Science matters

“It doesn’t matter about the science of climate change, the politics is settled.”

Someone who knows a lot about both science and politics said this to me some years ago.

It was a private conversation and  who said it doesn’t matter but the science does when it comes to responding to the politics.

I was reminded of this by the large number of comments on last week’s post about the issue (253 and counting!) and the inevitable arguing about the outcome of the Lima summit on Climate change.

The politics has settled on the premise that climate change is a problem and therefore demands a solution.

That solution should be based on the best science available but unfortunately too often it’s politics that  triumphs.

It is troubling that many of those who criticise our government for not doing enough to help the disadvantage advocate climate change policies which would do little if anything for the environment and a lot of damage to the economy.

That would hurt the vulnerable the most.

New Zealand’s emissions are tiny on a global scale and, unusually for a developed nation, most come from farm animals.

That those animals produce food and most of that is exported doesn’t seem to trouble those who appear to be more concerned about the politics than the science.

There’s no point inflicting economic damage to score political Brownie points when reduced production here would inevitably result in greater production in other places at a higher cost to the environment.

The responsible response to the politics must be a scientific one with a global environmental gain without unnecessary local economic pain.

200 Responses to Science matters

  1. Dave Kennedy says:

    Some questions, Ele.

    If one accepts the scientific and political realities of climate change, and New Zealand’s emissions are actually growing, why is the Government:
    -Spending up to $13 billion on motorways and not investing more in public transport and walking and cycling.
    -Actively supporting coal and lignite mining, when coal is the worst contributor to GHGs
    -Opening up our land and territorial waters for fracking and oil drilling and cutting taxes for oil companies and subsidising exploration.
    -Not requiring minimum energy efficiency standards for homes, especially rentals.
    -dismantling the ETS to the extent that we are now subsidising polluters and they are actually making a profit by buying cheap carbon credits from Eastern Europe.

    Even if one accepts that farming should be placed in the ‘too hard basket’ the Government is actively encouraging the growth of GHGs through their policies.

  2. Paranormal says:

    “If one accepts the scientific and political realities of climate change..”

    1) the science isn’t settled, but,
    2) the politics are set

    Spending on Motorways: provides a solution for current problems and is the most flexible response for whatever future modes of transport are developed.
    Lignite: Again the science isn’t settled with no clear link between CO2 and climate change.
    Minimum energy efficiency – already sorted with building standards requiring insulation and housing renewal. people building will decide for themselves what they require, However you are in conflict here with the historical preservation types if you wish to legislate a one size fits all solution.
    The ETS is doomed as it has been elsewhere. What happened to the European ETS? People are over it.

    It seems that it all depends how you decide to measure carbon. Farmers are net carbon fixers in animal products that leave the farm. But that doesn’t seem to factor into the equation.

  3. Mr E says:

    Globally emissions wont reduce without global cooperation. It matters not what nations do as individuals, until global cooperation occurs, national actions will only be short term opportunities, that will eventually be undone by competition by the market place.

    The Green party tax is case and point.

    While we continue to consider carbon output on a per capita basis, food producing nations will get punished the greatest and such punishments will simply mean starvations, death and destruction, the very reasons why environmentalists want carbon to be mitigated.

    Somewhat ironically it is food producing nations like NZ that should be celebrated for carbon output gains. NZ is very efficient at producing food and rather than punishing our farmers we should be reporting our progress to the world. Shouting it from the roof tops. Encouraging our farmers further.

    But no, the likes of the Greens, simply seek to ostracise farmers and punish them for being good.

    It makes me wonder how green they really are. Their goal seems to be more about political power than doing the ‘right’ thing.

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I think we have to agree to disagree on this, your continual claim that the link between climate and carbon isn’t settled is wrong, the huge bulk of science supports it and has done so for at least 30 years. That is why we have had constant climate meetings and the Kyoto agreement.

    I agree about the ETS, it could have been effective but now that cheap Eastern European carbon credits have been allowed in and the Government continues to subsidise most polluters, it actually supports carbon emissions instead.

    Mr E, your emotive comments about death and destruction if we have limits on carbon emissions and regulatory controls is ignoring what is really happening. If you followed a past link I provided to coal mining in the Hunter Valley you will be aware that the world’s agricultural production is being affected more by the fossil fuel industry’s current activities than what any carbon tax would do. Huge areas of arable land are being destroyed. The gulf of Mexico oil spill also had a negative effect on food production. We are also losing production through changing weather patterns.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130710122004.htm

    We almost lost the Mataura Valley to lignite mining (a fifty year industry that would have destroyed around 20 farms). People may say that the land could be restored but Solid Energy itself talked about the many ‘recreational lakes’ that would be created that could never be farmed again.

    As I stated earlier, even if we ignore farming our performance around GHG emissions are appalling. We should be ahead of most countries because of our clean energy production, but most OECD countries have made better efforts than us.

    What Ele also neglects to mention are the opportunities in embracing green and sustainable technologies. I have linked to the business alliance Pure Advantage before who see huge economic benefits by engaging in the green economy: http://www.pureadvantage.org/blog/2012/06/11/new-zealands-position-in-the-green-race/

  5. Paranormal says:

    So give a link that shows proof that there is a link to CO2 and warming. Otherwise all you have is assumption. And that’s all it is.

    You are demanding action that will cause poverty and all the things that Mr E suggests based solely on an assumption.

    As for your change to sustainable technologies – when even the most ardent of believers can’t do it, it seems a little cruel to demand everyone else does it: “Organisers rejected powering the [Lima claimate conference] village with solar panels on the grounds they were too unreliable,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/peru/11292469/Frantic-efforts-to-save-Lima-climate-change-talks.html

  6. Mr E says:

    Dave

    “your emotive comments about death and destruction if we have limits on carbon emissions and regulatory controls is ignoring what is really happening”

    Nonsense – I recognised your points by saying “the very reasons why environmentalists want carbon to be mitigated”

    I know you don’t like me recognise the starvation and death policies that you promote. You think it is emotive, but I’m guess for many other readers they don’t see it as emotive. If they are like me they see it as a logical outcome of some of the Green party policies. You can keep burying you head in the sand and blocking your ears because the thought might hurt, but sooner or later I am guessing you will come to the same conclusion. In the short term I will hold you in contempt for ignoring a simple an unavoidable conclusion. You want NZ to lead the world in policies that will make food more expensive. More expensive food = starvation which can result in death.

    Shortly after you got upset at my mention of starvation and death, you said this, “We almost lost the Mataura Valley to lignite mining ”

    LOST!!!! Lakes that aren’t present. Invisible repaired farmland. Yes yes, I can see consent granted under these conditions.

    Emotive stuff Dave, in that it installed laughter into me.

  7. Dave Kennedy says:

    “So give a link that shows proof that there is a link to CO2 and warming. Otherwise all you have is assumption. And that’s all it is.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm

    I could give you hundreds of such links, Paranormal, but I know it probably won’t change your view. I couldn’t give you one piece of research that proves it because it is based on millions of pieces of research over more than 30 years.

    If China is manufacturing solar panels with great enthusiasm they must see the market has ongoing potential: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Why-China-Is-Leading-The-World-In-Solar-Power.html

  8. Paranormal says:

    Sorry DK that’s not proof, that’s correlation and very poor correlation to boot. In the first lines of the article are the killer words: “used a combination of GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS and historical climate data” Killed any credibility straight away.

    That paper was in 2009. Why has it not proven to be true when supposedly there has been a significant increase in CO2 (albeit a very small change in real terms of only a couple of hundred PARTS PER MILLION) and yet no warming?

    The fact you have hundreds of similar links is not in question. The fact remains there is an assumption CO2 is the culprit but no proof. There is similarly plenty of proof that shows CO2 levels follow warming so could not be considered to blame: “Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

    China is also guilty of building cities that no-one lives in. The joy of a command & control economy. Again your proof is lacking, Could it be with their solar panel production the Chinese are in fact farming subsidies in western countries?

  9. Mr E says:

    Ummmm – lets whisper Dave. We don’t want Paranormal to hear. I presume you read the whole article? Paid for it? Perhaps sending money to climate scientists?

    Or did you just read the blurb and assume the science is sound? How very thorough and scientifically sound of you.

  10. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, a quote:

    The claim that climate models are unreliable is the 6th-most popular contrarian myth. The argument is generally based on the claim that climate models didn’t predict the slowdown in global surface warming over the past 15 years. That’s in large part because during that time, we’ve predominantly experienced La Niña conditions. Climate modelers couldn’t predict that ahead of time, but the models that happened to accurately simulate those conditions also accurately predicted the amount of global surface warming we’ve experienced.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

    “Or did you just read the blurb and assume the science is sound? How very thorough and scientifically sound of you.”

    Mr E, the source is important, I am no scientist and I don’t have a degree in climate science, but if there are multiple accounts coming from a variety of respected institutions there is a strong likelihood that science is reliable. Well regarded Universities, the Royal Society, NASA etc I trust to have honest science. I do have difficulty with information on a retired weatherman’s website or the Marshall institute.

  11. RBG says:

    A vegetarian diet has a lower carbon footprint that a meat eating one. A vegan diet is even lower. It is rubbish to claim that farmers here are helping stop the world’s poor from starving, because we don’t grow the crops the poorest people eat and can afford. In fact this government regularly states that our dairy exports are aimed at the rising MIDDLE class in Asia. The ‘poor people will starve’ excuse is not a justification for intensive dairying and this government is bullshitting when it claims it as an excuse for not taking effective action on climate change.

  12. Paranormal says:

    DK I take it then you have no understanding of how computer models work then. Having worked on them I do. The reason we use models is we do not have a full understanding of how a system works.

    My question to you was to provide proof that there is a link between CO2 and global warming. The models are not proof as there are assumptions built into them, one of which being CO2 and warming are linked. There is no evidence that they are linked and anything based on a computer model cannot be considered proof.

    You’ve also shot yourself down. As I have previously pointed out we do not fully understand how the climate works. We know what happens in La Nina and El Nino years but we don’t know how or why they come about. For any computer model to be considered even remotely accurate surely it has to be able to model and to some extent predict El Nino and La Nina years.

  13. Paranormal says:

    RPG – a couple of questions for you – if we’re not providing food for our overseas markets, who will? Who will miss out if we’re not producing the levels of protein we currently provide the world market?

    Just look at what happened to the truly poor around the globe with the Green bio fuels initiative, and you want to double down on this the Green madness to make the poor suffer more by reducing our productivity?

    Frankly any reason to not tackle the farce that is climate change is a bloody good reason.

  14. Mr E says:

    Ok Dave,
    A fair call, credentials are important perhaps? Then again this point was made by a ‘politician’ not willing to suggest any further changes to his house energy efficiency. And considering that point, yeah nah, I cant agree with you Dave. You know. With credentials like yours, its not even worth considering your first sentence!!! Perhaps if you ‘walked the walk’ better, i’d be a bit more open minded to your opinion.

    What a web you have spun!

    I hope you enjoy humour and understand the point I am trying to make. You see Dave, based on your standards, I should probably ignore your calls for a carbon tax.

  15. Mr E says:

    Ha ha,
    RBG denies the most basic of economic principles. Demand and supply. You greens crack me up!

  16. JC says:

    Lets look at the hypothesis..

    The world is warming
    CO2 is rising

    (1) Therefore CO2 is causing the warming.

