like a badge, Dave.
LikeLike
Tracey, you are being dishonest, I applauded what it it contained, this is what I actually said: “Tracey, that was a great link and supports my argument well.”
The trouble was you went on to make claims that it was questioning the general accuracy of all science when it wasn’t at all, it was written in relation to medical science that has unique characteristics.
The problem with what you, Ray and others appear to to be saying is that science can’t be trusted because it is generally too inaccurate, especially climate science. Your article regarding medical science brought up some valid concerns, but if you use it to question the value of all medical science it would mean no one would be safe in any of our hospitals or could trust the safety of any treatments. This is patently nonsense.
Science isn’t perfect but overall it generally gets things right. I am not going to fight over individual bits of the science around climate change because one can always find something in the huge mass of work and research that isn’t strictly correct. However, after over 80 years of solid work and millions of pieces of research and collected data a broad and clear understanding has been reached. It is “common sense’ that we shouldn’t ignore this but some people continue to deny or question the validity of this shared understanding.
LikeLike
“The trouble was you went on to make claims that it was questioning the general accuracy of all science when it wasn’t at all…”
Remind me again who is being dishonest, Dave? I did not say that it was “questioning the general accuracy of all science”. But perhaps you can quote me directly?
What I did suggest is that there are questions to be asked of science, including climate change science. That’s just an obvious fact and I cannot fathom why it upsets you so.
Here’s another quote from Judith Curry:
“While the focus is on medical science, there are some deep insights for any ‘hot topic’ field of science:”
Then she lists Ioannidis’ six corollaries. Following which is her comment:
“Further, groups such as the IPCC that are conducting assessments are subject to the same issues raised by the 6 corollaries.” (my emphasis for Dave’s benefit)
What you don’t seem to realise Dave, is that you do the image of climate change science more harm than good with your blind faith and targeting anyone who raises contrary views, questions, or criticisms. That’s just sad.
LikeLike
“What you don’t seem to realise Dave, is that you do the image of climate change science more harm than good with your blind faith and targeting anyone who raises contrary views, questions, or criticisms.”
Quite wrong, Tracey, again you misrepresent me. I have actually agreed with a lot that you have said and haven’t dismissed the articles you have linked to. There is no blind faith in my support of climate science as I have continually agreed that it is not perfect and there will always be some that needs greater scrutiny.
You keep highlighting that there are factors that exist that can effect the accuracy of research and we can’t always trust everything we read and think every bit of research is totally legit. I totally agree with you!
What I don’t agree with is your implied suggestion that because of these agreed factors the broad understandings from climate scientists are in doubt:
1) That human produced GHGs are having an effect on the global climate.
2) That the overall trend over the past century is a rise in the global temperature that is much faster than what has naturally occurred in the past.
3) That a result of rising temperatures will actually be volatile weather patterns, such as extreme heat and cold, more storms and tornados etc.
4) That an increase in the global average of more than 2 degrees will have a severe affect on us causing rising sea levels, make it difficult for us to produce food and cause the mass extinction of many species that will not be able to adapt to rapid change.
Most climate scientists are in agreement with this, including all the respected institutions I have mentioned previously like the World Bank, the UN and almost all heads of state.
I would be interested to know whether you yourself disagree with any of those four understandings. To me they are no different from the health findings from medical research that eating a balanced diet is good for you, that the consumption of lead has negative health effects, too much sugar is bad for you and smoking tobacco can cause lung cancer.
If so many scientists come to similar conclusions and most studies come to similar findings then we would be stupid to not do something to ensure the health of our planet doesn’t deteriorate. It is just like saying that we should keep allowing the promotion of tobacco because there is doubt around aspects of the research. For many years that was actually the case and many even thought that common sense would suggest that nothing is wrong with smoking. That inaction saw millions of people die because of tobacco related illness and second hand smoke. To ignore the key findings of climate science and do nothing is untenable and just doing a little is unacceptable now too.
LikeLike
DK – you’ve given us four key points about climate change and the need to ‘do more’ ™ You also suggest you don’t accept this blindly. There appears to be a contradiction there.
1) Where is the proof that Human produced GHG’s are the cause of rising temperatures? After all CO2 is only 400ppm (that’s Parts Per Million).
2) Can you please point out where were the sea level rises, mass extinctions, and difficulty in growing food during the roman and medieval warm periods? (see graphs above). See also my suggestion RPG (and now perhaps you) need to understand Risk Management a little more.
Fortunately the public have moved on and it is only those institutions dependent on ongoing big government funding that are still pushing this lunacy. As the political will wanes, as Gorebull Warming is not supported by the public, it will die a natural. Except perhaps in the hearts of those that believe communism has never been given a fair go.
LikeLike
Dave,
My personal belief is that climate change is happening (always has) and that it is possible that humans are influencing it. However I would say that I think that the science is far from settled. As JC and Paranormal and others point out, nearly every prediction that has occurred has been softened at one stage or another. The inconvenient truth is that the IPCC has had to release multiple reports and each of them has seen a significant modification of predictions.
To have a PCE making statements of ‘unavoidable’ is quite unforgivable in my opinion. It is the second time she has made bold statements based on modelling, ignoring the scientific error by doing so.
Needless to say, there seem to be three ways NZers can influence their emissions if they share this view.
The first is at home- most people know what to do and want to do things. The simple reasons is that carbon cost money – all of it. If people want to cut down, they we do it within the bounds of making sensible financial decisions. The cost of financial burden is enough of a motivation to making sensible judgements. Sadly you Dave seem to have resigned yourself to no further opportunities within your boundaries.
The second is at an International level where we can encourage and join other nations in establishing unified emission reduction policies. Joining international accords that encourage better carbon efficiency, sensibly is probably a good idea. You might suggest the Kyoto is a good example. I think not. As only a portion of the pollution emitters joined, the Kyoto procotol was simply a tax the wealthy to donate to poor nations. I expect the short term on committal means that most gains will be subsequently squandered. For NZers I think it was an unpatriotic tax, because it simply allowed our competitors to grow unimpeded while we struggled. National is currently working on a plan with the US, China and the likes which I think is encouraging. As our nation, leading the globe, without global support simply reduces our competitive edge, eventually removing any gains made. Sadly Dave, you have not mentioned anything about global political opportunities.
The third thing we can do is set national policies to encourage good behaviour. Perhaps the best idea is to establish education programmes that ensure people take efficient steps, and sensible opportunities. A good example is energywise education ads that suggest energy saving tips.
What hasn’t worked is carbon taxes. As a reminder of history we have the following:
2008 – Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 – by the labour government. Supported by the Green party.
2009 – amended in November 2009 and in November 2012 by the National party which was largely consider as moderating the rules.
Even with the softening the Greens labelled the ETS as a “lose-lose-lose rort.” The irony of that is that they helped instigated the original losing loserest- losingness version, and fought every softening of the policy.
Now they campaign on an new Carbon tax. What I call a lose – lose – bust policy. The programme targets taxing emitting business and returning money to households. Sadly, it will simply reduce the competitiveness of NZ businesses once again. Competitive countries will once again be able to produce products for cheaper and that is bad news for all NZers. Not just big business, as the small guy hurts when big business hurts. I think it is another ‘sucking the life out of NZ’ policy. And I am sad that you Dave, think this is where your efforts are best spent.
To think your could make a tangible difference either at home or supporting National Internationally. But instead you are stuck trying to rationalise your own faulty policy and that makes me wonder, are you really as Green as you think or has the thirst for power become your driving force?
LikeLike
“To me they are no different from the health findings from medical research that eating a balanced diet is good for you, that the consumption of lead has negative health effects, too much sugar is bad for you and smoking tobacco can cause lung cancer.”
Too much CO2 is definitely bad for one’s health. Dave, I’m surprised you even needed to ask.
🙂
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
LikeLike
“What I don’t agree with is your implied suggestion that because of these agreed factors the broad understandings from climate scientists are in doubt…
…
“[t]o me they are no different from the health findings from medical research that eating a balanced diet is good for you, that the consumption of lead has negative health effects, too much sugar is bad for you and smoking tobacco can cause lung cancer.”
Simplistic nonsense in my opinion.
Common sense says they are very different.
LikeLike
Any difference is NOT about the credibility of the science, but in the flow on effects that occur from taking the action those who have studied the science recommend. Action to reduce cigarette smoking affects the profits of tobacco companies and retailers. Action to reduce climate change affects everyone’s lifestyles, many businesses and the multi-billion dollar profits of fossil fuel companies. So there has been a massive pushback against the science. Follow the money. Hint, it doesn’t lead back to Ferrari (or Tesla) driving scientists writing grant applications.
LikeLike
Agreed RBG. What I try to do here is actually try to have a debate where we engage with each others idea but I have noticed that when I put up links to reports or articles it is clear that few actually read or engage with them. They have already made their minds up.
Mr E is right there have been multiple revisions of predictions as more research is done and more data collected, in most cases predictions haven’t softened (see earlier links) changes are occurring at a much faster rate than was thought.
The Greens supported Labour’s ETS, despite favouring a carbon tax., because at least it was a small step in the right direction. National has dismantled to the extent that subsidised polluters can use cheap E European carbon credits to make a profit on their emissions. The forest industry has suffered enormously from the ETS failures. http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/lifestyle-entertainment/primary-focus/7973648/Carbon-benefits-going-up-in-smoke
The Greens Carbon tax has been used in British Columbia very successfully and BC is now leading the country economically. It works!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
I have also linked multiple times to the Pure Advantage site, an alliance of leading New Zealand businesses who see economic opportunities in leading the ‘Green Race”. There is more potential in doing this than subsidising the oil industry and mining for coal.
http://www.pureadvantage.org/blog/2012/06/11/new-zealands-position-in-the-green-race/
It was extremely disappointing when NZ left Kyoto to join the super powers or major polluters. We have far more potential to grapple with GHGs and make a difference than them. We made a strong stand against nuclear weapons (against the major powers) and it created huge credibility and respect from ordinary people all over the world and did wonders for our clean green marketing.
I’m sure education initiatives will be useful Mr E, but it also needs to be backed up by some smart regulatory controls, the short video introduction to Merchants of Doubt makes it clear what the real barriers to change are and it obviously involves anything that will limit the profits of our largest corporates.
Paranormal, have the argument with all those reputable institutions I have listed earlier, they obviously accept the science that you refuse to. What are all those institutions, again, that support your side?
Tracey, sorry I don’t even know what our argument is actually about any more, it seems that you just want to challenge anything I say, but I don’t get your major point, do you have one?