    (2) But mostly warming has been shown to precede CO2 rising by up to 800-1000 years, therefore (1) cannot be correct.

    (3) In the last 18 years the temps have not been rising but CO2 has risen significantly, therefore (1) cannot be correct.

    (4) Models did not predict the near stop in global warming and are now orders of magnitude hotter than empirical measurements by ground, satellite and balloon, therefore (1) cannot be correct.

    The point is there are dozens of ideas on why the Earth has warmed and the heat/CO2 link is just one of them and not particularly plausible.. at the moment for example there are over 50 attempts to explain why the world has stopped warming as the scientists and activists try to protect their crumbling hypothesis rather than do what Karl Popper would suggest.. start again because we have reached the rather embarrassing situation where some scientists are saying that if the actual real time measurements of temperature don’t agree with the models the real temp must be wrong.

    [“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.“
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation]

    JC

  17. RBG says:

    Homepaddock claims to be concerned about the “vulnerable'” being hurt if NZ makes changes to address climate change. I am calling her out on that because the world’s poor DON’T eat NZ farmers meat and dairy. It is just another invalid National excuse for business as usual. And Mr E, if you want to put the guilts on people for the starving billions in the future, it is NOT taking action on climate change that will reduce agricultural productivity. So look to your own conscience..

  18. RBG says:

    Hey Dave Kennedy, you may have noticed Homepaddock/Ele doesn’t answer questions on climate change. I expect you saw how National MPs actually cheered the graph that showed the increase in this country’s carbon emissions! How sick is that.

  19. Mr E says:

    Ha ha!
    RBG thinks carbon dioxide is bad for agriculture. You greens crack me up!

  20. Willdwan says:

    Last week we were getting grief for failing to ‘add value,’ now our food is too expensive for the poor. Can’t win a trick.

    In fact our products serve both ends of the market, haute cuisine to basic protein.

  21. Dave Kennedy says:

    RBG, Ele knows that her Party publicly supports the science behind climate change so can’t speak out against this. However while National pretend to care they are actually doing as little as possible to appease the oil companies and other multinationals they like to mix with.

    This satirical post I wrote a while ago is actually close to the truth. Our current government ministers like playing with the big boys but have no idea that they are really being taken for a ride: http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/big-boys-club-membership-achieved.html

  22. TraceyS says:

    Dave, Mr E and Paranormal, I did read the original article Dave referenced (oh the joys of full access to academic databases!):

    Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A., & Zickfeld, K. (2009).
    The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon
    emissions. Nature, 459(7248), 829-32

    It is not the easiest of reading by any stretch but I do not think one has to be a climate scientist to understand it. Anyone used to academic reading should be able to cope OK. Anyone not used to might be best advised to pick another topic.

    “From our model-based estimate of CCR*, we estimate allowable emissions of 1.25 TtC (range, 0.95-2 Tt C**) for 2 uC warming relative to pre-industrial temperature…Given total CO2 emissions until now of approximately 0.5 TtC from fossil fuels and land-use change, this implies that total future carbon emissions consistent with 2 uC of warming must be restricted to a best estimate of about 0.8 TtC (0.7 Tt C based on the model ensemble mean; 0.9 TtC based on observational constraints).

    We emphasize, however, that the calculated uncertainty on this number is quite large (0.4 to 1.5 Tt C). Furthermore, we are unable to exclude the possibility of higher values of CCR (and consequently lower values of allowable emissions), owing particularly to poorly quantified uncertainties in historical land-use change emissions…”

    The emphasis is mine. Without needing to pass any judgement at all, it is easy to see why some climate change protagonists want to see land uses stabilised. It will help increase the certainty of the models.

    But at what cost? The expanse of academic knowledge must not come at the expense of basic needs.

    But hey, that’s just my uneducated opinion.

    *Carbon-Climate Response
    **Trillion tonnes of carbon

  23. TraceyS says:

    …current government ministers like playing with the big boys but have no idea that they are really being taken for a ride.

    Dave, I would hazard a guess that no-one knows when they are (unwillingly) being taken for a ride…including you. Do take care out there. Reading lots of stuff and listening to people you agree with will not help. Nous is only developed though bitter experience – including going down the odd wrong path and back-tracking.

    To anyone who was born a perfect decision-maker, this will sound like complete and utter nonsense.

  24. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I remember hearing about two philosophers who were asked what the difference was between their approaches to their work. One of them said that the other philosopher always thought his thinking was right while he was always questioning his own beliefs.

    I would be very concerned if any scientist was 100% certain about their findings. Climate science is complicated because of so many variables and any modeling can only be as correct as the information they are given. Despite there being some variance existing in much of the research the core findings have remained the same and the more research that is completed, the more they are confirmed and refined.

    Thanks for taking the time to read my link even if you were reading it to find some weakness.

    “Do take care out there. Reading lots of stuff and listening to people you agree with will not help.”

    Thanks for your concern, Tracey, I don’t think there is a danger of me only reading what I agree with if I frequent this blog 😉

  25. RBG says:

    Mr E, all life on this planet is carbon based, but as your inane comment shows, not all of it is intelligent.

  26. TraceyS says:

    “…I don’t think there is a danger of me only reading what I agree with if I frequent this blog.”

    Even if you are reading it to find some weakness.

  27. Paranormal says:

    Tracey S I couldn’t agree more: “But at what cost? The expanse of academic knowledge must not come at the expense of basic needs.”

    Especially when the extract you quote starts – “From our model-based estimate of CCR…” So they’re basing their findings, that the Greens want to use to destroy the economy, on a ‘model based estimate’?

    A certain lack of critical thinking somewhere along the line.

  28. Mr E says:

    Tracey – I read the article yesterday. Went to an Indian website to find it, and still could not guarantee I got the full picture so I avoided further commenting on it.
    What I did read, the paper was about correcting climate models to achieve a linear prediction of climate response. They produced a model that corrected models to achieve a model.
    I had some significant concerns about the error reporting. You will note that they drew a line through the points and then reported 5th and 95th percentile data – a confidence interval. Then they questioned that confidence interval in the statement you provided above, almost saying – it could be greater, we don’t know.

    I would have liked to see R square error data against the linear reporting. I would have also liked to see a statistical test put to the model data comparing it to historical data. To test if the model produced a statistically true result. That would have diminished the seemingly blind statements around error reporting.

    Let me restate a paragraph I have presented before
    ” 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).”

    Herein lies the issue with politicians trying to make head nor tail of climate change research. They don’t understand the uncertainty. Things seem black and white to them, such is the nature of politics.

    Sadly it is often the case that error is poorly reported in climate science and as such it is hard to grasp just how accurate the findings could be. That is often the way with biological models.

    Modellers are often good at calculus but also often poor at statistics. They are very different skill sets. It is hard to find good statisticians. I studied statistics at the 600 level at University. I was offered a tutoring job when I passed in the top 3 of 300 students at the 300 level. Even with my knowledge I always ensure I have independent consideration of my statistics. Some time ago I asked my Statistician peer reviewer to do a job (paid) he was unavailable for a month due to work commitments. I asked him if he knew of another in NZ. His answer – “No”. Statisticians are rare as hens teeth. Many researchers try and process their own stats. So many make a hash. Some cut the corners.

    In my experience modellers make the worst job of statistics. To present an accurate error of a model, there are 2 logical ways. Consider the error of each input value and accumulate them. This can result in error propagation. And a very big result can occur. Or test the model against known data sets to see how accurate it predicts the data.

    As I have said before – some of our most widely used models in NZ have estimated errors of plus of minus 30%. These models are relatively simple compared to climate models.

    To put it simply – until the climate change scientists can provide some accuracy around their predictions that meet my needs, I will only consider AGW a possibility and as such my reactions will be conservative. Politicians should observe this too. AGW is not black and white. It is greyish. Actions should be conservative to reflect this point.

    Even presuming AGW was an absolute, actions like isolated nations carbon taxing will not make long term progress. If universal mitigations are achieved, only the tiniest of improvements can be made, without the cost to humanity being too great. Radical mitigation steps will simply result death, the very thing the mitigations are supposed to avoid.

    Frankly I think the National party is doing a good job of recognising the grey and the cost of mitigations. I don’t agree with everything that Tim Groser says, but I think he is heading the country in the right direction.

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Frankly I think the National party is doing a good job of recognising the grey and the cost of mitigations. I don’t agree with everything that Tim Groser says, but I think he is heading the country in the right direction.”

    Hmm, the cost to the taxpayer of the Government’s current approach is actually quite worrying. It’s encouragement of Solid Energy to chase its lignite dreams and coal mining caused it to collapse with a $400 million debt. The dismantling of the ETS will shortly cost tax payers up to $1 billion a year in pollution subsidies. The subsidising of oil exploration and the low royalties we gain from what is extracted is a concern. Treasury has warned the Government that unless they can reverse the growth of our GHG emissions it will face a $52 billion carbon debt. The Government has already built a debt of $60 billion over the last six years, I’m afraid the country isn’t going in the right direction at all.

  30. Paranormal says:

    DK – “Science Matters”

  31. TraceyS says:

    “I would have liked to see R square error data against the linear reporting.”

    Having recently completed a level 10 paper in quantitative research methods (with distinction) I too would like to have seen this. It is disappointing not to be able to find this in the paper – regardless of which side of the debate you’re coming from.

    The problem is greater than some researcher questioning whether he is 100% correct or not. The proving of models must have by now become a life’s work for some researchers. As such there is much to lose if the models don’t pan out right. This is human nature. The same human nature that underlies all self-interest from the individual scientist to the largest corporation.

    Dave, a holiday reading list might include “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould. He was writing about bias – a topic he must have been acutely aware of. However, even Gould has subsequently been accused of bias in his work, and this is all based on directly observable and measurable subject-matter. When the subject is a model, I cannot imagine how many avenues there are for bias to creep in unnoticed. Nor do I have any solution for it.

    Perhaps I should model it…

    I absolutely appreciate the desire, for modelling’s sake, to stabilise changes in land-use in order to remove the uncertainty introduced. Both sides of the debate might have good reason to support this. One to prove the models wrong – the other to prove them right. But people will suffer and this can’t be allowed to occur for what is actually a battle of egos more than anything else. And if I were a politician I’d be fighting tooth and nail against it even though I err on the side of reasonable suspicion that in the long term burning of fossil fuels will have a downside.

  32. Mr E says:

    Ok I’ll do it. I’ll model Dave’s scenario.

    Current oil supply = 85M barrels/day – NZ $61K barrels = 0.07% reduction.

    Global consequences = insignificant

    The Globe follows the NZ example = 100% reduction

    Global consequences = 8B population reduces to 100 people after sudden nuclear war (plus of minus 50)

    Then the NZ consequences for reducing oil production = 61K barrels per day *365 days = 2.2M barrels @ $80 per barrel = $176M Assuming 50% on expenses. $880M taxable income * 28% =$250M

    NZ economy – $250M = 5% reduction every year. People leave the country. Hospitals close, schools close, NZ shuts down. (plus or minus NZ staying open)

  33. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, you can analyse one model to death and make assumptions of bias, but there are countless models that have been used that have various levels of accuracy. Scientists are protective of their reputations and the peer reviewing of their work ensures that any potential bias is moderated. The factor that effects the accuracy of a model the most is the reliability and comprehensiveness of the data used to inform it.

    Rationally any scientist that finds evidence against the extent of global warming is more likely to have money thrown at them than if supporting mainstream science. Oil companies and conservative think tanks are keen to capture any potential evidence that can help save their industry and yet most scientists are driven by the ethics of their profession and present the science as honestly as they can. This explains the cautious pronouncements, the carefully explained margins of error and the stated lack of confidence in any findings where there is not substantial supporting evidence.

    Many who comment here latch on to those honest statements of doubt and lack of confidence in some aspects as proof that we can’t trust the science. In actual fact this is just more evidence that we should trust the science as it is clear that what is being produced isn’t back and white propaganda but cautious science that isn’t leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions. The fact that most agree that climate change is a serious issue and we are heading for certain catastrophic outcomes if we don’t take remedial action is just more compelling. Most of the modeled predictions of the rate of change have been underestimated (ice melt, sea temperatures etc), which further proves the cautious approach and reliability of the science. The one area that has become contentious is the leveling off of the increases in surface temperature, but such plateaus have always occurred, the past decade has still been the hottest ever and now 2014 temperatures are showing another upward swing.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

  34. Mr E says:

    “Rationally any scientist that finds evidence against the extent of global warming is more likely to have money thrown at them than if supporting mainstream science.”

    Not true at all. Here in New Zealand, there are funding streams that support Climate change initiatives. They don’t fund climate change protagonists.

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    “NZ economy – $250M = 5% reduction every year. People leave the country. Hospitals close, schools close, NZ shuts down. (plus or minus NZ staying open)”

    Mr E we are already heading that way under this Government’s extreme mismanagement. The last three years have seen an upward swing in our economy and yet no benefits of this have been used to pay of debt or improve services. It appears we will continue borrowing heavily and investing in unsustainable corporate welfare (Matthew Hooton’s opinion too). The Greens reviewed economic plan was able to manage our emissions, provide tax cuts and pay off debt while still improving services. It is just about a shift in priorities and spending $13 billion on motorways with dubious cost benefit analysis and subsidising the most profitable multinationals in the world above supporting our own exporters is no sensible plan.

    Bill English’s claim that market forces rather than Government leadership will save us is not believable. It was the lack of regulation and state leadership that led to the financial crisis and will also lead to an environmental one.

  36. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Not true at all. Here in New Zealand, there are funding streams that support Climate change initiatives. They don’t fund climate change protagonists.”

    You are right, Mr E, and so it should. Governments should rely on the scientific evidence and the 97% deserve the funding over the 3%. However corporate interests are influenced by commercial drivers, hence the huge investment by the tobacco industry to fight the science and the same now with the oil industry.

  37. TraceyS says:

    “The factor that effects (sic) the accuracy of a model the most is the reliability and comprehensiveness of the data used to inform it.”

    And you don’t think that in measurement, data collection, and analysis there is any potential for bias? Is climate science supernatural?

    “…you can analyse one model to death and make assumptions of bias, but there are countless models that have been used that have various levels of accuracy.”

    I’ll let you work out what is peculiar about that statement and why it actually justifies the need to scrutinise any “model to death”.

  38. Dave Kennedy says:

    Go for it Tracey 😉 I don’t have the scientific knowledge to do that myself, but I do trust the bulk of the work that scientists do in reviewing their own on our behalf.

  39. TraceyS says:

    To quote Paranormal “[a] certain lack of critical thinking somewhere along the line”. Yes.

    You don’t have to be a scientist to think critically about the research results they produce. If you want to use their work you simply must.

  40. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You don’t have to be a scientist to think critically about the research results they produce. If you want to use their work you simply must.”

    Tracey, I don’t think the world could rely on your assessment of climate science. I do trust the IPCC, NASA and the Royal Society to make broad assessments based on all the work being done around the world. You may have a special qualification, and be a very clever person, but checking out random pieces of research is just a waste of time if you have no idea of its actual relevance or what other science it is linked to. I only link to the research as example of what is being done but connecting all the work being done around the world and looking for commonality is the work of others better qualified than you or I.

  41. Paranormal says:

    So DK/BS, it really is a matter of faith for you – “I do trust the IPCC” And you wonder why we refer to your new religion?

  42. Mr E says:

    Oh Dear,
    Dave has put up another link claiming support of green policies.

    This is a quote from the article.
    “Renewable energy, which has been always cast as much more expensive, is becoming the low-cost option for many, many parts of the world,” Professor Chu told the Herald yesterday.

    “It’s not true of every part of the world, it depends on whether you have wind or solar,” he added, noting that New Zealand, with its many overcast days, lacked the solar resources of Australia.

    But he said this country’s significant hydro resources meant it could easily “go well above” 50 per renewable energy at a “very low cost”.

    You see the Green Party has been very critical of NZ’s hydro suggesting it is ‘expensive storage’ and has ‘relatively low storage capacity’. Using such rhetoric to support the idea of solar subsidies. Dr Chu casts some negative aspersions against that. I wonder if the reporter asked him, whether he would burst out in a fit of laughter.

    It’s a curiosity that Dave thinks the Greens were supported by Dr Chu’s comments.

    Perhaps most importantly- is the fact that when last considered, our percentage electricity sourced from renewables had gone up by over 10%. mostly because of clever investment in geothermal.

    The truth is, we don’t need the Greens. Never had. New Zealand knows it, their votes proved it.

    The Greens will tell you otherwise, with some unbalance rhetoric, no doubt. However It seems, facts tend to undermine them every step of their way.

  43. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, the IPCC has been demonised by the conservative think tanks but I don’t think you would find that our National Government would question their authority. It is an inter-governmental agency and some of our most respected scientists have contributed to it.

    Ardently supporting neo-liberal, free market think tanks against science does smack of religious fervor though, especially when it is led by the likes of Lord Monckton and his followers.

    Mr E, you appear to be very keen on putting all your energy production into one basket. Multiple forms of sustainable energy production does provide greater security and solar is being used very effectively down south.

    I know you get sick of me repeating this but the Greens have been very influential in pushing change faster than it would have, even though we haven’t been in Government. The waste minimalisation bill was pushed through by Nandor and the home insulation scheme has now insulated over 300,000 homes, which will create huge energy savings.

    I think we Greens will eventually be successful in dragging you guys out of the fossil fueled era into the the 21st century of advanced technology and sustainable energy. Coal and oil is so last century, we should be embracing and leading the new developments like mining silica for the PV industry instead and supporting the development of 3D printing. Cows, wood and coal will only get us so far 😉

  44. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “you appear to be very keen on putting all your energy production into one basket”

    Did you read my comment at all Dave? I sometimes wonder if you sat a primary school comprehension test, whether you would pass. Here is a little reminder.

    “Perhaps most importantly- is the fact that when last considered, our percentage electricity sourced from renewables had gone up by over 10%. mostly because of clever investment in geothermal”

    You seem to think that the Greens influence is all good with no cost. I don’t see it that way at all. I’d hate to think of what the cost has been to the tax payer. Millions and millions I would guess. That is partly a cost of democracy and most of us tend to accept that. But to hear your shameless self promotion without recognising the cost, wont go without judgement by me.

    So tell me Dave, have you ever worked out the cost of the Green Party to the tax payer in its total form vs the benefits you promote?

  45. Dave Kennedy says:

    I certainly did read your comments, Mr but there is more to renewables than geothermal. Every month, the equivalent of 50 to 60 home solar power systems are being installed nationwide, creating a $44.5-million-a-year industry.

    Yet we still have a coal fired power plant in operation and Fonterra powers its largest driers on lignite.

    Also the cost of following our current policies and GHG trajectory will see our country having to pay a $52 billion carbon debt according to Treasury. It seems the Government may fail a comprehension test too. There is a cost in making changes (in the millions) but there are also opportunities and there will be huge costs down the line (in the billions) if we don’t.

    Like the Pure Advantage business group, Dr Chu sees economic advantages for New Zealand in being a green leader.

  46. Mr E says:

    3 things Dave,

    1, According to your claim, solar is growing rapidly by itself. Subsidies are therefore not needed.

    2, Dr Chu casts aspersions against solar, suggesting Hydro. Which Greens cast aspersions against. Dr Chu actually seems against the Green Party.

    3, What is the cost benefit ratio of the Green Party?

    4, When I discuss diversification into geothermal energy that is obviously not all eggs in one basket. Is it?

  47. Mr E says:

    4 things – I added an extra

  48. Paranormal says:

    More emotional claptrap from you DK. You have still failed to provide proof that CO2 causes global warming, let alone ‘man made’ CO2.

    Your consistent call to an authority that has no clothes is amusing however. Keep playing the politics, one day you may get good at it.

  49. JC says:

    “Your consistent call to an authority that has no clothes is amusing however.”

    Oh I don’t agree with that entirely. Afterall, here’s the authoritative British Medical Journal on dieting..

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/uons-wyl121414.php

    It looks like for every 10kgs of fat you lose 8.4kgs is CO2 expelled in the breath. So don’t feel bad about overeating this Christmas.. you are sequestering CO2 and helping the fight against AGW.

    Of course the spoilsports then add this extra CO2 doesn’t add to AGW because all of the gas is taken up by plants in a natural cycle.. its only CO2 from fossil fuels that adds to AGW because presumably plants can tell which is a breath CO2 and which is a fossil CO2 and this stuff they refuse to take up.. aren’t plants clever (or are they just food snobs?)

    JC

  50. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E
    1. Oil and coal get multiple subsidies, it’s important to have a level playing field.
    2. No he didn’t he just said that we don’t have as much sunshine as Australia. Solar is still providing all the energy needs for my sister and she lives south of Invercargill. You’ve really got it in for solar haven’t you?
    3. Pretty high I would have though, the insulating homes initiative had an excellent cost benefit ratio (about $5 for every $1 invested from memory).
    4. Geothermal energy is alright but it releases GHG too. When I talk about multiple energy forms I am thinking more than one or two. Wave, tide, wind, solar, methane capture, passive solar…all have their place.

    Paranormal, and your authority is?

  51. Dave Kennedy says:

    Forgot this link explaining geothermal emissions: http://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/emissions.html

  52. Mr E says:

    1. How is coal and lignite subsidised any more than the solar currently?. Keep in mind that EECA provides free information to households about the viability of solar. If you like, solar has received exploration funding.

    2. Yes he did.
    Read the statement Dave.

    “Renewable energy, which has been always cast as much more expensive, is becoming the low-cost option for many, many parts of the world,” Professor Chu told the Herald yesterday.

    “It’s not true of every part of the world, it depends on whether you have wind or solar,” he added, noting that New Zealand, with its many overcast days, lacked the solar resources of Australia.

    But he said this country’s significant hydro resources meant it could easily “go well above” 50 per renewable energy at a “very low cost”.

    Regarding my view of solar, I’ve told you before, my expenditure on solar would be $30-40K. My reality is that I will never recover this value. So I can not consider it an investment. You will no doubt understand this, using a subsidy to install your own solar, and halting at that.

    3. “Pretty high I would have though”. You’ve never worked it out, and the best you can give me is a ‘thought’? That is sad and also gives me the confidence that I can recklessly say, “pretty negative I would have thought.”

    4. So diversification only happens if at least 6 alternatives occur at the same time. What utter nonsense.

    You greens are really starting to spout some wackadoodle views.

  53. Ray says:

    “Paranormal, and your authority is?”

    I nominate.
    The Sun.
    (I am tempted to add God, but hesitate following the spiteful mockery and ridicule by Mr Kennedy towards the Christian beliefs of an individual in a previous post.