LikeLike
“Follow the money. Hint, it doesn’t lead back to Ferrari (or Tesla) driving scientists writing grant applications.”
Follow it far enough and you will find everyday people. It is they who create the demand and will continue to do so until there is a practical liquid hydrocarbon alternative.
It is they who will hurt the most come limits and restrictions.
There are all sorts of rationales for replacing fossil fuels. Potential future climate change is but one of them. But there are other equally, if not more, important ones.
LikeLike
My point, Dave is that bias blinds. If you really wanted to do the best you can for your subject, you’d try as hard as you can to prove that it is NOT as you see it rather than continually looking for evidence to back up your already accepted position.
I would tend to listen more to someone who had spent ten years trying to disprove something only to conclude that they were wrong, rather than someone who had spent ten years trying to prove themselves right only to conclude that they were right after all.
LikeLike
” in most cases predictions haven’t softened (see earlier links) changes are occurring at a much faster rate than was thought. ”
Eh?
Let me explain a very simple concept. Until the science provides a consistent prediction backed up with data, a carbon tax or trading scheme will never work, ever. It is political suicide.
As is inevitable, if predictions soften people feel like they have been unfairly treated. Voted go out the door. If prediction worsen, people’s efforts are undermined. Votes go out the door. If it was a trading scheme, the inevitable price drops occur as people lose faith in the value of the currency. Trading schemes will always be economic suicide until the science is settled.
The difficult thing about settled science on climate change is it is based on a complex model. Even simple biological models have a typical error of 30%. Complex ones, often the error is greater than the prediction. I suspect this is the case with Dr Jans report on water quality as she never did properly quantify the error.
Pushing for a carbon tax is political suicide Dave, your own BERL report makes a mockery of it now the dairy forecast payout is heading down.
Please think sensibly about what the Greens are doing. Please consider education before tax. I have to believe a ex teacher knows the power of education.
LikeLike
Yes climate change will be a problem for everybody TraceyS, which is why it would be helpful to have society wide discussions on what to do about it. Instead we have lots of right wing people denying that there is a problem (this thread being a classic case study.)
LikeLike
Tracey, how very Zen of you 🙂 To find out what something is, find out what it isn’t.
Climate science is hugely complex and I don’t have the knowledge and the time to do what you suggest, but others have and that is why trust all those reputable institutions to do that for me. Just like if I ended up in hospital I would trust the doctors and nurses to current medical science to treat me. They may not be perfect, and the science is ongoing, but I’m sure that they generally get it right.
I think NASA largely has the science correct and NIWA generally gets good data, the Royal Society does some solid oversight as well. If they all claim that the sum of the research points to a particular understanding then I am happy to think they must be largely correct. The ethical parameters that most scientists work within are far more powerful than those that manage oil companies and their lobbyists.
We should always act on the best information available and a certain level of trust is necessary. I do not approach climate change as you think by having an idea than trying to find evidence to support it, I just think that if all these highly reputable institutions believe the same thing then we should listen and act. The Lima summit is not occurring because of a conspiracy fooling all UN nations. There was a similar response to save the Ozone layer, we now need to do the same for for our life supporting climate.
Mr E please actually read about British Columbia, a carbon tax did work for them. We need that as well as education if we are going to make a difference. The clean streams accord is a good example of how just education and individual responsibility doesn’t always work.
You’ve lost me regarding where the BERL report fits in all this.
LikeLike
oops, “would trust the doctors and nurses to use current medical science to treat me”
LikeLike
David Bellamy being caught out committing scientific fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOFYAg_DPw
LikeLike
Dave,
The Difference between your tax and that of BC is astronomical. When BC introduced the carbon tax the reduced corporate and personal tax rates at the same time. They now have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Even considering the emission tax.
If anything you are pointing out the benefits of reducing tax rates for companies. The opposite of what you greens have advocated in the past.
You have also ignored the fact the farmers have argued back rebates from The government. Because of the global competitiveness issues I have pointed out. That’s a slam dunk for your policy. Straight to the bin.
As is becoming all to often Dave. The examples you use are your undoing.
LikeLike
DK – “I think NASA largely has the science correct” – so why are NASA contradicting themselves?
NASA (well the climate change part of it) say the deep oceans are warming (to explain why they’ve been so wrong to date on climate change) and then a different part of NASA provide a data set that proves deep oceans are not warming. DK if NASA is the call to authority you’re looking for then you need a new argument.
BTW is that the same Monbiot that supports nuclear power?
Your links have always proven to be shoddy or don’t back up your allegations, yet you wonder why people don’t waste their time following them.
LikeLike
“When BC introduced the carbon tax the reduced corporate and personal tax rates at the same time.”
Yep, our policy did the same. We were the only party offering tax cuts.
Paranormal, I am open about my sources and still stand by the consistent messages they are producing. Where do you get your information from? Similar sources to Bellamy? It is useful to link to your sources as it gives credibility to your claims.
LikeLike
“Yes climate change will be a problem for everybody TraceyS, which is why it would be helpful to have society wide discussions on what to do about it. Instead we have lots of right wing people denying that there is a problem (this thread being a classic case study.)”
To a more or lesser to degree it is right to say that climate change probably affects everyone in some way or another. And we are having discussions. That you do not like what others say, RBG, doesn’t change the fact that there is indeed dialogue happening.
LikeLike
Tracey, what has come out of the Merchants of Doubt research is that corporations reliant on carbon for their profits don’t want regulations brought in that will stop them from amassing huge profits. Oil companies make up the richest in the world and have the wealth to spin against regulation. Common ideas they spread are:
-Environmentalists and Greenies are watermelons, seeming care about the environment but are secret socialists who are out to destroy the freemarket economy.
-The science isn’t settled and much of it is inaccurate.
-The UN is actually a front for socialist activists and isn’t to be trusted.
-Climate scientists just make stuff up to get funding for their dodgy research.
-Climate models don’t work
-There has always been climate change its natural and we just have to do nothing and adjust.
-Al Gore and other champions of climate change action are just doing it for the money
These scare tactics and made up nonsense are widely disseminated and are effective in stopping governments from making strong decisions.
It is a sad world when business executives and popular opinion can dictate what science should be believed and how governments should act, but that is what we now have. Key has more chats to shock blogger Slater than any scientist and his readiness to open the Government cheque book to gift already wealthy corporations when they ask is a concern. The latest Listener article on the privilege and influence of the rich is interesting.
If you look at the ‘discussions’ here there is a lot of condescending putdowns for anything that RBG or I have to say.
“The difficult thing about settled science on climate change is it is based on a complex model. Even simple biological models have a typical error of 30%. Complex ones, often the error is greater than the prediction.”
Mr E, no it isn’t, models have an important place but most of the science is based on hard data and longitudinal, practical research. You make these sweeping damning statements but need to have the evidence to support it. If there are errors, many of the models have underestimated the rate of change.
LikeLike
New Zealand is now ranked a lowly 43rd out of 60 OECD countries for climate change performance: https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10407.pdf
LikeLike
“New Zealand is now ranked a lowly 43rd out of 60 OECD countries for climate change performance:”
(Translation) NZ is one of the few countries still outside the asylum.
JC
LikeLike
Denmark and Sweden are in the top 5, these countries are hardly struggling economically.
LikeLike
Are you serious? Denmark gets most of its energy from coal and is a major oil exporter. And Sweden is an industrial giant, the biggest arms manufacturer per head of population in the world! Just arm both sides, sit back and count the money.
Stay classy Sweden.
We produce free-range food and get most of our power from hydro so must be punished.
LikeLike
Willdwan, the rating came for the efforts and progress made regarding reducing GHG and Denmark has set some ambitious targets and is largely meeting them:
http://www.dw.de/denmark-leads-the-charge-in-renewable-energy/a-17603695
Sweden may be the biggest arms manufacturer but regarding climate change they have shaped their economy to take advantage of the growing green economy, especially Stockholm:
While these countries are getting a reputation as leaders in doing their bit for climate change one of the recent issues of the Economist said in a summary of the New Zealand Economy that our Government is offering concessions to the oil industry. We left Kyoto and are aligning ourselves with the worlds biggest GHG emitters, China, India and the US. As Groser himself stated, we are trying to play with the ‘big boys’.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/big-boys-club-membership-achieved.html
LikeLike
We are a humble little food producing country, and you actually think we should feel guilty when you compare us to a petro-economy and war profiteers.
I have no idea why you people despise New Zealand so, and I don’t care, your Green religion is so amoral you have lost any sense of right and wrong.
LikeLike
“I have no idea why you people despise New Zealand so, and I don’t care, your Green religion is so amoral you have lost any sense of right and wrong.”
Willdwan, what an interesting observation, I always see myself as fighting for our country’s best interests and our Green Party theme for the campaign was “love New Zealand”.
This humble little country is assessed as having one of the most ineffectual GHG policies in the world, has one of the worst reputations in the OECD for child health and welfare, teen suicide and domestic violence. Many of our children suffer from 3rd world diseases. This humble little food producing country has 80% of its rivers polluted and 50% of its indigenous species are under threat of extinction. We have amongst the most expensive housing in the world and the fastest growing inequality. We have a severe housing shortage and the quality of our housing stock is well below Northern Europe. We were once in the top 4-7 for education according to PISA, but under this Government have plummeted to as low as 23rd. Our University rankings on international tables are dropping because of a lack of funding for R&D. Our funding for R&D in relation to our GDP is well below the OECD average.
The recession was well and truly over by 2011 and our richest New Zealanders have seen their wealth increase by around 15-20% a year since and yet we have a growing Govt debt that has reached $60 billion, $50 billion more since 2008.
We have a Prime Minister who increased the budget of his office and domestic security by 100% since 2008 and ran a black ops from his office. SIS information was made available to a ‘shock jock’ blogger (Key’s description) to discredit the opposition leader. The budget for the staffing of opposition parties has not increased since 2007.
I love New Zealand and i want a better and fairer future, it is those who blindly support this Government who need to rethink their priorities.
LikeLike
You are an idiot. ALL GHG policies are ineffective, only the US has achieved anything and that is from fracking, technology you oppose.
How many of our social problems have come from deliberately creating a welfare dependent underclass?
Our ‘polluted’ rivers are the cleanest in the OECD and improving and
I doubt the extinction claim will bear close scrutiny.
The main reason our housing is so expensive is because so many immigrants want to live in this benighted hell-hole.