  54. Mr E says:

    Paranormal and Ray,
    Dave’s strongest argument is that we should not take climate change advice from anyone who has a conflicted interest in the matter.

    Oil funded individuals, tobacco individuals and whoever else might be on the pay cheque. Sadly it is fair to say all IPCC scientists are also on the pay cheque, and using his logic should also be discounted.

    Also using his logic we should discount any views that have a vested interest. An example might be those would make political gain from promoting a view. I have a niggling feeling there is a good example staring me in the face, but I just can’t quite think of it. Someone who might want to use a climate change to further their political ambitions. Hmmm. It is on the tip of the tongue.

    Anyway, it is unimportant. I for one am taking Dave’s advice. I’m going to discount the views of those conflicted. It is therefore back to the drawing board for climate science. Lets wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.

    Then again should I take that advice? Dave wouldn’t be conflicted would he? A failed election candidate for the Green Party. Wait just a gosh darn minute! Forget everything I just said!

  55. Paranormal says:

    Thank you Mr E. Your comments of late have made me smile.

    DK – you’re as bad as the kids you saw taunting each other in the playground. All I’ve asked for is scientific proof that CO2 drives warming. So far nada.

    For Climate Change/Gorebull Warming to be so important to the world, surely there must be easily obtainable proof that CO2 is the culprit. If computer driven climate models (that have an inbuilt ASSUMPTION that CO2 causes warming) are all there is in the way of proof, then maybe we should be extremely cautious.

  56. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, There has been 155 years of science and research showing the effect of CO2 in changing the climate. In 1859 Tyndall discovered that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggested that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. The science since has just added on going evidence that he was correct:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

    “Sadly it is fair to say all IPCC scientists are also on the pay cheque, and using his logic should also be discounted.”

    Mr E, IPCC scientists are being paid to honestly find what is really happening, are you suggesting that there is pressure put on them to produce evidence that we are in a dire situation?

    Remember there is a long history of powerful corporates questioning the science that will potentially erode their profits and most of the same scientists and institutions have been behind each: acid rain, CFCs and the Ozone layer, tobacco smoke, lead in petrol… the same is happening now regarding climate change.

    Thanks to the ‘merchants of doubt’ fewer people believe in the science of climate change than they did 10 years ago. Why the heck would I be pushing this as an issue for political gain? Believe it or not I pursue many of these issues (and it is the same for others) because I want to leave a future for my kids.

    My son has just completed a degree in industrial design and I do hope that we can grow a sophisticated economy that will be able to employ his skills. At the moment around 25% of our young graduates are leaving our shores and many because we are a low wage economy that is focusing too much of its energy on low value products. There is also the potential that the world’s climate will be very turbulent within the next few decades and food production will be stretched as we lose more and more of our arable land through drought etc.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11375505

  57. Mr E says:

    “IPCC scientists are being paid to honestly find what is really happening”

    How can you be sure? If they say “nothing is happening” their careers could end. What would you do with all those climate scientists?

    Why should we believe IPCC scientists are independent anymore than those you have criticised.

    The simple truth is – if you doubt one because of money, you should doubt them all.

    “Why the heck would I be pushing this as an issue for political gain?”
    I think it is what the Greens do. They trade on peoples fears. Someone or something is always being polluted, ruined, starved, unhomed, poorly educated, spied on, ripped off etc. They often cherry pick data, desperately unfair data, that fits their argument and broadcast it to the world.

    International websites are load with rhetoric from NZers dragging the country down. More often than not they are parroted lines from opposition politicians. The cost to the county must be astronomical. Our country has spent millions if not billions establishing our brand and I think it is being undone carelessly by a shallow few.

    And I’ll tell ya, people like me who are fiercely proud even patriotic, get fed up with it pretty quick.

  58. Ray says:

    Paranormal, There has been 155 years of science and research showing the effect of CO2 in changing the climate.

    No there has not, Mr Kennedy, a deliberate lie, and if that is the best you can do, if I had a vested interest in the global warming gravy train, I would respectfully ask you to stop commenting on it.
    You are out of your depth.

    I think it is what the Greens do. They trade on peoples fears.

    Exactly, Mr E, they don’t want success, they want perpetual crisis. Their continual war against energy and industry in this country should be seen for what it is. Traitorous. Useful idiots like Mr Kennedy are the naive foot soldiers that perpetuate it.

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The simple truth is – if you doubt one because of money, you should doubt them all.”

    What a sad world you live in Mr E, believe it or not many professions are driven by a code of ethics and the belief that they are providing a useful service. Lots of people aren’t driven by the dollar alone. I actually believe most scientists are honest people doing solid work. Doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen, ambulance officers rest home carers, mediators…are all providing a service that is probably underpaid when considering their skills and hours. They are all motivated by something other than money.

    I thought it is ironic that you suggest the Greens trade on people’s fears when this Government does it far better and all based on prejudice and spin. We spend millions fighting terrorism when more people die from domestic violence, alcohol and smoking, they are actually much bigger threats to most people. I even hear fear mongering about the Greens, our Marxist plans and wanting to run farmers into the ground and destroy our economy. We are also told about the drain to our economy caused by beneficiaries and the unemployed and yet we are losing billions every year from tax fraud and 95% of us are actually employed, but most on low wages.

    Mike Joy is demonised for speaking truthfully about the state of our rivers and lakes and when John Key claimed he could find a scientist who had a different view he has drawn a blank. Surely our image should be based on fact rather than an expensive manufactured image, it would be so much easier to maintain credibility.

    When the methane warning alarms kept going off in the Pike River mine, they just turned them off because they became annoying and the need to get the mine earning money was considered more important than the welfare of the miners. The same thing is happening with this Government, the warning alarms are constantly ringing about our growing debt, the housing crisis, child welfare, our over reliance on exporting raw commodities and our environment. The advice to the incoming government from the various ministries and departments make interesting reading, much of what we Greens have been saying is supported by the advice. The Government’s answer is to shut down the alarms: refuse to measure child poverty, put a stop to the five yearly environment review, shift the responsibility of social housing to the private sector…

  60. Dave Kennedy says:

    Ray, you are probably right, 155 years is way too short. Most science does not involve stand alone research, it is built on previous science, and informed by the wider scientific community, with lots of cross pollination and peer reviews. The original science that was the beginning of today’s climate science may very well go back centuries.

  61. TraceyS says:

    Dave, your view on motivation is far too simplistic. The very fact that these positions are paid for delivering certain outcomes will likely undermine intrinsic factors to a degree. This is very well established in literature. However, as with the CO2 to temperature change relationship, the degree of the effect varies from one situation (aka model) to another.

    I quote from the paper you referenced as proof (or was it just an example?) of that relationship:

    “Recent climate-carbon model experiments have shown that eliminating CO2 emissions leads to approximately stable, or slowly decreasing global temperatures over time; this implies that close to zero net anthropogenic carbon emissions are required to stabilize global mean temperature…”

    As a closing remark I wonder if you would be prepared to comment on whether or not you agree with the authors whom you quoted and whose example you were willing to use?

  62. TraceyS says:

    Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A., & Zickfeld, K. (2009). The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459(7248), 829-32.

  63. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I chose a random piece of research to provide an example of some of the work being done. It supported the importance of CO2 as a key contributor to climate change. I have no idea of it’s overall importance or current relevance as it wasn’t recent.

    My main point through these lengthy debates is that it isn’t the individual pieces of research that are important in the end, it is the sum of them all. I do trust the conclusions of the various respected science institutions based on their reviews of the breadth of work being carried out.

  64. Dave Kennedy says:

    Another point Mr E, the Green Party isn’t plucking stuff out of thin air to create a sense of fear we are just reflecting the evidence.

    For instance the evidence of child poverty and the negative impacts it has is not constructed out of nothing, it is supported by evidence and research from the Children’s Commissioner (appointed by this Government), university research, health data, the census and the Child Poverty Action Group.

    The Greens have also supported the Law Commission’s recommendations for alcohol sales and advertising that the Government largely rejected. Doug Sellman, Director of the National Addiction Centre and outspoken critic of current alcohol laws has been targeted by Cameron Slater. Graham Lowe led a forum to look at alcohol and sports advertising and sponsorship and it has supported many of the earlier recommendations from the law Commission. Amy Adams is already expressing the views of the alcohol industry lobbyists in the media and is likely to reject the new recommendations.

  65. TraceyS says:

    It was a reasonably straightforward question, Dave.

    You may have chosen an article randomly, but I disagree that this is a “random piece of research”. Look at the references and contributors if you are able to access the full article.

    It is just a little irresponsible, don’t you think, to use research when you “have no idea of it’s overall importance or current relevance”, even as a example. But perhaps especially when using it as an example.

    The author, Matthews, despite making the claim about zero emissions (which I disagree with); shows that he is responsible with the more recent comment in Nature:

    “Policy goals should not have adverse effects on human and environmental welfare.”

    Nature 514, 434 (23 October 2014) doi:10.1038/514434b Published online 22 October 2014

    Who on this planet could disagree with that? It sure would be nice to hear something similar being espoused by the Green Party.

  66. Paranormal says:

    DK you are absolutely amazing. You can spot bias in a oil sponsored scientist’s prognostications from thousands of miles but are unable to see the bias staring at you in the mirror every morning.

  67. TraceyS says:

    I do trust the conclusions of the various respected science institutions based on their reviews of the breadth of work being carried out.

    Well good luck with that, Dave! I hope that you will pay particular attention to what happens when knowledge is institutionalised.

  68. TraceyS says:

    ” You can spot bias in a oil sponsored scientist’s prognostications from thousands of miles but are unable to see the bias staring at you in the mirror every morning.”

    Not amazing, Paranormal, but “ordinary”. People often have to rely on others to identify their bias. I’m sure that is why Dave keeps returning to comment here, even if he is unaware of it.

    If someone wanted to point out my biases (I have them) then I would be pleased – grateful even.

  69. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, my argument has been fairly constant, I have chosen to support the conclusions of all the major science institutions is the world including NASA. The IPCC is an internationally collective response to an agreed threat by the majority of countries in the world and the scientists leading it are some of the worlds most respected.

    The evidence of changing weather patterns and increased warming etc is visibly apparent.

    I do not find the Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks, funded in part by the oil industry, credible. Lord Monckton uses his obvious skills as an orator to push pseudoscience and most of the scientists he has used to support his arguments have claimed he misrepresented them. Monckton is not a scientist himself.

    Paranormal, most of your arguments here were dredging up tired disproved propaganda. They are similar arguments used to fight against the science around the ozone layer, tobacco smoke and acid rain etc. Your are supporting the corporate line that regulation is bad and companies should do as they wish and market forces will save us. This sort of thinking allowed the global recession to occur. Wanting tighter regulations on GHG emissions will not destroy the world economy but help us shift from a fossil fueled one to a clean energy one. Holding rigidly on to the past and technology that is well past its use by date is no way to build a sustainable future for our kids.

    “Well good luck with that, Dave! I hope that you will pay particular attention to what happens when knowledge is institutionalised.”

    Tracey yo will need to explain the alternative, also some form of institutionlisation is always necessary to put in place functional organisation to coordinate the research. Medicine is institutionalised science and it generally works OK, the alternative would be a real worry.

  70. Paranormal says:

    “The evidence of changing weather patterns and increased warming etc is visibly apparent.” As it always has and always will be.

    You are also way wrong on what you consider my motivation is, as you have consistently proven with your comments. The fact you consider “155 years of science and research” based on an unproven assumption is credible, maybe you should consider the three fingers pointing back at you when you point the finger and say the things you do. An assumption doesn’t seem a very strong foundation for building your empire on DK.

    As an aside I had to laugh when I saw this mornings Horrid talking about Arctic Squirrels and Beavers causing Gorebull Warming by their very existence. Maybe we should exterminate them all then the world would be saved! Apparently the Squirrels are causing the vegetation trapped in the permafrost to melt and to start rotting. There doesn’t seem to be any consideration of how the vegetation got there in the first place….

    I’m just glad the public are over Gorebull Warmening and we will be moving on to the next ‘big fear’ before the reality of WW3 really breaks us out of our complacency.

  71. TraceyS says:

    “Medicine is institutionalised science and it generally works OK…

    A very long time ago the medical establishment advised my Grandmother to take up smoking for “relaxation” (the doctor himself smoking at the time!)

    The same establishment tried to save her from lung cancer some 50 years later.

    But I agree with needing to accept institutionalisation despite the pitfalls. The rigourous pursuit of objectivity must be the counterforce. Talk of “settled science” and calling people who challenge scientific findings “deniers” is contrary to that I think.

    “The concept of denialism is itself inflexible, ideological and intrinsically anti-scientific. It is used to close down legitimate debate by insinuating moral deficiency in those expressing dissident views, or by drawing a parallel between popular pseudoscience movements…” (Fitzpatrick, 2010).

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

  72. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I find it incredible that you can discard the time line I provided on the history of climate science in such a dismissive way. Which bit of science in that lengthy thread did you not believe and wish to challenge?

    You also appear to discount the evidence that although climate fluctuations have occurred in the past, the rate of change is much greater now.

  73. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey the “denier” label comes about because of those who deny the relevance and importance of the large bulk of climate science. I have found few who comment here who are prepared to accept even a little bit of what I have presented or linked to, while I have actually agreed with aspects of counter arguments including some of what you have presented. I just didn’t put the same importance on it.

    While people have been upset at being told that they are denying mainstream science, I seem to be regarded as a marxist and extremist for accepting the advice of respected institutions.

  74. Paranormal says:

    It seems the incredible is a daily happening for you DK.

    Start right at the beginning of your science list to see what it is founded on – an assumption. As always with your links – there was little relevance to what you were trying to portray. Did you actually read it yourself? Did you perhaps note the item on Milankovitch suggesting climate change is about orbital cycles? Then you’ve got Callendar postulating that Global Warming was happening in 1938 – just before the little ice age in the 40’s. Then of course there’s the Global Cooling Crisis of the 1950’s through to 70’s noted in several items. And in all of that – there is no proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming. And yet you talk of consistency. Is that the consistency that comes with sycophancy? (reference critical thinking)

    As for your rate of change – really? You’re just repeating the lines again. Have a look at the graphs I linked to in the previous post and see what part of that spurious argument stacks up, particularly when we’re currently in a time of reduced storms. What you are talking about comes from a lack of perspective, meddling with data and misreporting of whats actually happening out there.

  75. Paranormal says:

    You are a marxist DK. The Greens are a marxist organisation and you are guilty of repeating their lies for their political benefit.

    Don’t just take my word for it – Dr Patrick Moore says it as it is, even with the media spite of the left ranged against him. I’m just waiting for your belittling of his credentials as having sold out to big business oil companies…

    That’s what all this climate change nonsense is based on since the original Rome conference – the redistribution of wealth to the poorer countries. That’s why the convener of the conference took the findings from the floor that there was no evidence of anthroprogenic global warming and said the opposite in the closing statement. That’s why climate change/gorebull warming is a political reality and not a scientific reality.

    And that makes you one of Stalins ‘Useful idiots’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

    (Based on your criteria I have provided a link so it must be true)

  76. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You are a marxist DK. The Greens are a marxist organisation and you are guilty of repeating their lies for their political benefit.”

    …”And that makes you one of Stalins ‘Useful idiots’”

    Given this level of rational argument you expect to be taken seriously with anything else you say?

    Let’s compare credentials of your champion with one of the most respected climate scientists.

    Patrick Moore is regarded as a bit of a joke since his early days as a co-founder of Greenpeace, he now has a reputation as a hired consultant who specializes in saving companies whose brand turns toxic. He has no background in climate science.

    James Hansen is an adjunct professor in the Department of earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. His testimony to the congressional committee in 1988 was pivotal in increasing awareness of climate change in the US. He is highly regarded for his research on the Earth’s atmosphere, especially the effects of aerosols and trace gases on climate.

    There has probably been more media spin directed at Hansen despite his impeccable credentials and it is quite obvious that Moore is now more of a hired PR man than a true scientist. There is no comparison.

  77. Mr E says:

    “What a sad world you live in Mr E, believe it or not many professions are driven by a code of ethics and the belief that they are providing a useful service.”

    Yes Dave, your words often make my world sad. At the moment I am sad that you seem to believe professionals that hold your view have a good code and those that don’t have no code.

    But generally your words make me sad because you come across very negative with your comments. In all the masses of comments, one after the other after the other, they all seem gloomy. So much negativity must be wrapped up in side you? When you get up in the morning to you purposely throw yourself out of the wrong side of the bed, spill salt into your coffee rather than sugar, then accidentally squeeze lemon in your eyes rather than on your pancakes?

    Other than an apparent over eager pride associated with insulation and rubbish, is there anything you are happy about?

    Or should we all just hold on for the end of the world? And moments before think, I wish we had grizzled as much as Dave?

  78. JC says:

    “While people have been upset at being told that they are denying mainstream science, I seem to be regarded as a marxist and extremist for accepting the advice of respected institutions.”

    Really? How about these 134 respected scientists?

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:open-letter-to-un-secretary-general-and-endorser-list&catid=1:latest&Itemid=2

    Note they quote the Met Office which supports there has been no warming for 16 (now 18) years, IPCC that there’s no evidence of climate change causing extreme weather losses and NOAA “The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction.”
    Now 18 years have passed and the models’ predictions of temperature are running 1C above observations.

    JC

  79. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, actually when I read through the comments, the accusations of marxist plots, the belief that scientists can no longer be trusted and emotive talk of conspiracy theories isn’t coming from me 😉

    Life for me is actually pretty good, my vege garden is starting to grow again and I am in the process of sorting out the plumbing at our Catlins crib ready for an influx of friends at New Year. I’m just about to pick up a new header tank.

    JC, yep that’s an impressive little collection and some of them are even climate scientists. I’m not sure what knowledge the marketing professor would add to the group, it appears that having any kind of degree will do. Is this supposed to trump NASA, the IPCC or the Royal Society?

    They seem to be related to the Climate Science Education Trust that Bryan Leyland is also a member of, not a lot of credibility then.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/247514/climate-sceptic-action-to-cost-taxpayer

  80. Mr E says:

    “Mr E, actually when I read through the comments, the accusations of marxist plots, the belief that scientists can no longer be trusted and emotive talk of conspiracy theories isn’t coming from me ;-)”

    You must have one heck of a filter there Dave. Let us repeat some of Dave’s famous quotes.

    “I do have difficulty with information on a retired weatherman’s website or the Marshall institute.”

    “The claim that climate models are unreliable is the 6th-most popular contrarian myth”

    “However while National pretend to care they are actually doing as little as possible to appease the oil companies and other multinationals they like to mix with. ”

    “Our current government ministers like playing with the big boys but have no idea that they are really being taken for a ride”

    “Ardently supporting neo-liberal, free market think tanks against science does smack of religious fervor though, especially when it is led by the likes of Lord Monckton and his followers”

    “Oil companies and conservative think tanks are keen to capture any potential evidence that can help save their industry and yet most scientists are driven by the ethics of their profession and present the science as honestly as they can”

    “You’ve really got it in for solar haven’t you?”

    “The evidence of changing weather patterns and increased warming etc is visibly apparent.”

    “Lord Monckton uses his obvious skills as an orator to push pseudoscience and most of the scientists he has used to support his arguments have claimed he misrepresented them. Monckton is not a scientist himself. ”

    “Patrick Moore is regarded as a bit of a joke since his early days as a co-founder of Greenpeace, he now has a reputation as a hired consultant who specializes in saving companies whose brand turns toxic. He has no background in climate science.”

    “most of your arguments here were dredging up tired disproved propaganda. They are similar arguments used to fight against the science around the ozone layer, tobacco smoke and acid rain etc. Your are supporting the corporate line that regulation is bad and companies should do as they wish and market forces will save us. This sort of thinking allowed the global recession to occur. ”

    Dave, are you also growing a beard and suffering from wool blindness? From where I am sitting, your argument is all about conspiracy. I seems like any one who disagrees with you is simply a denier, contrarian, conflicted, unqualified or retired, outnumbered religious goon.

    Being the 10% green party I would have though you were OK with the understanding the people will not always share your view. To me, it seems not. Rather it appears anyone who things different is a lesser person.

  81. Ray says:

    But generally your words make me sad because you come across very negative with your comments. In all the masses of comments, one after the other after the other, they all seem gloomy. So much negativity must be wrapped up in side you?

    Read and reflect on Mr E’s comments, Mr Kennedy.
    There is a lot of truth therein.

    Then read and reflect on your own comments and see how much of them are positive and optimistic.
    Not many here, including me, take you seriously, but you seem to have convinced yourself, that to project credibility, you need to post a worst-case scenario on every single subject that lies ahead for humanity. Your grim prognostications almost invariably contain a gross exaggeration of facts and always push your beloved greens as the saviours of us all.
    Your alarmism is ignored, as it should be.
    Just imagine if you could channel your efforts into workable solutions, not just phrases such as “smarter” and “renewable energy” which are just sanctimonious poses, not realistic answers to our energy needs, with the same vigour and tenacity that you use to predict our doom.

  82. Dave Kennedy says:

    Thank you Mr E, I think I can back up just about every statement you have quoted but I think you will struggle to find evidence that the Green Party is part of a Marxist plot and I am one of Stalin’s henchman 😉

    If you think that Monckton is credible and the hugely profitable oil companies aren’t subsidised, then produce the evidence. Most of my statements have gone unchallenged especially my very first one on this thread.

    Ray, you do put everything back on the Greens most of the time I am referring to other sources and organisations who think the same, we are not alone and this is actually a very serious issue. As I have shown many times things are actually progressing far quicker and looking worse than scientists have predicted. I have also given examples of countries and regions that have done the very things I am championing.

    Smarter management of energy and renewable energy is a reality and already operating, as I have shown, they are not sanctimonious poses.

    It is actually alright to challenge other peoples thinking and debate different perspectives but the horror often expressed here that I dare to do this is quite amusing. At least Tracey does engage in a polite way most of the time although she can be a little patronising at times:

    “Do take care out there. Reading lots of stuff and listening to people you agree with will not help.”

  83. TraceyS says:

    Dave, why complain about others expressing “horror”? You’re not responsible for their feelings any more than I am for your feeling patronised.

    How would you feel if I said this was amusing to me – you feeling that way? (it isn’t by the way).

    Would it further the debate if I mocked your reaction like that?

    Have you considered that the “least” person here (me) comes across as polite because I choose not to engage in that way?