Our universities have always been a bit of a joke, too many people like you there. But there is hope for education under this government.
You can’t grow without debt in some form, better the govt. do it, they get a cheaper rate and don’t have to pay it back. Look at all the other world economies…you really think those debts will ever be paid. Grow up!
Asset rich people are wealthier because of all that QE floating around. Hardly their fault.
National’s effective use of blogs is irrelevant, you’re just peeved because no-one reads yours. That’s why you’re always here isn’t it?
LikeLike
Wow Dave – I think that little rant did a good job of indicating that Willdwan is pretty much right.
Lets pick up one or two examples:
“This humble little food producing country has 80% of its rivers polluted “
What is funny about this statement is the perspective. OECD reports water quality in 2002-2004. In 2013 our median river nitrogen and phosphate levels were 5 and 3% of the OECD. In other words we would need to pour in 30 to 50 times more nitrogen or phosphate in our rivers to make it to the OECD median.
“and 50% of its indigenous species are under threat of extinction”
That’s not right. Of the 80,000 odd indigenous species NZ has 2788 were classified as threatened the last time classification was achieved. That is 3.5% Dave.
You appear to have a very cynical view of NZs environment and I can understand why some might refer to it as they have.
LikeLike
To lighten the mood a little, here is an interesting link for you, Dave:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/what-would-happen-if-earth-was-flat
According to this, earth was known to be round since the ancient Greeks. That people considered the earth to be flat was a “modern misconception” and the term “flat earther” was coined as an insult and used to smear people as “anti-science”. I see this has some parallels with the contemporary use of the insult “denier” towards people who express challenging views regarding climate change.
Knowledge of the earth as a sphere probably came from actual measurements by Eratosthenes in the 3rd Century BC. No doubt these measurements were repeated time and again and became widely accepted because of this repeatability. Climate change science doesn’t seem to have achieved this yet – still raising more questions than answers.
I love the quote attributed to Richard Feynman in the video:
“Some people say, “How can you live without knowing?” I do not know what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.
How you get to be so sure about human activities changing the climate, and by how much, is what I want to know Dave.
LikeLike
It is very important that we go on raising questions. The “settled science” perspective is very dangerous. The most relevant questions may not yet have been asked. If we stop asking questions now about the science of the climate then the risk is that the fullest knowledge may become locked away through ignorance.
That you do not like the way the questions sound does not mean that people should refrain from asking them. In fact, I rather think it should encourage them to ask more questions.
LikeLike
@8:22
Oh well said Willdwan.
Summed ‘im up nicely.
LikeLike
Tracey,
Around that settled science aspect and in response to Dave’s query regarding “sweeping damning statements but need to have the evidence to support it”
The best model for determining emission on NZ farms is Overseer.
This is what is said about this onfarm model.
“In the meantime, a figure of ±30% uncertainty would be useful only as a conceptual starting point for any discussion about whole farm nitrogen drainage loss estimates modelled with Overseer version 6. This level of uncertainty is considered to be very good for a complex biophysical model. It is important that it is understood that this level of uncertainty is normal in any biophysical modelling, not just Overseer. No biophysical model will ever be 100% accurate.”
http://www.overseer.org.nz/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9bOdq_cFtIU%3d&tabid=82
This citation from Shepherd etal. 2013
” Research models generally have a reasonable level of explicit conjecture; however, application models must give predictions based on the limited data and information available – if the uncertainty associated with an application of the model is not considered when using that model, there could be serious consequences (Thornley and Johnson, 2000).”
Click to access FLRC_Shepherd_2_2013.pdf
Dave and Tracey. Even at a farm level were treatment and affects are relatively easily to assess, our best models have an error of 30%.
Imagine what a global model error is, where the number of inputs is greater, the complexity is greater and science directing it is more difficult to have confidence in. i.e you can run a controlled research experiment on a global scale.
IPCC predictions face a large error, they try to overcome it by making multiple predictions, but this still does not provide and accurate measure of error of each of the predictions.
LikeLike
*can’t run a controlled*
LikeLike
The science is settled: “Our satellite estimates of global temperature, which have much more complete geographic coverage than thermometers, reveal that 2014 won’t be even close to a record warm year.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/12/2014-a-record-warm-year-probably-not/
LikeLike
Spencer was a NASA scientist but I’m afraid I do question his logic when he also supports creationism over evolution. He has stated:
“I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution”
I do think that using individual pieces of research and individual scientists is always problematic. It is the body of research that creates more robust conclusions. Medical science institutions to speak with more authority than one medical researcher. NASA as a whole has different conclusions than Spencer, although he worked for them.
I don’t get why there is a doubt or distrust of what all major science institutions are in agreement about regarding climate change. Why on earth would the World Bank agree with them?
LikeLike
Goodo, play the man not the ball. What about looking at the substance of what he says regarding temperature logs – satellite vs thermometer? So leftist of you. Just because you believe you don’t have to answer to a higher authority doesn’t mean everyone else has to follow in your arrogance as well.
Why on earth indeed DK? But then again, Gorebull Warming isn’t science it’s politics.
LikeLike
Oh the irony of a Green party member questioning someone’s religious belief
LikeLike
I would like him to address Mr E’s comment about the British Columbia carbon tax. I was led to believe the Green Party policy was derived from it and would be similarly successful. But after a bit of checking I find that…
1. Their farmers are on subsidies.
2. Their markets are protected by tariffs.
3. They have a free trade deal with the US (holy grail)
4. They ARE NOT taxed on methane emissions and
5. They even get a frickin rebate on the carbon component of their fuel for chrissake!
How the hell are Kiwi producers supposed to compete with that?
LikeLike
Wildone, I brought up DK on the BC carbon tax months ago when he was blaring how wonderful it was and how the Greens were reducing tax if they implemented it here.
The facts are:
The carbon tax of $30 per tonne is paid by everyone who buys or uses carbon.
Everyone including companies had their personal and company tax reduced to between 5-15% with an average of about 7%.
OTOH, the Greens here wanted to apply carbon taxes to just the industries they don’t like, would put high incomes and Trusts up to 40% tax and reduce everyone else’s tax by just one percent.
Its one of the most cynical and dishonest policies ever seen here and probably helped to lower the Greens expected 12-15% support at the election by 20-30%.
JC
LikeLike
All good points Willdwan,
I had hoped Dave would question me, but he diverged as if he knew he was not going anywhere with the example.
The British Columbia tax is called a carbon tax. That seems very misleading as it is actually a fuel tax. Despite it being significantly easier on farmers than what the Greens policy promotes here, farmers have argued back their tax payments.
It seems Dave likes using bad examples.
LikeLike
“It seems Dave likes using bad examples.”
I think it used to be called Applied Science.
JC
LikeLike
Here is the Green Party carbon tax policy:
Click to access green_party_climate_protection_plan.pdf
Here is our climate change policy:
https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/climate-change-policy-kicking-carbon-habit
You may pull apart every sentence and claim it won’t work, but it has been researched and much effort has got into it. You may deny the broad science around climate change, but to most countries and governments it is actually the big issue of our time.
A search for National’s climate change policy reveals there is just 4 pages devoted to it at the end of the environment policy. There is little that reflects the advice the National Government has received from any departments regarding solutions and obligations, including Treasury. The policy is mainly focused on the following key areas:
1) Adaption: ensure our ability to adapt over the next 100 years is fit for purpose.
2) International negotiations and research: play a part in international efforts.
3) Managing New Zealand Emissions: make a contribution in relation to our % of emissions.
4) Climate Change Assistance in the Pacific: help small island states to adjust to CC and move to renewables.
Over the past 6 years National has dismantled the ETS so it now just functions as providing subsidies to polluters and will soon cost the taxpayer over $1 billion a year to continue doing so. National has withdrawn from the second Kyoto commitments and is now providing encouragement to overseas fossil fuel companies to drill, frack and dig with low taxation and royalties. Our carbon emissions have grown substantially under this government and we are moving so far away from our targets that Treasury has predicted a $52 billion carbon debt that we will soon owe because of our current trajectory (this in in the advice to the incoming government). While many countries have actually started reducing emissions, ours are increasing.
We are ranked in the bottom third in the OECD according to a climate change performance index (43rd out of 60). https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10407.pdf
I feel National’s efforts to deal with climate change will be similar to their success at reducing Govt debt ($60 billion), solving the housing crisis, controlling the electricity industry, reducing inequality (the OECD claims inequality has had a substantial negative effect on our economy) and solving Auckland’s transport problems. We are going nowhere fast!
LikeLike
Of course emissions are increasing, they rise with our growing population. But, due to our mostly renewable energy electrical grid and your insistence on measuring ‘gross’ agricultural emissions instead of ‘net,’ they can presented as as much worse than they really are. We are one of the most efficient countries in the world, but you go on and on bad-mouthing us at home and abroad. Why?
To further your own greed and ambition.
LikeLike
So DK you’re saying that National’s climate change policy is in line with the IPCC that has moved to adaptation rather than mitigation. You should be very happy.
LikeLike
All the Greens policy does is tax people and tax farmers. If it was in effect now, it would help send dairy farmers broke.
Currently there are no mitigation tactics for animal emissions, other than have less stock and let grass wave in the breeze.
The inevitable conclusions is that greens tax is all about sending famers broke, and starving people. Whilst the greens might be happy with this scenario, I am not.
LikeLike
What is patently clear with this National Government is that they do not take advice well and they appear to adopt programmes and solutions that are based in ideology rather than evidence.
Since the recession ended in 2011 we appear to be in a worse financial position than ever and to hide this more spin doctors have been employed than ever before. This government spends more time manipulating data and trying to spin endless failure than doing things right. Even after spending $58 million on redundancies in the state sector over the past two years in an attempt to cut numbers there has actually been an increase, many have been employed to fix messes like Novopay.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/63849330/public-servant-numbers-climb
The spending on consultants has also ballooned to 10 times what was spent in 2008.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8036074/Rise-in-consultant-costs-gob-smacking
This is a borrow big, spend big Government that throws taxpayer money around with few positive outcomes. Matthew Hooton has expressed concerns about the high levels of corporate welfare. New Zealand was placed in a strong situation after getting through the economic recession better than most, but that position has been squandered by poor decisions and a lack of a future focus.
National has continued Labour’s poor performance in dealing with inequality and the OECD has noted that the 15.5% loss of economic growth in New Zealand due to inequality was the worst in the developed world.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/64000371/NZ-economy-hard-hit-by-inequality-OECD
“National’s climate change policy is in line with the IPCC that has moved to adaptation rather than mitigation”
Surely we should be doing both!