  84. Paranormal says:

    DK you have regularly proven to be a shallow repeater of leftist talking points with little understanding – hence my derision.

    As for proof that the Greens are marxist – if you believe Red Russel, Turei, Locke, and Bradford are/were involved because they really like trees, then I have a bridge you will really want to buy.

  85. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I think you are confusing social justice and human rights with marxist communism. This was a discussion about climate change and it appears that you believe that climate science is a communist conspiracy.

    It is also interesting that you call Russel Red when many commentators claim that he has shifted the Greens to the right. Also New Zealand had a socialist Australian as a Prime Minister in the past who led New Zealand to one of its greatest periods of prosperity. http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2012/06/lessons-in-history.html

  86. RBG says:

    “Have you considered that the “least” person here (me)”
    -he didn’t call you that TraceyS, he said “At least Tracey does engage in a polite way most of the time”
    And he said he found the ‘horror’ amusing, he wasn’t complaining about it.
    It appears you do pick up and twist the comments made by those you disagree with. And no, I haven’t done the same, I have not ‘twisted’ yours, but I am picking you up on misrepresenting what Dave Kennedy has said. (not that he needs me to defend him, he presents his case well)

  87. TraceyS says:

    Really RBG? In this case, I do find your apparent horror mildly amusing!

  88. RBG says:

    I’m not horrified in the least TraceyS. Just catching up on the thread and noticed you misrepresenting Dave Kennedy’s comments. Perhaps you find it amusing to do so, whatever your motives, its disingenuous and usually takes the discussion off topic.

  89. TraceyS says:

    What is amusing about your reaction above RBG, is your inconsistency; defending Dave when you agree he needs no defending.

    I agree that he needs no defending because he always has a right of reply here – and generally uses it.

    You may not agree with my interpretations, or like them, but that is not my problem. As long as I am free to express them, I will.

    Sometimes they will be incorrect. I accept that. It is no moral blight to be wrong occasionally.

    To borrow some of Dave’s own words; I sometimes agree with aspects of his arguments but I just don’t place the same importance on them.

    Gosh that is so disingenuous isn’t it?…not being in 100% agreement with orthodox opinion!

    I once believed the Green Party to represent free thinking. That was apparently wrong.

  90. TraceyS says:

    Here is an article that everyone should read:
    http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

    “But there’s still hope…if technologies that are now on the drawing board can be scaled up affordably. “If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere,” Tyrrell says, “it’s possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover.”

    Of course there is hope. Because civilisation is able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2. I recruited a young engineering graduate more than a decade ago who had invented a CO2 scrubber as part of his degree.

    But his development, and that of others like him, could not be possible without the usage of fossil fuels.

    Scientists may concur on a CO2 / climate change connection but they are far from agreeing on the ‘limits to growth’ extrapolation of the Greens.

  91. TraceyS says:

    Limiting growth would also limit scientific growth. The writing, although not patently clear, is on the wall that this cannot be afforded.

    So there Jeanette…
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1110/S00271/jeanette-fitzsimons-growth-is-propelling-us-to-the-brink.htm. The planet is not going to be saved by turning us all into Robert and Robyn Guytons – as if this would even be possible.

  92. RBG says:

    TraceyS @ 2.52pm, now you are just being ridiculous,misrepresenting (basically lying about) what Dave Kennedy said has got nothing to do with ‘free thinking’ and your nonsensical comment about the Green Party being for or against it.
    As for me being ‘inconsistent’ because I defended Dave even though he didn’t necessarily need it- thats really lame.

    Why do you have to bring the Guytons into this discussion? Have you ever met them? Missing Robert perhaps?

  93. Mr E says:

    Ha ha,
    RBG expresses horror.

  94. Dave Kennedy says:

    What I find particularly interesting is that defenders of the status quo repeat the Heartland Institute line that those who care about the environment are communists out to destroy the world economy. However the evidence of unregulated greed in the global economy is ever apparent.

    The great 2008 recession was caused by the fraud and deception perpetrated by the leaders of the financial sector. Most have not been held to account and financial institutions were rewarded for their greed by being bailed out, costing taxpayers worldwide trillions. We had our own SCF bailout which came to more than all the Treaty settlements put together.

    We now have free trade agreements and the WTO that insist that all markets should be open and protecting local businesses and industries has become anti-competitive. This means economies of scale always win and multi-nationals dominate world trade. The Greens ‘Buy Kiwi Made’ campaign to support local businesses and employment had to be wiped because it goes against free trade.

    HBL is being contracted to provide food for many hospitals (Including Invercargill) and it is likely that the fish will come from Vietnam again and potatoes from Holland (as it has before under a similar system). The world economy has become very carbon intensive and products get shifted around the globe unnecessarily and our reliance on cheap labour in less developed countries has meant an increase in polluting power production in the likes of China.

    It makes sense to import what we cant produce easily ourselves and export commodities that we can produce better than other countries, but free trade (rather than fair trade) has killed many businesses in developed countries and pushed wages down. With so many multinationals paying little tax it has reduced the revenue of many governments, necessitating cuts to Government spending and services. The trillions used to bail out financial institutions (and allow management bonuses to continue to be paid in many cases), took money away from schools, hospitals and infrastructure like roads and public transport.

    The current flawed economic system trumps any attempts to curb environmental degradation if regulations are introduced that restrict profits and support local solutions. It isn’t marxist communism to support local businesses and expect multinationals to pay their share of tax. It also isn’t communism to try and ensure that we can protect and fix environmental degradation for the next generations. This isn’t even an argument about capitalism vs communism because our current economic systems are even bad examples of capitalism as corporate welfare and subsidies have reached extreme levels. The Sky City deal was a classic example here.

  95. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    RBG seems to be on some misrepresentation bender, so lets’s check some statements. You know to make sure they’re fair.

    “National pretend to care”

    Can you prove that National are pretending to care? I hope you have something solid there, because I think that is a pretty nasty thing to say.

    “Patrick Moore is regarded as a bit of a joke ”

    I don’t regard Patrick Moore as a joke. Who are you representing here? Again you must have some good evidence to say something like that. You know, being a principled Green in all. Must be a survey? Or a court ruling?

    Regarding Monkton, I think the question is ‘how credible is he?’. That seems to be what you are asking. How about we test it using your 97% theory, which might allow us to kill 2 birds with one stone. The theory is most popular out come (consensus) is ‘scientific fact’.

    Here are some basic facts:
    Monckton
    Presents to large crowds Internationally on Climate Change – has even visited Invercargill to do so.
    Google “Monckton” and you get 12 hits before it is interrupted
    Was once part of Thatchers advisory team
    Has been quoted as being ” one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics” by a critic.
    Is mentioned by Dave Kennedy many many occasions.

    Vs
    Dave Kennedy
    Has no reputation as an expert on climate change. Is not a sort after speaker on climate change.
    Google Dave Kennedy and it is 13 hits before he is mentioned.
    Failed in the 2011-2014 election with a declining result
    Has been quoted as being ” ….” by a critic. (lets not go there)
    Ha probably never been quoted by Monckton.

    You popularity theory indicates it is scientific fact that Monckton is more credible that you!!! 😉

    I would tell you what my personal view of Monckton is, but I don’t think it is relevant, as I must be in the 3%.

  96. Willdwan says:

    It the left that pretends to care. If you really cared you would not advocate policies that can only make the (climate) ‘problem’ worse.

    And you would never fly. Not Ever.

  97. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Can you prove that National are pretending to care? I hope you have something solid there, because I think that is a pretty nasty thing to say.”

    Mr E, the Government says it wants to help the homeless and struggling families and yet the evidence is the very opposite. How much has the availability of social housing grown over the last 6 years? Why cut the funding to agencies supporting families like Women’s Refuge when domestic violence is increasing?

    The Government says it wants to help priority learners in education and yet more extra money has gone to support private schools than supporting those with high needs.

    Patrick Moore is used a lot by the likes of yourself because he came from an environmental background. If he had remained in Greenpeace you would have rubbished him relentlessly but it is hypocritical to use that background as if it gives credibility to his changed views that are obviously influence by his recent employers. He isn’t even a climate scientist and neither is Monckton. If you judge Monckton’s value by Google hits and popularity as a speaker then the following some boy bands get must mean their music is high quality 😉

    The Thatcher relationship is an interesting argument because she was the first major world leader to identify climate change as an important issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

    “Your popularity theory indicates it is scientific fact that Monckton is more credible than you!!! ;-)”

    What a nonsense argument to compare my own credibility to Monckton l when I am basing my arguments on the links I provide. You can quote Monckton as your source of knowledge and credibility and I will stick with James Hansen and NASA. It is not a popularity contest, it is the balance of evidence that is important. Anyway, for every site supporting Monckton there are ones with real scientists pulling apart his theories, here is a very thorough demolition of Monckton (well referenced and linked) by a ‘Republican’ scientist. The level of the sheer nuttiness of Monckton becomes clear and it was extemely embarrassing when Federated Farmers promoted his tour of NZ: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

  98. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    If that is your measure of “proof” I don’t think you should be commenting on climate change. I predict you will only create more sceptics.

    You seem to be upset at my comparison with you and Monkton. Why isn’t popularity an important measure of credibility? Surely for all the thousands of people who Monckton has presented to relative to your 50 in Invercargill, that must mean he has more climate change credibility than you.

    If you don’t think so, doesn’t that draw your ‘97% of scientist’ theory into question? I think it does. Science is not a measure of popularity, and when such claims are made, it is usually because of politics or insufficient evidence.

  99. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, Hitler was far more popular than me as well 😉

    I notice that you have determinedly ignored my argument that it isn’t me that you need to discredit but NASA, the Royal Society, NIWA, the IPCC and even Margaret Thatcher when it comes to climate science. You need to hit the source not the messenger.

    I am not upset at your comparison between me and Monckton because if you read the link that I provided it is your own credibility that is on the line for even trying to defend the man.

  100. Dave Kennedy says:

    Willdwan, that is an old argument, to change society and a poorly performing economy removing oneself from it does not make a successful strategy. Mr E reckons I am a failure because my house isn’t a perfect example of energy efficiency but I feel it is better to lead by example and that means showing that positive change is achievable without great disadvantage and suffering. I’m hardly perfect and neither is my house, but if my standards become the minimum then it would hugely improve our current performance.

    Remember I am promoting a transition.

  101. JC says:

    “I notice that you have determinedly ignored my argument that it isn’t me that you need to discredit but NASA, the Royal Society, NIWA, the IPCC and even Margaret Thatcher when it comes to climate science.”

    They were discredited years ago. They predicted continuous catastrophic warming and it hasn’t happened.. it stopped over 18 years ago.

    It has been one of the most spectacular own goals of all time.

    Oh, and the UN Global Poll has now passed 7 million.. climate change still dead last.

    JC

  102. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    Hitler was and is probably the most hated person in modern history, if not ever. Drawing some comparison to him and suggestions of popularity seems odd.

    I suppose he does have a handful extremists supporters, which cannot be ignored.

    When I referred to failure above, I was referring to your election result. You publically suggested 15% party vote as a goal and achieved half at 7.5%. Down from your previous result of 8.4%. A decline. Beaten by a new comer. Given your ardent support of consensus science, consensus politics must be hard at the losing end.

  103. Mr E says:

    Name Withheld,
    An interesting law.