LikeLike
To quote you Dave,
“You appear to be trying to construct arguments from side issues (often invented by yourself) rather than address the substantive ones.”
Infact I think you are bordering on trolling, with the repetitive attempts to introduce new topics distracting from the debate on climate change. One can only but wonder if you are ‘on the ropes’.
In an attempt to keep it on topic, I will point out your ‘on topic’ statement and ask you questions about it.
“Surely we should be doing both!” (in reference to mitigation and adaptation)
Please explain what farmers can do to mitigate animal emissions. If you can, please give me 5 examples.
LikeLike
Mr E, clever response 😉
My comments are directly related to this thread because I have shown that National’s climate change policy is hugely lacking in substance compared to the Greens’ and has no links to research or evidence. Instead of actually doing anything of any real value the Government is spending large on spin.
This is taken from the policy link that I provided earlier:
What does a carbon tax mean
for a farmer?
Green innovation on the New Zealand
farm will be one of our most valuable
contributions to global emissions
reduction. Nearly half of our greenhouse
gases come from agriculture.
To ignore agriculture’s contribution to
climate change would be irresponsible.
Putting a price on carbon is in line
with Fonterra’s recent commitment to
biodiversity, as restoring biodiversity on
farms is one of the mechanisms available
to farms to reduce their net emissions.
We recognise many beef, sheep, and
deer farms are financially fragile and
have therefore left it to the Climate
Commission to give advice on when to
bring this group into the system. (The
Climate Commission will have agricultural
expertise on it.) We have also recognised
that farmers compete internationally and
can’t pass on increased costs.
Therefore we have set the agricultural
rate at half the base rate faced by
other polluters.
Currently there is little farmers can do to
cut methane emissions from cows, but
there are measures farmers can take
with feedstock, manure control, stocking
intensities, and riparian planting to lower
their carbon footprint.
We will reward farms that have taken
mitigating actions through a certification
scheme. The Ministry of Primary
Industries will independently certify low
emission farmers enabling them to claim a
tax rebate.
The carbon tax will lower the average
dairy farm pay-out by 8 cents/kg of milk
solids. Dairy NZ’s analysis shows the
profitability of low intensity farms is
highest due to lower input costs.21 With
a carbon tax, that trend will become
stronger, driving better environmental
outcomes on our farms and cleaner rivers
and lakes as a result. Furthermore, a
price on carbon emissions will nudge the
dairy sector towards a more value added
strategy and away from a simple
volume strategy.
LikeLike
Dave,
Good on you for fronting up. Lets dig into things a little to analyse.
1 – ‘feedstock’ – what does this mean?
2 – ‘manure control’ – what does this mean? Are you referring to methane capture, which is in trial phase?
3 -‘stocking intensities’. “Dairy NZ’s analysis shows the profitability of low intensity farms is highest due to lower input costs”
Here is the first key message from the DairyNZ you appear to be referring to.
• “The optimum stocking rate for a dairy farm changes over time and is influenced by changes in cow genetic merit, input costs and milk price. ”
Here in Southland a very good source of farm stats is Malloch MacLean accountants who are strong in the market place. This is from their stats.
Year Payout Average SR Top 20% SR
2007 4.46 2.62 2.89
2008 7.66 2.65 2.63
2009 5.20 2.58 2.43
2010 6.10 2.58 3.11
2011 7.50 2.72 3.07
2012 6.05 2.64 2.87
2013 5.80 2.89 2.91
Your simplistic view of stocking rate is wrong for you own region Dave. Optimum stocking rate is a complex issue and needs careful management. Of recent times the most profitable Dairy farmers have had a higher than average stocking rate. Whilst reducing stocking rate could reduce emissions, it can also reduce productivity and here in Southland – likely profitability as well. Team this up with a low payout, an extra tax care of the Greens and you could have the title of ruination of the Dairy industry.
4 – ‘riparian planting’. You realise Dave that when you plant trees, grazable land is fenced off, profitability will likely reduce.
More broke farmers
5 – Oh well you tried I guess. Stuck at 4 – send farmers broke. Perhaps I should vote green and buy up dairy land when the land price falls, then go digging for lignite.
LikeLike
Mr E, these were just areas where some changes could result in better outcomes. Are you actually saying that farmers can’t make any adjustments to lower emissions? As you know research is providing useful information all the time.
The Greens are the only party to have taken climate change seriously and have substantial policy in this area. I was quite shocked at how little National has when they have greater availability to resources to do some solid research.
LikeLike
“these were just areas where some changes could result in better outcomes”
Where? I saw no “better” outcomes from you.
“Are you actually saying that farmers can’t make any adjustments to lower emissions?”
The only mitigation technique that worked OK was DCD. Sadly the Greens helped to completely stuff that opportunity.
All other mitigation techniques that I can think of significantly reduce productivity and profitability.
If we do that alone, without global commitment, it spells the end for NZ’s economic competitiveness. All NZers will become poor, and likely high levels of net migration.
For that reason, I fully support National focusing on International agreement before anything other major steps are taken. To me their methods seem a heck of a lot greener than yours.
Your tax is supposed to encourage mitigation. Currently that is a little like trying to send a man to the moon before a rocket is built. The manufacture of an enlarged slingshot is likely to result in disaster when it all comes crashing back down to earth.
That’s not to say there isn’t some encouraging research being done, there is, but it is a long way from farm application. The most encouraging work is GE, which you are opposed to. Ironically.
LikeLike
Mr E, you also have to look the entire Green package of policies, many dairy farmers are trapped into continually increasing the amount of milk they produce to remain profitable. I read about a smaller dairy concern in NZ (but couldn’t find the link) that are adding value to the milk and their payouts have not dropped as much as Fonterra’s.
I know you do think I’m out of line when I question Fonterra’s management but it was quite revealing when the independent inquiry into the botulism scare made 33 recommendations to improve on current practice. One area that was identified was the “lack of senior oversight for crucial decisions”. Fonterra’s last boss grossed over $40 million over his eight years heading the company and was paid an $8.2 million golden handshake when he finished. 26 of Fonterra managers earned over a million dollars each over the year prior and a number of them would have had some part in overseeing the botulism incident and the fact that it was managed so badly is concerning.
Around $50 million a year is spent on paying the 27 top managers and I do wonder if they provide good value for money. The competition in the milk powder market has been known for some time: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/us-china-dairy-fonterra-idUSBRE9BF1CR20131216
Dairy companies like Tatua have maintained strong payouts because of the value they add to the milk. https://agrihq.co.nz/article/tatua-the-dairy-mouse-that-roars?p=119
LikeLike
Dave,
Again
“You appear to be trying to construct arguments from side issues (often invented by yourself) rather than address the substantive ones.”
If your carbon tax doesn’t work in isolation it needs binned. Lets deal with that before you head off in a tangent. Can we get an agreement? We will bin your Carbon tax?
LikeLike
“If your carbon tax doesn’t work in isolation it needs binned”
Actually that is an important point to mention, policies never actually work in isolation. Anything that is implemented policy wise generally has other ramifications and unintended consequences. When National removed union involvement from health and safety decisions in mines, cut the funding to the mining inspectorate and left the industry to self regulate, I’m sure they didn’t think that the Pike River disaster would result.
What is good about Green policies is that we think that an integrated approach to policy development is useful, especially when it spreads the load of responsibility and deals with issues from many different angles. It can also save money.
LikeLike
“When National removed union involvement from health and safety decisions in mines, cut the funding to the mining inspectorate and left the industry to self regulate, I’m sure they didn’t think that the Pike River disaster would result.”
Oh what a nasty, snide, barbed parting shot typically revealing of someone who is losing the argument.
At the risk of engaging on your level, Dave, one could also say that those who promoted “special safeguards for the environment” and thereby put concerns for the environment ahead of personal safety of the prospective workers also had no idea of the eventual, and unintended, consequences.
This is what “Green policies” do. What is good about that?
LikeLike
Tracey, you obviously haven’t read the excellently researched book, Tragedy at Pike River Mine by MacFie. It was nothing about a choice between worker safety and the environment. Where do you get this crazy stuff from?
Green policies kill people? Good grief!
LikeLike
Dave,
Your saying the only logical explanation behind your carbon tax is it’s integration with other policies?
That’s the biggest lame duck explanation I’ve heard for a government policy.
LikeLike
Opps *you’re* again!
LikeLike
Dave, where do I get all this stuff from? Well the answer to that is not all from books! A fair bit comes from listening to people. And some comes from direct experience – as some who is involved in balancing environmental and health & safety priorities on a daily basis. In many projects there are tensions between the environment, safety, and cost. Since there is no bottomless pit of funds (nor do we have access to a money printing machine) it is impossible to have both gold-plated environmental policies and gold-plated health & safety policies. Where tensions arise, I hold a strong belief that safety of people must be right at the top of the priority order. If there are compromises to be made at any stage (and there always are) environment should give in to safety. Sure, it may require a few more native trees to be felled to do things that way, but those are sacrifices that should be made because lives are most important of all.
By the way, the manner in which you used the example of Pike River was grossly insensitive and off topic – use of a tragedy to make a political point. Low Dave.
LikeLike
“Your saying the only logical explanation behind your carbon tax is it’s integration with other policies?”
Mr E, I’m not saying that at all, the carbon tax is increasingly being seen as a better solution than an ETS for putting a necessary price on carbon. The ETS does not provide certainty for businesses and can be easily abused. Already oil companies are fighting back against the shift to cleaner renewables by dropping the price for oil. This means that people will continue to lock in to oil based technology despite its cumulative effect on our atmosphere. A carbon tax will recognise the external costs of the industry and can help manage a comfortable transition away from our reliance on fossil fuels until the alternatives are in place. If oil is too cheap it will only slow that transition (which is what the oil companies want). This is a similar approach to putting a price on tobacco that recognises the significant health costs that the state has to accommodate because of its use.
In terms of the impacts of a carbon tax on farmers then the actual cost should be seen in relation to other policies that provide a financial reward for the management of GHG emissions and other environmental activities. If there are subsidies and tax relief available for research, fencing streams, riparian planting, methane capture and better managed fertilizer application etc then things may balance out. To say that the cost of a carbon tax is problematic in itself it is not the full picture unless other policies that could provide income are also considered.
I also think that there should be consultation around how best some of these initiatives could be applied. When Russel met with farmers from the Waituna catchment a few years ago, some of the famers had some useful ideas that Russel hadn’t considered. It would be arrogant to claim that we have all the answers but the general approach has been shown to be effective elsewhere.
Tracey, to blame the failures of the mine on environmental considerations is unreasonable because it was already conservation land and the company decided to mine with that understanding. If you read the book you would have realized it was a marginal mine whether it was underground or opencast, the coal quality didn’t actually justify any form of mining. The underground mining could still have been managed safely if they had followed basic health and safety guidelines, but they even disconnected the methane monitors because the noise of the alarms became annoying. All the knowledgeable miners walked away in despair and the mining inspectorate had been scaled down to virtually nothing.
By claiming that open cast mining of conservation land should just happen to protect miners is ignoring the original status of the land and the level of risk created in this instance by poor management and bad legislation. The management of health and safety was so appalling I could imagine loss of life even if it was open cast.
11 forestry workers have died and many more have suffered serious injuries and this work does not occur underground it is just shocking management.
“By the way, the manner in which you used the example of Pike River was grossly insensitive and off topic – use of a tragedy to make a political point. Low Dave.”
Not at all, Tracey, poor climate policy globally has caused 150,000 deaths a year due to the increasing number of extreme weather events according to the WHO. In fact the Pike River example pales in comparison: http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
LikeLike
“If”
“could”
Translation – the carbon tax doesn’t work not. And unless other stupid policies are passed it wont.
Lets dig into the other largely stupid policy suggestions
“If there are subsidies and tax relief available for research, fencing streams, riparian planting, methane capture and better managed fertilizer application etc then things may balance out”
1 Tax relief for research. There is a very fine line between allowing science financial freedom and expecting commercially realistic outcomes. Within science there is competition. For funding and for scientists to do the work. Providing tax breaks could provide more scientific freedom, but it would also achieve a whole heap of pointless outcomes and use valuable science resources doing it. There are some great historical examples of pointless science that simply resulted in zip because outcomes were lax. If I was you – I’d steer clear of interfering with science funding. I think it is running a fine line at present
2 Fencing streams- So you are going to use tax payers money to encourage farmers to spend money that allows them to reduce their productivity and profitability. I wont say any more. You know that is just a dumb suggestion.
3 riparian planting – as above.
4 better managed fertilizer application – What is better managed fertiliser application Dave?
“It would be arrogant to claim that we have all the answers”
Can we put this in the Friday funny’s section?
LikeLike
If Tracey doesn’t do it I will.
“poor climate policy globally has caused 150,000 deaths a year due to the increasing number of extreme weather events according to the WHO”
Don’t you think this statement is somewhat dishonest Dave?
LikeLike
Thank you Mr E. Although I think you are being kind when you say dishonest.
LikeLike
I’m being generous given it is December.
LikeLike
If a farmer wanted to do some private research and perhaps combined with some others to do so, and got a tax deduction to support it, isn’t this encouraging research at the ground level that could have some very useful outcomes?
You seem to have a very jaundiced view of science when we spend much less than the OECD average for R&D. I would love to see the evidence of your claim of wasted money. I would much rather see money poured into R&D than see it being poured into our inflated property market. A house is still a house if it costs $500.000 or $4 million, but the same amount of money could funs a heap of useful research.
Our waterways are a shared resource and supporting the fencing and riparian planting of gullies and streams also benefits us all, why shouldn’t some of these costs be shared? You need to have a chat to your past Feds President regarding this.
Regarding the application of fertilizer, I have had some interesting discussions with Steven Ellison of Soil Health ltd, I’m sure he would be pleased to chat to you to as he has a better understanding of managing soils and pasture to limit emissions. http://www.hotfrog.co.nz/Companies/Soil-Health-Soil-Health-Minerals
Quoting the World Health Authority is being dishonest? Is this organisation another part of your Climate Change conspiracy? It seems that you guys see lies and conspiracies everywhere.
LikeLike
Although I think you are being kind when you say dishonest.””
Yes, we are in a period of some of the most benign climate conditions of the last 6-800 years. Hurricanes and cyclones are way down and in America cyclone absence is at lows not seen for decades. The Argo projects buoys tell us the oceans are warming just 0.02C per decade and there’s been no statistically significant increase in warmth in 18 years and counting whilst CO2 levels have grown nearly 10%.. thus falsifying any link with warming. The Sahel is greening and the Californian droughts of the last several years are peanuts compared to the hundred year droughts experienced in the last 1000 years and sea levels are rising less than they were 100 years ago.
Over in Lima the warmists are racking up 50,000 tonnes of CO2.. not much less than NZ’s annual net output. Why are they there instead of emailing, skyping and phoning?.. because they know its a scam and they are on holiday.
Meanwhile here in the asylum NZ is the only country to include livestock in its CO2 emissions reduction policies.. madness.
Oh, and how much money does the UN reckon it needs to stop unimportant warming?.. *$76 Trillion over 40 years! Thats what this scam is all about.
JC
LikeLike
JC can you describe this scam in more detail, who is behind it (key individuals and organisations) and what those involved are gaining from it? Please also provide links to organisations who have exposed this scam.
LikeLike
“The underground mining could still have been managed safely…”
Of course it could, but there is this little thing called cost. The operational design which has the best potential to be managed as safely as possible for the least cost should be the goal from the outset. But the RMA, which determines at the outset whether projects live or die, is not about that is it?
Take two hypothetical mining projects. One is low-risk on a health and safety basis, but has more than minor environmental effects. The other is riskier on the health and safety basis but has no more than minor environmental effects. Which one do you think would be statistically more likely to progress past first base?
Can you imagine a Labour/Green coalition trying to sort out the priorities at a policy level? Who shall we put first, the environment or the workers? Both, I hear you say as you crank up the money machine.
This Government has it right. Safety and economics come first because they are intimately related. Strapped businesses will take more chances on H&S. Success and profitability are critical factors in improving health & safety. The permitting process needs to be geared up towards this from start to finish so that the jobs created over time are the safest ones humanly possible.
When you say that forestry deaths are “just shocking management” you are neglecting the fact that it is dangerous work. The biggest impact will come from eliminating such work from the industry – mainly through adoption of technological solutions. Eliminating dangerous work requires business success to attract the required investment in technology.
Having unions in there interfering with management won’t change anything. Take a look at the workplace death statistics. Except for being skewed by one tragic event, at one mine, mining is a safer industry to work in than education and training services. Which is the more industrially organised? You should be able to provide a reasonably educated response.
http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/research/health-and-safety-data/summary-of-fatalities-2007-2013
The most unsafe industry is actually farming. Yet I do not hear you saying how terrible it is when another farmer or farm worker dies on a quad bike. Why not? A territorial difference I suspect.
LikeLike
“I’m being generous given it is December.”
Are you Santa Claus?
LikeLike
“Please also provide links to organisations who have exposed this scam.
…because proof of any matter can be found in a website link. One can probably even be found convincing us that Mr E really is Santa Claus.
LikeLike
DK,
Go read the Climategate emails.. its all there, fraud, conspiracy to deceive, dirty tricks to get skeptics sacked from their jobs, scientific malfeaseance, trying to remove the Medieval Warm Period, reducing historic temps to show current temps are unusual, dealing with Big Oil for money whilst hammering any Skeptic who has worked for an oil company, incompetence, defensiveness, ignorance, privately lamenting warming isn’t occurring, limiting peer review to just pals, threatening Climate journals they will be ostricised and demonised if they print anything from skeptics and so on.
Then go to Climate Audit for rigorous exposure of shonky, bad and incorrect science.
Read the Hockey Schtick for an amazing amount of ongoing science , 1-3 articles per week of science peer reviewed work that goes under the radar from all round the world.
Then read this from the UN (IPCC) high official confirming climate change policy is simply to redistribute the worlds wealth.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
Read this, the UN wants to fulfill this redistribution by taking $76 trillion from the first world.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6946
Read this 2009 piece to see how paltry is the $23 million skeptics got compared to the billions and trillions flowing or to flow to the scamsters.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
Check this.. your 97% consensus relates to the opinion of just 75 scientists. The other 97% consensus by Cook et al was similar fiction.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/19/meaningless-consensus-on-climate-change/
That should keep you going for a year or three.
JC
LikeLike
Well Tracey,
I am jolly, round, and have been known to say ho ho ho. Not normally out of joy however. If I hadn’t recently removed my beard, who knows what I could have achieved.
Dave, what do you think happens after an election. You realise the priorities of government funding changes.
I’ve been personally responsible of filling a skip of research resources. Who knows the cost. Much of it, never saw the light of day.
You think political influence on research is a good thing, and I accept it is necessary but it can also be extremely wasteful.
Visit a scientist, ask to see the storage shed. Many have skyline after skyline full of research history. If you know what you are looking at, often you can see the successive governments reflected on the shelves.
LikeLike
“because proof of any matter can be found in a website link”
Of course it can’t, Tracey, but Bellamy used an internet search and a Fred Singer article on which to base his opposition to climate science. People commenting here must use more than just their “common sense” judgements to call climate science a scam. There must be some reputable organisations to challenge the assessments of the scamming World Bank, UN, NASA and the Royal Society. JC can’t just be using his own scientific judgment to assess the decades of research and be able to label it all as a big scam.
Mr E, I believe there should be a mix of how research funding is distributed: https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-announce-1-billion-additional-investment-rd-including-business-tax-breaks
LikeLike
Nice try Dave,
You’re trying really hard to distract the discussion aren’t you?
Such behaviours could be indicative of a politician running scared. Scared of the real issues.
LikeLike
DK – here you go – all you need in one handy site: http://wattsupwiththat.com All referenced and annotated with links to the original data or article.
LikeLike
Paranormal, your link just proves my point. The website is managed by a retired television meteorologist and you are wanting me to believe that it trumps NASA and the World Bank? The amount of data and research related to climate science is massive and it needs professional and a properly structured organisation to make sense of it all. For one individual to cherry pick research and scientists to fit their view is not a robust way to get a credible position.
Again I challenge you regarding the motivation for NASA, the World Bank, the UN…etc to challenge the might of the fossil fuel industry. If Climate Change is a scam why would they fabricate decades of science to bite the hand that probably feeds them?
Mr E, you questioned the model of science funding and claimed much of it is wasteful, I provided our Party’s R&D funding vision and you claim it’s a distraction and I’m running scared of the real issues. What?