  104. Mr E says:

    I do have a request Dave,

    Next time you talk to the Southland times, can you please tell them the following?:

    “Hitler was far more popular than me as well”

    It is fair to say – I consider this as ‘doing a Cunliffe’ or you might know it as “I’m sorry for being a man”

    Taking it one step further, I expect other right bloggers to create threads titled like this.

    Dave Kennedy self admission: Less popular than Hitler.

    Politics is such a nightmare. I am glad I am not involved 😉

  105. Paranormal says:

    Science matters – so DK here’s some of your reputed institutions results showing that climate change/gorebull warming is not occuring: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/state-of-the-climate-report-5/

    BTW MJS would be spinning in his grave with Green’s and Liarbour’s policies that trap people in poverty. The social contract he talked of has well and truly been trashed and no longer exists in the minds of the indolent.

    You really should read a little wider. Your hero is not quite a saint as a former Labour cabinet member points out: http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/article_savage.htm

  106. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, you are a very determined denier. Again you have listed no credible organisations to counter the ones I have been referring to. Business orientated think tanks cannot compete with respected science institutions when it comes to science.

    “To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    Also the last decade was still the warmest, on average, than any before and 2014 looks on track to be the hottest ever. We are also experiencing an increase in weather extremes that is part of the process too (just listen to the news most days). I’m afraid your argument does’t stack up.

    Mr E, You are doing it again, trying to discredit me rather than my sources. I see you have learned how to approach debates from Cameron Slater 😉 I won’t argue with you about my election result, it was disappointing and New Zealand First did particularly well in Invercargill too. All I can say is that our membership in Invercargill has doubled over the past three years and we are building a strong team for 2017. Sarah ran a strong campaign and had good party support (the Greens will always struggle against National’s many large anonymous donations). The $2 million given to the Stadium in the last week or so was a master stroke too. Believe it or not Sarah and I agree about many things regarding the local economy and she kindly supported the tour of High Schools that I organised.

    I thought Hitler mobilsed a nation, the hatred part came after with the realisation of his dishonesty. Many mad people can generate a strong following and Monckton has the support of lay people who have limited scientific understanding with which to judge his pseudoscience. His reputation within the scientific community (even the conservative one I linked to) is nil. He often refers to Rachel Pinker’s work but thinks she is a man and Rachel herself claims he has entirely misrepresented her. He is also a particularly nasty man and often refers to those who oppose him as ‘bedwetters’.

    I see many of his mad conspiracy theories repeated in these climate change threads:

    Making Up Crazy Conspiracy Theories

    1. He accused NASA of crashing its own satellite so it wouldn’t have to deal with more data that contradicts the scientific consensus about climate change.

    2. Monckton claimed that a treaty would be ratified at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that would “impose a communist world government on the world.”

    3. After the BP oil spill disaster, Monckton went on CNBC claiming that Pres. Obama has some sort of vendetta against BP because he hates the United Kingdom. What’s the evidence? Well, Obama has repeatedly referred to BP as “British Petroleum”. Which is, well, what “BP” originally stood for. Note that he wasn’t just saying that Obama was using the fact that BP is based in the UK to score political points, pass the buck, or whatever. He was claiming that Obama HATES the U.K., and mentioned some rumor about Obama’s Kenyan ancestors being mistreated by the Brits.

    4. After Monckton and his allies went about crowing that his article in an APS newsletter was “peer-reviewed,” the APS started appending notices on all its newsletter articles stating they are not peer-reviewed. Monckton claimed it was all a Communist plot. Marxist, to be precise.

    5. Monckton apparently subscribes to one of the “Birther” conspiracy theories, claiming that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fake. He hasn’t yet explained how birth announcements for Obama made it into a couple Honolulu newspapers in 1961, but I’m sure such nagging little details will be explained in due course.

    6. When Monckton visited Gibraltar, he claimed he applied for a press pass so he could attend a talk by Al Gore, but the Government Press Office had made “two maladroit attempts to lose his application.” The Press Office countered that they had received only one application from Monckton, and even though it was two days past the deadline, they gave him one, anyway.

  107. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, you continue to link to the maverick individuals who stand against conventional science, I’m sure there are hundreds that you could find, but they still can’t compete with the hundreds of thousands who are in agreement and are working together. Again, what respected institutions do you support that bring together the science in the same way that NASA does (for example).

    I agree with much that Basset has written in your link and I would never say that Savage was perfect. However his initial response to the dire situation that existed when he took power worked, and a good number of things he did were still supported by Basset and later later National Governments. Basset also states in his conclusion:

    “It is possible to re-define the role of government so that it sets acceptible parameters for public and private endeavour. At the same time it is also possible to devise systems for assisting those who cannot make a go of it in a market economy.”

    The things that I highlighted in my linked post would still have value today if they were reimplemented.

    We may actually agree more than you realise about social policy. I think too many working people receive welfare support. I think everyone who are employed and working hard deserve to be paid a living wage, I do not like the current government subsidies for inadequate wages.

  108. TraceyS says:

    Mr E at 5:09pm.

    “E” is for entertaining. That was quite funny.

  109. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey and Mr E, what sport you have with gleeful misrepresentation 😉

  110. JC says:

    “Again you have listed no credible organisations to counter the ones I have been referring to.”

    I don’t need to. The plateau of temps is acknowledged in all the main temperature records and also in the 30 year satellite record. You would have to be a denier to argue again the official temp records.

    “Business orientated think tanks cannot compete with respected science institutions when it comes to science.”

    What do “business oriented think tanks” have to do with the official temp records? More Marxist BS and obfuscation from you.

    “To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.”

    Which we get from satellites..

    +0.07C /decade over the last century or variously +0.17/decade since 1979 or +0.047 to +0.162/decade depending on various satellites and measurement techniques, ie, bugger all and easily tolerated, particularly since warming has stopped at a level probably not as high as the various warm periods of roughly 1000 and 2000 years ago.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Satellite_temperature_measurements.html

    Its the same story in the oceans.. the Argo data tell us that the extra energy is mostly going there and we see about +0.03C/decade to 2000 metres and the deep ocean +0.02/decade.

    Whatever is happening in the oceans, the ocean surface, the Earth surface, the troposphere or the stratosphere (which is cooling) the picture is simply one of a big yawn.. a picture repeated many times in the planet’s past under different and similar rates of so called greenhouse gasses that we don’t understand.

    And if you believe in Michael Mann’s Tree Ring Circus you’ll be aware his Bristle Cone Pine trees show a pronounced cooling since 1980-2000 and the much more careful study here of tree rings which show a NH cooling of -0.3C per 1000 years.

    http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002%2Fjqs.2726?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1

    JC

  111. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC the link you provided to support your theory of no temperature rise was a bizarre one:
    -it had a disclaimer “do not cite” at the top.
    -Included the statement: “Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature trends.”
    -The different ways of analyzing the data also showed a definite warming trend from 0.138 to 0.162 degrees per decade

    The tree ring research does not show a cooling at all, there are various contributors to the formation of tree rings that could be accounted for in a number of ways. Climate science is based on the probability that comes out of multiple studies in a large number of areas and disciplines. Interpreting on study in a particular way does not discredit the rest of the huge mass of science that produces a different outcome. Again this research is an outlier with numerous question marks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem

  112. TraceyS says:

    Dave at 8:08pm: I call your opinion “orthodox” and you say I am guilty of gleeful misrepresentation?

    OK I agree. It’s Christmas and I am feeling that way inclined.

    Where is your grace man?

  113. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, you do say some odd things sometimes 😛

  114. RBG says:

    TraceyS, you misrepresented what Dave Kennedy had said when you implied that he had called you the ‘least’ of the commenters here. He hadn’t. Having been picked up on that, you are now acting like a child, playing a silly game.

  115. TraceyS says:

    Why is that odd? The main thrust of the position you express on climate change is fairly orthodox, ie. generally accepted, as can be ascertained though a reasonably objective reading of the peer-reviewed literature available at this time.

    If this is a misrepresentation, please explain how it is so. As stated above, I am happy to accept being wrong and to be corrected (by you) that your position is not generally accepted. If it is not, then perhaps you might supply some evidence.

    Which is it to be?

  116. TraceyS says:

    If Dave gives up commenting on this blog at least we will still have you RBG.

  117. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, follow the thread and it all may become clearer, you’re not making much sense at the moment.

  118. Paranormal says:

    DK -“Monckton has the support of lay people who have limited scientific understanding with which to judge his pseudoscience” and yet you’ve shown your naivety time and time again when it comes to scientific discussions. Perhaps there is something in what you say that you should be listening to?

    Time and time again when scientific fact is raised, you prefer to attack the messenger than argue the science.

    For example DK – you didn’t actually read the link I posted at 5.52 did you. As a typical lefty you preferred to attack the messenger than look at the science. In the link there was empirical evidence form your most vaunted institutions that showed you lie like a flat fish. There is no evidence the earth is warming.

    Further the lie that 2014 is the ‘warmest ever’ is just that a flat out lie for political purposes. By repeating it you are part of the global lie.
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/09/spinning-the-warmest-year/

    As for your “155 years” link that you clearly did not read or understand. You obviously accept that it was a good example of how little we actually understand about climate with the repeated 180 degree about faces throughout your cherished 155 years of ‘accepted’ climate science.

  119. Mr E says:

    Tracey,
    Yay, we will have RBG, who has a way of making the blog so very exciting by repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Dwelling on the important issues, that’s the greens. We are oh so lucky to have them. Such exciting reading. Such thoughtful debating.

    Dave,
    So far we seem to have established your main issue with climate change opposition is that sceptic’s lack credibility on the issue and you prefer the most popular or consensus view.

    The problem I have with this is (as established in discussion above), you also lack credibility on this issue and according to your Hitler claims, must be very unpopular .

    For these reasons I very much doubt anyone will pay attention to your ramblings. If anything, I think you are simply adding fuel to the fire. Strengthening the opposition.

    Your constant suggestion of climate change opposition credibility is a reminder to readers of the Greens motivation which is undoubtedly a thirst for power. By having radical climate change policies, and requiring support for them to achieve power, I guess readers are likely to think ” Well, he is bound to say that, isn’t he?”.

    I would suggest a change of direction to discussing your climate change policies, as in previous threads we have discussed that they are designed to slow or reverse climate change and the consequential negative impacts on life. But sadly the policies are largely negated by their catastrophic impact on local productivity and food production – life.

    Of course you could think twice about your anti National stance and recognise that Groser’s efforts, into establishing a united climate change accord, are politically where we should be spending our efforts. Without all, or at least a majority, efforts by the few will be rapidly undone.

    Plus there is the option, that would see the best gains for the globe, which would be foreign adoption of NZs agricultural systems. A flip flop that would see the Greens rather than targeting NZ agriculture for emissions, promoting it to the world as the most efficient. Imagine how popular a climate change policy like that would be. Imagine how many votes your could sway. Imagine, both ensuring the population of the globe being fed as well as improving the efficiency by which humans use resources. People might just laude the Greens as great rather than gross.

    Food for thought there I think. Pardon the phrase.

  120. JC says:

    “The different ways of analyzing the data also showed a definite warming trend from 0.138 to 0.162 degrees per decade”

    Which is what I said: “or +0.047 to +0.162/decade depending on various satellites and measurement techniques, ie, bugger all and easily tolerated,”

    Thats a lot different to the IPCC’s various pronouncements of up to 6C warming by the end of the century.