LikeLike
JC, all you are doing is buying in the the multi-national corporation world view. To maximise profits and to have easy access to the worlds markets they need limited regulation and minimal tax. The wealth of these multinationals are now greater than the incomes of most countries and most virtually pay no tax because they have made themselves stateless. Most countries have seen tax income stagnate and drop so that they have had to have austerity programmes and cut back on services and state servants. The real incomes of workers have dropped and it has been increasingly difficult for SMEs to survive and disposable incomes for most workers are dropping as the costs of housing and electricity etc increases faster than wages.
The biggest scams were perpetuated by the banking and investment industries that were bailed out by tax payer funds and this has cost trillions. There is an issue with wealth distribution when even in NZ 50% of New Zealanders have to share 5% of our country’s wealth while the very rich are increasing their wealth by around 20% a year (according to the NBR). We have the fastest growth of inequality in the OECD, 50% of our workers got no pay increase last year despite the upturn in the economy and we now have immigrant workers here earning well below the minimum wage.
Anyone who asks for tighter regulations and to make sure that taxes are paid at the top end are made out to be socialists and communists, out to destroy the economy and steal the incomes from the rich who worked hard for their wealth. Tax fraud costs our country billions compared to benefit fraud which costs the country millions and yet more energy is put into dealing with benefit fraud.
OECD research has shown that income inequality actually depresses economies when growing numbers of people are locked out of participating in it. The Climate Change debate has basically revealed that those who will suffer most from the changing climate and rising seas are the poor, and they are increasingly powerless against the huge wealth and might of the fossil fuel industry that doesn’t actually pay its way. Our country is even giving the industry tax breaks and subsidies, it is beyond reason.
LikeLike
An interesting piece:
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-policy-ditch-the-2-c-warming-goal-1.16018
LikeLike
^ and read the comments at the end, if for no other reason than to detect a reliable pattern.
LikeLike
Thanks, Tracey, that is an interesting article. I like the fact that it is saying that the 2 degree increase in temperature mantra may be too simplistic to get public support. The increasing CO2 forcings are having an effect on more than air temperature and the ocean temperatures are increasing faster. It is hard to get across the seriousness of climate change when it is so complex and involves multiple scientific disciplines. Perhaps breaking things down in to separate parts and having achievable goals for each may make it easier to make progress.
LikeLike
And another interesting article published just six days later:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/
“The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.”
“The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.”
LikeLike
That’s right, Tracey, the top half of the oceans are still climbing and the air temperature is rising again with 2014 looking to be the warmest ever: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/20/2014-on-track-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-says-us-science-agency
The first decade of the 21st Century, on average, is hottest ever:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80167
It is interesting that there is not an even trajectory for both the air and sea temperatures, they seem to plateau every so often before the next significant climb. Thanks for the links they have made interesting reading.
LikeLike
DK, You asked me for references and I gave you a load of them. True to form you ignored it all and went into your usual Green/Marxist mantra with the usual deceptions.
I expected that so no matter.
But here’s another thought for you..
From a Matt Ridley comment:
The overwhelming majority of scientists do excellent, objective work, following the evidence wherever it leads. Science remains (in my view) our most treasured cultural achievement, bar none. Most of its astonishing insights into life, the universe and everything are beyond reproach and beyond compare. All the more reason to be less tolerant of those who let their motivated reasoning distort data or the presentation of data. It’s hard for champions of science, like me, to make our case against creationists, homeopaths and other merchants of mysticism if some of those within science also practise pseudoscience.
“In all the millions of scientific careers in Britain over the past few decades, outside medical science there has never been a case of a scientist convicted of malpractice. Not one. Maybe that is because – unlike the police, the church and politics – scientists are all pure as the driven snow. Or maybe it is because science as an institution, like so many other institutions, does not police itself properly.”
He could have gone further and pointed out around the Western world thousands of professionals are convicted of malpractice each year but I bet you won’t find a single scientist of the tens of thousands involved in climate who has been convicted.. that is simply statistically impossible and as the Climategate emails show conclusively there should have been.
Your beloved climate experts are simply a law unto themselves, unpoliced, venal like all human beings and doing incredible damage to the moral and ethical status they have had.
*That* is why the public rate climate change as the least of their worries.. its knows corruption when it sees it.
JC
LikeLike
“While surface temperatures have generally remained fairly close to the multi‐model mean in the past, the recent pause threatens to cause surface temperatures to fall outside the confidence interval of models in the next few years if temperatures do not rise.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-warming-pause (p. 14)
Does the language used here not worry you slightly, Dave? It does me.
I am certainly more comfortable with “What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting the Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.” (p. 17). Although I would suggest that if we can’t understand the immediate past decade then trying to predict the next is just educated entertainment.
LikeLike
Gosh, this tread has been going for a long time. Have learn’t a lot. from all of the commenters.
DK, you must be complemented on your resilience, persistence and reasoning- although I do not agree with much you say.
You are steps ahead of your Green friend, the yawn producing R Guyton.
You would make a very good MP and lift the dismal quality of the current Green Party offerings
LikeLike
JC, I didn’t ignore your links but found that they generally represent a minority view or were personal opinion that were not even logical. For instance the article on the money being spent on climate science and initiatives are actually paltry compared to the bank bailouts and corporate welfare. Spending money on alternative energy to phase out coal power stations just makes sense. The US also spend trillions on fighting terror and destroying fictitious weapons of mass destruction and yet only $7 billion in 2009 on climate science, aid and green technology. That is peanuts for the US.
“Your beloved climate experts are simply a law unto themselves, unpoliced, venal like all human beings and doing incredible damage to the moral and ethical status they have had.”
I cannot belief that you are so loyal to the oil industry to think all that motivates them is the good of humanity and yet scientists are venal and lacking in morality. I think you live on a different planet to mine.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/01/2013130214524796.html
LikeLike
I concur with Richard. Dave is quite persistent – a quality which I admire even in those with whom I disagree.
LikeLike
DK,
Once again your rebuttal ignores the obvious problems in climate science in favour of unrelated perceptions of business. They are not related to the subject.
However, lets test you.. what are your perceptions of the science around Micael Mann’s Hocket Stick?
JC
LikeLike
“That’s right, Tracey, the top half of the oceans are still climbing”
Yeah right
A piddling non statistically significant rise of two hundreds of a degree in 16 years.
Considering the mantra that 90% of the warming is going into the oceans you’ll need (once again) to come up with a better explanation for the stoppage in warming for the last 18 years against the predictions of the models.
JC
LikeLike
However, lets test you.. what are your perceptions of the science around Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick?
I would agree with the Wikipedia link:
“More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Those who questioned the graph included our old dodgy mate Fred Singer and the Marshall Institute. Fred Singer is the perennial scientist for hire by tobacco and oil companies and the Marshall Institute, according to Wikipedia, is a conservative think tank that exists “to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.”
“You would make a very good MP and lift the dismal quality of the current Green Party offerings”
Richard, thank you for your comment but I was very lucky to get as high as I did on our list considering the high calibre of our candidates and our MPs are actually a high performing hard working team. Even our newest MP is impressing already, James Shaw’s maiden speech drew wide praise across the House.
LikeLike
Green MP James Shaw’s maiden speech is worth listening to, it is also related to this thread 😉 http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/34582
LikeLike
“I would agree with the Wikipedia link:”
Oh dear. You’re not keeping up with even the science from the IPCC. Just more bluster attacking other scientists.
Tell me.. what has happened to the tree ring data that Mann used up to 1980, ie, what do the tree rings tell us about temperature from 1980?
JC
LikeLike
JC, There is a huge mass of science that is in alignment and there is only a very small percentage of scientists who hold differing views, this is fact even if you want to argue whether it is 97% or 87% of scientists who agree, most do. I’m sure you could endlessly come up with different pieces of research that question the mass of research but human produced GHG is causing the temperature of our planet to rise. We are already experiencing climate changes that are affecting our ability to grow food and causing extraordinary weather events that are taking the lives of thousands of people every year.
Respected NASA scientist like James Hansen was employed to advise the US Government under George Bush. He was surprised when his report and warnings were altered by the Government so that his concerns were toned down. He then started receiving attacks on his abilities and his motivation. He explained to us at a Gore meeting that he is not the right kind of person to be an activist because he is not a great public speaker but he felt he had to speak out to give his grandchildren a future. If you talk to most climate scientists they are sincerely concerned about what we are facing, they are not making lots of money through a crazy scam, they are just doing the science.
Those who oppose the climate science are not motivated by the future prospects of their grandchildren but what could happen to the economy in the short term. “It is the economy, stupid” is a much heard phrase. The economy is important but there are different ways of managing an economy and surely it our natural environment that really sustains us. Without enough clean water, farmland and the biodiversity we need to keep our natural systems ticking over, we’re stuffed.
Australia was once the country that we wanted to emulate, they had got rich with coal mining and now fracking. Australia is now suffering the consequences of ignoring the effects of their carbon based economy and changing climate. They have hit temperatures of over 50 degrees, they are experiencing more frequent storms and forest fires, they are destroying their arable land for coal mining and fracking and have less available fresh water. Now the coal price is dropping because China is shifting to cleaner technology and their economy is on a downhill spiral.
Have a look at these views of the Hunter Valley to see why Australian famers have teamed up with environmentalists: https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=Hunter+valley+coal+mining&btnG=Search+by+image
LikeLike
Remove ‘like’ from the first line of my second paragraph.
LikeLike
DK,
Thats a better sidestep than any All Black in history.
JC
LikeLike
JC, I could spend hours debating the outliers of the science, but it serves no purpose. It actually comes down to whether you think that the World Bank and the Royal Society…etc etc can be trusted with their assessments. I do not have the scientific expertise to argue over every bit of science you can dig up (there are millions of pieces of research out there). Either you put your faith in the Marshall Institute and other corporate funded conservative think tanks to assess the science or the institutions that I continually list.
What did you think of the way Australia has destroyed their most fertile valley? You can look at an overview on Google maps and coal mines have destroyed a huge percentage of the farmland already. The carbon economy is so dumb on so many levels. We had Australian farmers come out and talk to Southland farmers about their experiences of the coal and fracking industries, it’s appalling what is being done to Australia’s agricultural economy.
LikeLike
Worth a read: http://rightnow.org.au/writing-cat/feature/coal-seam-gas-expansion-devastating-farmers-and-the-environment/
LikeLike
Not only is oil destroying our atmosphere it has had a huge impact at ground level too. This is the industry being welcomed into our environment with open arms:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30448377
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=niger+delta+shell+oil+spill&espv=2&biw=1260&bih=927&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Rc6MVJPYFoaE8gXftoE4&ved=0CC0QsAQ
LikeLike
DK – you are a complete ass. Take your sanctimonious “Those who oppose the climate science are not motivated by the future prospects of their grandchildren and stick it somewhere unpleasant. I take great offence at this and your persistent ignorance and arrogance.
You clearly have no understanding of science and what science is all about. Do you even understand the difference between fact and assumption? The climate scientists have repeatedly failed to obtain constant results from their theories and rightly deserve to be questioned. Yet you believers will not hear of any dissension. You should listen a bit more to JC and others who repeatedly point out your religions failings.
We do have a great many environmental issues but the slavish demand for climate science drama is taking valuable funding and energy away from the real issues. I care about my children’s, and their children’s, futures. You and your ilk that beleive communism has not had a fair go are trying your best to destroy what future options my children have available to them.
Take this latest talkfest in Lima with the money it is accumulating – yet you have the temerity to suggest there is no Big Government Money behind Gorebull Warming. You certainly have your head in the sand like all those other Greenies last weekend.
LikeLike
JC, your graph only shows global sea surface temperatures. Do you have an up-to-date link to one which shows temperature change below the surface?
LikeLike
“The climate scientists have repeatedly failed to obtain constant results from their theories and rightly deserve to be questioned.”
Paranormal, this couldn’t be further from the truth there is strong consensus about the cause of climate change and what will result, the main difference of opinion is the rate of change. Most scientists make conservative predictions and yet the rate of change has generally been faster than the predictions:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-copenhagen.htm
I have continually asked here for the respected institutions that support an opposing view to what is accepted by the World Bank, the UN, NASA, the Royal Society etc and all I have been provided are links to conservative think tanks funded by the oil industry and websites managed by retired TV weathermen. The opposition to climate change isn’t science based, it is market and industry based. If you are accusing me of being sanctimonious, ignorant and arrogant then you must apply the same to the organisations I continually refer to.
“You and your ilk that believe communism has not had a fair go”
This is the line taken by the Heartland Institute and is pure nonsense, it was also used against the regulation of the tobacco industry. The World Bank is hardly a front for communism and neither is NASA. As for the accumulating money involved in the climate change battle, it is chicken feed compared to the hundreds of billions earned by oil companies. Oil men are rich, climate scientists don’t live in mansions.
The strongest opposition to climate science in NZ are the Climate Science Coalition, there are few actual scientists in this lobby group and their legal action against NIWA was thrown out because the “expert” evidence was actually nonexistent. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-deniers-shot-down-high-court-challenge-niwa-bd-127869
LikeLike
That last paragraph is quite untrue, the judge effectively said he was not a scientist and was not prepared to make a ruling on the matter. In other words ‘science is not about legal opinion.’ I followed it quite closely, there is another case before the court in Canada, Mark Steyn getting sued by Micheal Mann (hockey stick fraud). All irrelevant in the long run, Nature decides what is real. This bullshit can’t last forever and when it’s over…
nobody will ever listen to you people again. This time you’ve gone too far.
LikeLike
Dave endorses the World Bank then says this:
“Either you put your faith in the Marshall Institute and other corporate funded conservative think tanks to assess the science or the institutions that I continually list.”
Funny
My emphasis.
LikeLike
TracyS,
I tend to use the NOAA/Met Office Argo data which gives 0.02C increase per decade for 0-750 meters.
Note Hansens linear line is heading into the wide blue yonder compared to reality.
NPAA does a useful reconstruction 1880-2010 here:
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/seaSurfaceTempCurrents.html
The particularly interesting thing is the 30-40 year slopes of rising warmth 1910-1940 and 1970s-2010. These sloping lines compare well with the roughly 30 year Pacific Decadel Oscillation warm periods.
The Argos can be used down to 2000 meters and these parallell top of the ocean ups and downs of the surface. Cant find the link right now as its late but its Argo data in Bob Tisdales page but here’s his stuff using NOAA for the deep Argos:
Below 2000 meters is a problem for everyone but the link here to Judith Curry shows a plausible way that the Atlantic Conveyer belt may be sinking heat way down.. again in PDO 30 year cycles:
Again the authors pinpoint the PDO as the agent of change and they speculate with models that half of the heat could be AGM and the rest natural. However Curry points out this cannot explain additional heat coming in the 19th century.
JC
LikeLike
DK,
You attribute to the IPCC and World Bank et al a truly apocalyptic view of the horrors of AGM. Storms, flooding, drought, plagues of locusts boils etc so maybe it would pay to look at the conclusions of the IPCC AR5.. the most recent tome.
{“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
So there you are, straight from the horses mouth from your most trusted source.. exactly what the Skeptics have been saying for decades.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
JC
LikeLike
Willdwan, you must have been following a different court case, here is what the NBR said of the decision:
Some evidence in the case was ruled inadmissible, including that of Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who is a founding member of the trust and secretary of the associated NZ Climate Science Coalition.
Justice Venning says Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”.
He also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.
The case was thrown out.
Mr E, you will have to explain what is funny regarding my reference to the United Nations funded World Bank and the think tanks funded by oil companies. You must be too clever for me.
LikeLike
“I have continually asked here for the respected institutions that support an opposing view to what is accepted by the World Bank, the UN, NASA, the Royal Society etc”
So respected that the educated and internet peoples all over the world place the climate statements of these “respected” institutions dead last on a list of 16 concerns? These institutions are neither trusted or believed on this topic.
JC
LikeLike
“So there you are, straight from the horses mouth from your most trusted source.. exactly what the Skeptics have been saying for decades.”
JC, you are using the scientists’ honesty and integrity (that you have questioned earlier) against them. The science of climate change is huge and there just isn’t the funding to do all of the work well or the history of data to have everything covered off convincingly. The scientists aren’t saying that this stuff isn’t happening, they just don’t have confidence that the research is solid enough to categorically say it is. This just emphasizes the fact that there is no scam and they aren’t just making stuff up to support their argument. If the science isn’t strong enough in some aspects they say so.
When James Hansen was questioned about aspects of climate change science after his presentation in Gore, we were impressed that he was open about stuff he didn’t know and he didn’t try to talk about aspects of the science he was an expert in. he was an honest man.
You obviously didn’t read the summary that supports all that I have been saying and is based on the research that they do have confidence in: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
LikeLike
DK,
I didn’t bother following your first link because I knew you’d quote the Summary For Policy Makers.. which you did.
Thats the summary prepared and checked “line by line” by politicians and it represents a “consensus” of what the politicians want you to know.
I quoted from Chapter Two.. what the real scientists actually state before the pollies get hold of it.. a totally different story but they’ve got a way to go yet.
As you can see, they are rowing back towards a less extreme position because the Group Bias has become embarrassing and the models cannot reflect the real time measurements.
Same is happening with the Medieval Warm Period.. it was there in AR1, less so in AR2, gone in AR3 (the Mann Hockey Stick) and now back to near its full glory in AR5.
JC
LikeLike
Dave,
Tell me where the World bank focuses it’s investment.
Then tell me that there is not reason for the world bank to hold a bias on the matter. Just like there is not reason for the oil industry to have a bias on the matter.
LikeLike
Mr E, I’m still confused, the oil industry wants to preserve their markets and profits (as would any company) the World Bank provides loans to developing countries for capital programmes. I’m sure there is bias in how the World Bank operates to some extent but I don’t see how that bias would be reflected in expressing support for climate science and its ramifications.
“Thats the summary prepared and checked “line by line” by politicians and it represents a “consensus” of what the politicians want you to know.”
Good grief, JC, politicians benefit most from their relationships with the oil industry and in the US they probably fund their election campaigns. Supporting climate science would be biting the hand that feeds them. James Hansen became an activist because the US Government refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the reports he provided and public documents on climate change were altered to remove any urgency to act. I cannot believe that you think that Tim Groser is part of a conspiracy with NIWA and he dictates their key messages. Perhaps it is retired politician Al Gore who is behind it all?
John Key has said that he accepts the science behind climate change (a little reluctantly I think), so I wonder who is twisting his arm? All the lines you are taking to question the validity of climate science have been proven incorrect and brushed aside long ago.
Wikipedia tends to be fairly balanced and factual on science topics and you can look at any branch of science and find pretty accurate articles. All the things you have listed: Climategate, the tree rings, the Medieval warm period, the Mann hockey stick debate, scientists like Fred Singer and the conservative think tanks (funded by oil companies), have all been exposed and disproved. The same people and institutions fought against the science proving the harmful effects of tobacco, the danger of CFCs on the ozone layer and the truth behind acid rain. The campaign against climate science is a campaign to protect corporate dominance, keep regulation at a minimum and maintain our dependence on fossil fuel. To win this argument environmentalists and Green Party members like myself are being labeled ‘watermelons” or secret communists out to destroy the world economy and free markets. It’s just a lot of nonsense.
You must be applauding the weak result of Lima which has come up with nothing binding again and it is likely that the Paris agreement will lack the teeth to drive anything substantial.
LikeLike
DK,
You managed to link 3 things above which supply the answers to whats going on.
Elections around the world are usually closely run things where the margin for victory is typically less than 5%.. elections now are won or lost by who best appeals to the environmental/Marxists.
So the politicians will happily allow the most extreme statements in the IPCC Summary to please the Greens.. and then they fight tooth and nail to ensure the same craziness doesn’t affect their own countries.
Thats why every gab fest ends up in a draw and AGW is kicked down the road to the following year.
The public has been onto this for 20 years.. same old MO before each gab fest, alarmism is touted in the media with “It’s worse than we thought” the same each time. Each time thousands of greenies flock to their holiday destination run by the IPCC, each year everyone is so hopeful that “this time” we get an agreement and every time the meeting ends up in despair and a draw as the UN/World Bank/ greenies see their $76 trillion gravy train whisked away and each year they all solemnly declare that next time they’ll get the prize.
Charley Brown and the football aint got nothing on this crowd of bludgers.
As for Wikipedia.. the laughing stock of the climate world two words summarise its efforts and deserved crap reputation.. William Connolly.
JC
LikeLike
I thought in the US it was the Tea Party supporters that had to be pandered to and few of them believe in human created climate change. In the UK the Green Party has growing support but only achieved 1% of the vote at the last election. Most scientists aren’t rich, most greenies are hardly profiting from this climate change gravy train, so who is scoring the trillions? Is it the clean energy manufacturers? China is hardly a country that is influenced by the “environmentalists” and yet they lead the world in manufacturing green technology, is it them behind it all because of their Marxist origns? Is China is trying to take over the world by going green?
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2014
You’ve lost me with the connection between Wikipedia and William Connolly. What has pluralism got to do with an online encyclopedia?
Independent analysis puts Wikipedia equal in accuracy as the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
It does seem that, according to you, we Greens have huge influence, the UN and World Bank are now under our control.
The real crux of this climate issue is actually about power and dominance. We have increasing inequality in the world and any efforts to set in place regulations that consider the plight of wider communities and the environment is horrifying for some. You obviously don’t trust governments, scientists, the UN, most academics and Wikipedia – but what are we left with…the multinational corporates, big oil and the think tanks they fund. Market forces will save the world and government intervention is just straight out Marxism. This seems to be a very one eyed, simplistic view of the world to me.
Please tell me more about the $76 trillion gravy train that I need to latch on to.
LikeLike
Dave,
“I’m still confused”. Yes you seem to be.
Tell me, if countries were taxed on carbon emissions, which countries would receive the greatest tax? Developed or undeveloped.
LikeLike
DK,
Your answers prove you are not into the science.. just the politics.
JC
LikeLike
Mr E, I am still struggling with this, are you claiming that the World Bank will make an income from carbon taxes and this is influencing their actions?
“Your answers prove you are not into the science.. just the politics.”
JC, it is you who is rejecting the science and most scientists, it’s you who said politicians wrote the IPCC summary, it’s you who is claiming that climate science is part of a marxist plot. Most of your comments are dripping with political accusations and innuendo. Even the failed attempt at legal action against NIWA revealed that there was a political influence rather than scientific as no credible scientist was involved.
Kennedy Graham spoke to a Southland reporter and he is worth listening to as he makes it clear what the issues are and has an economic solution (7:45 in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGwMlev9Vp8
How you can label Kennedy as marxist extremist is beyond me.
LikeLike
Oh Dave,
You’re the first to accuse the oil industry of influencing science outcomes for their own advantage, but when your comrades are guilty of similar behaviours, you promote naivety. It is as transparent as a ……GHG.
I doubt you honestly believe that the World Bank put billions per annum into developing nations, just for the fun(d) of it. The World Bank expects a return for its investments – Just like any other bank.
Over time I have heard people refer to ‘sanctimonious bs’. I have always thought such phrases were a little unfair. As time has progressed I think I could have been wrong with my assessment.
LikeLike
DK – you are a liar and propagandist for the marxist cause wrapped up in he Greens –
Lets look at your comment at 6.59:
1) you talk about ‘consensus’ (a political reality), again completely ignoring the substance of my comment that the actual climate data and outcomes bears no resemblance to the theoretical predictions. It’s lucky the Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantee Act doesn’t apply otherwise your much vaunted climate scientists would be out of business.
2) “The opposition to climate change isn’t science based” Keep spinning like a top, Just one look at Watts Up With that will show the scientific analysis involved. Dr Judith Curry, Dr Spencer – they’re not scientists? But then you admire Pachauri – a railway engineer? Go figure. Then there are the Climate Gate and other scandals, but they’re ok by you. Where is your moral compass, let alone your critical thinking?
3) “:Oil men are rich, climate scientists don’t live in mansions.” Sooo, why is Al Gore described as a Carbon Billionaire? You are just too naive for words. Why are the Climategate co-conspirators so nasty and deceitful in their actions? Could it have anything to do with patch protection and funding? Of course it does. there would be no other reason why they would get personal in their attacks on opponents to shut down dissenting views. But then again freedom of speech is a relative thing for marxists isn’t it.
4) “their legal action against NIWA was thrown out because the “expert” evidence was actually nonexistent.” The judge in his judgement said the case was outside his jurisdiction in that it was a scientific matter and not one for the courts. Venning J makes this comment repeatedly through his decision. You should perhaps read it for yourself. Part of the judgement is at: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/9f/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/998a5046-3bfa-40d1-b912-87077ae36768/998a5046-3bfa-40d1-b912-87077ae36768.pdf
BTW don’t attribute my words to where you think they come from. It wasn’t a heartland institute quote at all. It was a line used in Stephen Franks comment on one of the early Aro Valley election meetings he attended.
LikeLike
“JC, it is you who is rejecting the science and most scientists, it’s you who said politicians wrote the IPCC summary, it’s you who is claiming that climate science is part of a marxist plot.”
All true I’m afraid. We’ve established you have no personal knowledge of the science of climate change, you don’t know the story on Wikipedia and climate change and you don’t know how the IPCC Summaries are prepared.
About the only personal knowledge you espouse are that companies are evil and working against the proletariat and anyone who has worked in or been paid by a non Green approved industry is evil and can’t be trusted to do correct science for the proletariat and its children and grandchildren.
“How you can label Kennedy as marxist extremist is beyond me.”
I don’t. I just read you.
JC
LikeLike
“you are a liar and propagandist for the marxist cause wrapped up in he Greens –”
That sums up you approach, Paranormal, outlandish emotive comments without reason or evidence. I am a “lying marxist” – good grief!
1) The climate data and theoretical predictions have under estimated the rate of change. Cherry picking some data or predictions and claiming if one small part is not strictly accurate it discredits the mass is nonsense.
2) The main institutions or organisations opposing the bulk of climate science are not scientific bodies, they are conservative think tanks funded by the oil industry. Dr Judith Curry actually supports climate science but questions the rate of change, her research is an outlier to the broad mass of work.
3) Al Gore is a distraction, how many climate scientists earn the same as him? He is an Ex Vice President, President Clinton earns more for his speaking engagements and he doesn’t generally talk about climate change.
4) More cherry picking, this was the crux of the decision (quoted from your link):
The case involved a challenge to NIWA’s methodology and whether NIWA had made mistakes in the adjustments it had made to raw data relating to the temperature records. Ultimately what was in
issue in the present case was whether the decisions of NIWA were reviewable, if so, the standard to apply and, in this case, whether NIWA had erred in law or acted unreasonably in compiling the various temperature series. On those last issues the
Trust’s challenge was rejected by the Court.
JC, I never thought that I would be considered a Marxist extremist.
LikeLike
“JC, I never thought that I would be considered a Marxist extremist.”
Then don’t talk like one. You hammer skeptics for receiving oil money when you know, or should know that green organisations receive vast amounts of loot from Big Oil. The Climate Research Instituie of East Anglia and initially run exclusively with oil money and even today the CRU still acknowledges BP and Shell as funders, the Sierra Club took $25 million in oil money and the WWF was largely set up with oil money and is still a major funder.. oil money helps fund numerous green organisations.
You say being paid by the smoking industry invalidates a skeptic scientist’s views on AGW but presumably you don’t think a lawyer’s opinions are invalid because he represents criminals, ie such links are invalid.
Warmers also say that skeptic scientists who have a belief in God should not be trusted about AGM.. well so long Sir Isaac Newton and about 4000 years of science before the Warmers enlightened us.
And over and over and over and over again you hammer any science that is performed by skeptics in the private sector and say only those employed by Govt are pure and to be trusted on AGW..
and yet over and over again you guys show paranoia about Govt overreach, Govt lies, Govt corruption, Govt security and so on. If Govt supports AGW they are pure and right but in virtually everything else they are wrong and evil and in the pay of Big Oil.
You can’t have it both ways.
You say the World Bank can be trusted to deal wisely and ethically with $76 trillion.. well OK. However, the US President always selects the President of the World Bank and the US is the largest shareholder in the bank by a factor of two and able to call the tune.. so you are actually giving all that money to the US to dispose of.
JC
LikeLike
Good lord JC, the stuff that is dripping from your key board is straight from the Heartland Institute’s spin machine. I’m a marxist and a ‘warmer’ now. I also have worries about the funding accepted by the Sierra Club and WWF, but this is greenwash on behalf of the oil companies.
“And over and over and over and over again you hammer any science that is performed by skeptics in the private sector and say only those employed by Govt are pure and to be trusted on AGW.”
No I don’t. I say that the science presented by skeptics and the oil industry are not the majority view. When it comes to science truth generally favours the largest body of research and evidence the 3% is trumped by the 97%. Even if you disagree with that percentage the skeptics are still a small minority.
The scientists for hire like Fred Singer just say what they are paid to say and if they have been proven wrong multiple times in the past, their track record hardly makes them reliable.
LikeLike
Dave,
‘The scientists for hire like Fred Singer just say what they are paid to say ‘
I’d hope that all scientists are for hire. Otherwise they are often pointless. Sometimes unemployed scientists look more like ranting lunatics than scholars. Actually some employed scientists look that way too.
Suggesting Fred Singers says what he is paid to say, do you have evidence of that, Dave? Even a little shred? Making defamatory suggestions without evidence would obviously be very very unprincipled.
LikeLike
“Good lord JC, the stuff that is dripping from your key board is straight from the Heartland Institute’s spin machine.”
Interesting you should raise that. The Heartland Institute is America’s biggest skeptical organisation on climate change, possibly the biggest in the world.
A prominent warmer stole its confidential annual accounts and published them to the world, and what did we learn?.. that the HI had that year a budget of just $1.5 million.. compare that with the $8.8 billion the US Govt budgeted for 2010, this figure doesn’t include subsidies and tax credits for crony capitalism in the wind, solar and other new energy crap thats runs into the hundreds of billions.
“When it comes to science truth generally favours the largest body of research and evidence the 3% is trumped by the 97%.”
You just destroyed any notion of Warmer scientific credibility with that statement. On that basis Galileo was wrong, the Piltdown Man wasn’t fake, we really were heading into an ice age in the 1970s and our climate will be 6C warmer in just another 86 years.
Science is about truth.. not how many scientists agree about something.
JC
LikeLike
You’re right, Mr E, there is a good chance the Fred is actually saying what he believes and not necessarily what he is paid to say. His political leanings and philosophy could very well shape his science. He has also made a valuable contribution to areas outside of the debate here.
I would say, however, he does support unfettered free markets and his advocacy for the tobacco industry has tainted his credibility and his consultancy work for oil companies suggests a conflict of interest. He is used a lot by those who oppose climate science because of his earlier status, but he is now 90 years old and has not been actively involved in climate research for some time.
LikeLike
Greens paid BERL for consultancy and analysis. Are they conflicted because you paid them?
You use BERL “a lot” and they are often seen supporting environmental causes.
Actually Dr Nana has been seen supporting some of the most ostracised Green policies, like printing money.
Do you think BERL is a company that ‘say what they are paid to say’?
LikeLike