    “The tree ring research does not show a cooling at all,”

    That is a flat out lie and the Climategate emails specifically mention how tree rings became unusable by 1980 so they had to use “Mike’s Trick” to “Hide the decline”.

    This is the update on the Sheep Mountain pines used by Mann up to 1980 before he substituted observed temps to form his Hockey Stick. (Mike’s Trick)

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/114007/article

    The signal from the trees to 2009 is one of continued fall in temps. There’s further explanation here:

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/04/sheep-mountain-update/

    “Again this research is an outlier with numerous question marks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem

    And yet this tree ring chronology was the most significant part of the IPCC 3 report in which Mann, Briffa Jones et al managed to disappear both the Medieval Warm Period and the AALittle Ice age.

    Here’s another chronology for you showing how the IPCC first recognised the two major events showing them to be the warmest/coldest periods since 800 (1st report 1990) and then disappearing in 2001 (3rd report) and finally junking Mann altogether in 2013 to reappear the two events almost back to their former warmest/coldest events.

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/

    JC

  121. TraceyS says:

    Thanks Paranormal, that was an interesting link and I love the cartoon at the end (so true!)

    Curry says:

    “…the pause itself is not of such great significance; rather it is the growing divergence between climate model predictions and the observations…”

    That is significant, but perhaps not surprising when considering:

    “…one can shift the explanatory burden on models. A positive suggestion along these lines is Cartwright’s so-called ‘simulacrum account of explanation’, which suggests that we explain a phenomenon by constructing a model that fits the phenomenon into the basic framework of a grand theory (1983, Ch. 8). On this account, the model itself is the explanation we seek. This squares well with basic scientific intuitions but leaves us with the question of what notion of explanation is at work (see also Elgin and Sober 2002). Bokulich (2008, 2009) pursues a similar line of reasoning and sees the explanatory power of models as being closely related to their fictional nature.” (emphasis mine).
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/#ModSciExp

    A link to Cartwright’s book “How the Laws of Physics Lie” is here:
    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198247044.001.0001/acprof-9780198247043-chapter-9

    From Essay 2: The Truth Doesn’t Explain Much;
    “…most of the high‐level claims in science are ceteris paribus generalizations, which are false unless certain precise conditions obtain.”

    I think that is the problem with climate models. They don’t work because all other things are not equal “…[a] prediction or a statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors. (emphasis mine)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

    Climate change models, therefore, appear to be ceteris paribus generalisations. It is the usefulness of those generalisations which is being debated. Some people are just to passionately involved to see it.

  122. TraceyS says:

    Last sentence – *too*.

  123. Paranormal says:

    too true Tracey.

  124. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, you are screaming ‘lie’ without actually reading what Judith Curry said. She didn’t say that 2014 won’t be the hottest year on record, as many are suggesting, she just said it was too early to say until all the data is in and analyzed. Judith Curry supports climate science but again is an outlier of the mainstream and has a more cautious approach.

    Mr E, you try very hard to twist meanings to diminish their effect. By using the word ‘popular’ you try to down play the science and trivialize the reality. There is a huge difference between popular and mass consensus, the first is an emotive term based on whim and the second is the result of collecting huge amounts of data and applying rigorous analysis.

    As for your constant mantra about food, in terms of protein production New Zealand is extremely inefficient. We only produce great volumes of milk because there was a good market for it not because we want to altruistically feed the world. If we want to do that we would produce greater diversity of food and be even more careful about the sustainability of our practices. I wouldn’t expect the whole world to go vegetarian, but RBG is right, that diet will mean more food could be grown on the available land. The US demand for beef causes a hugely wasteful form of farming where much of the grain is grown to feed cattle. It also takes up to 100 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk.

    JC, you keep focusing on one or two elements of climate science and are desperate to show that the rate of change is less than the IPCC predicts. If that is so then we have more chance of improving outcomes and doesn’t change the fact that we still need to act. You also need to realize that the warming will not follow a regular pattern and there will be plateaus and sudden jumps.

    There is a huge mass of science and scientific opinion, there are those who think that the end is nigh and we may only have 20 years before a catastrophic situation, there are others who claim the rate of change is very slight if at all (your stance) and the huge bulk of science is in the middle and thinks that we may still be able to slow the rate of change but it is likely that there will be substantial effects on the planet by the end of the century. I support that middle group and am extremely concerned about what we will be subjecting our kids to.

    Again, if climate science was regarded the same way as medical science and the bulk of medical scientists agreed that we need to protect humanity from a potential lethal virus, huge resources and policies would be enacted to globally manage it. We have the same situation with climate change and yet many of you here are desperately supporting the minority who are saying we shouldn’t do much and there’s a chance that the science is wrong. You are actually playing with very poor odds.

  125. Mr E says:

    Tracey,
    NAILED IT

    Dave,
    Your debate has come down to the strength of terminology between “popular” and “consensus”. That is sad and a tad boring. I understand why you wouldn’t like the term popular when you’ve stated Hilter was more popular than you.

    And you are conflation opportunities. I’m suggesting “we” promote the way NZ runs our systems because over and over science proves they are close to the most efficient. Not what systems should be run globally. You and RBG tend to lean that way. Lean to complete socialist control, by suggesting control of what people eat, is the solution. That is a political death sentence, and I suggest you avoid that if you don’t want to be continually identified as a Marxist.

    To separate the opportunities, focus on promoting how good each system is and how other countries can modify their systems to match. I’d admit it is a little risky to promote our competitive edge, but not if we become better at packaging and marketing our IP. The government could help identify our competitive edge and potentials to package and NZers could package, market and invest to achieve growth from global efficiency gains. Sounds easy I know, but big resources will be required.

    “As for your constant mantra about food”

    If you are offended about me talking about food, I make no apologies . The sooner the greens understand we are a food producing and exporting nation and support it, the sooner you will go from a dismal 50% achievement of target to competing with the others. I’d like to take to you to task for that one day. But this is not the right thread to discuss it.

  126. Paranormal says:

    DK – I am saying you are a liar to say that 2014 is the warmest year ever. I notice now the pressure is on you’re changing what you’re saying. I linked to Judith to show that there is substance to my calling you out, whereas there is no substance to your gorebull warming alarmism.

    On a previous thread I pointed out you are a liar by saying that and that it could only be true if the medieval and roman warm periods didn’t exist.

    Just like climategate has shown – you warmists fudge the data so that those warmer periods don’t exist.

    I think Mr E was kind to you identifying climate science as ‘popular’. Populist is more accurate.

    And in your final paragraph you yet again show your lack of understanding on how science works. There needs to be repeatable evidential proof for a scientific response. Then a full analysis can ensure the cure isn’t worse than the complaint. Of course none of that has been done in any credible way. That is why gorebull warming is a political reality being pursued through political channels.

  127. TraceyS says:

    Thank you very much Mr E.

    Dave says:
    “…if climate science was regarded the same way as medical science…”

    What a thoughtless statement. They are not regarded in the same way because they are not the same. But I ask you if there is a working model of the brain? Has science even managed that yet? And yet you seem to expect that somewhat accurate predictions from working models of the climate system are within reach! If it could be done for the climate system then don’t you think it could be done for the brain system which is arguably a more immediately important system for most people?

    The climate models will only ever explain themselves Dave. Like their relative, toy models, except that they are a higher level form of serious intellectual entertainment. This is not to denigrate models. They are useful and we can learn things by studying them. They just aren’t reality. That must always be kept in mind.

    However, I am prepared to accept that CO2 (among other) emissions may be a risk. It makes logical sense to me that if humans release something (anything) it might be useful to be able to retrieve it if so desired. Not necessarily owing to the fear of potential risk (although that is valid), but because the subject element might be useful, needed, or wanted for some other purpose. In the case of carbon we already know this to be true.

  128. TraceyS says:

    I would like to propose two new categories of climate change “camps” to add the already accepted two. This is necessary or the argument will continue on an “I’m right”, “you’re wrong”, “no I’m not” cycle indefinitely and it gets boring. So here are the two new camps in bold:

    Believers, Releasers, Deniers and Retrievers.

    Obviously there are overlaps between camps. Dave probably fits in as a Believer/Releaser. By contrast, I am a Releaser/Retriever. Others may wish to classify themselves.

    Entrepreneurial and opportunist types of people might be considered Releaser/Denier/Retrievers.

    Faithful optimists would be Believer/Releaser/Retrievers.

    People who can’t make up their minds and hypocrites would be classified as Believer/Releaser/Deniers.

    Responsible pragmatists, like myself, are the Releaser/Retrievers.

    Business-as-usual sorts are Releaser/Deniers.

    One things is for certain. Everyone is inside the Releaser camp.

  129. JC says:

    “JC, you keep focusing on one or two elements of climate science and are desperate to show that the rate of change is less than the IPCC predicts.”

    Actually I was replying to your comments. But in fact there are only a handful of elements that are important, ie, there has been an increase in temps of about 0.8C over the last 100 or so years, there has been a short period of 20 years (1979-1998) of faster warming of similar proportions as between 1910-1940, since 1998 there has been no statistically significant warming at all and the climate models’ projections are now running about a degree too hot above observations of real temp.

    My position is where these important facts are, your’s is away in the clouds where the projections are out of touch with reality.

    JC

  130. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I am not going to argue with you because you seem to be going off on a strange tangent of your own making. I would have thought in managing carbon a multiple approach is needed. One thing that you have not understood is my opinion that we need to act on the scientific consensus. If that consensus recommends action I think we should listen. Climate models are still useful as long as you are aware of the limitations and most scientists are. They are a useful tool and are only part of the science research being done, many have proved to be very accurate:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    JC, most graphed temperatures over the past 100 years show a rapid climb in temperature from 1910 to 1945 a leveling off between 1945 and 80 then another sharp climb from 1980 to 98. Just because temperatures have plateaued again doesn’t mean it won’t climb again and lots of other indicators (like the top layer of the ocean and the Arctic) have continued a steady climb.

    We have also experienced increased volatility in weather and some of the highest and lowest recorded temperatures over the past few years. The past decade has still been the hottest recorded and 2014 is already becoming the warmest year ever.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/17/2014-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record

  131. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, in effect you are calling NASA and the IPCC etc liars and I still think that they are more reliable than Monckton, Singer and the business think tanks.

    As for your claims about the medieval period here is an alternative view 😉

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

  132. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you missed the point that I was making, we are very good at producing milk, but it may not be all that the world needs and it is still an inefficient way of producing protein.

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

    Actually farming insects may actually be the most productive but I am still trying to get my head around that 😉

  133. TraceyS says:

    “One thing that you have not understood is my opinion that we need to act on the scientific consensus. If that consensus recommends action I think we should listen.”

    Well I guess that’s a “D-” for me in understanding the opinions of Dave. Oh well…

    Actually I have heard your opinion. However, the scientific consensus doesn’t recommend what specific actions should be taken.

    I agree on action. But I do not agree on the sorts of action you prefer. You seem to prefer management of CO2 emissions by centralised control over people’s activities. We will never agree on this. So the constructive approach would be to focus on where there is agreement. I throw you a branch by saying you are representing the orthodox view of climate change and you act dumb rather than agree with me.

    Is there any hope of reaching you Dave?

  134. TraceyS says:

    “They [climate models] are a useful tool and are only part of the science research being done, many have proved to be very accurate”

    So?

    My child’s model car is very accurate. But I don’t expect her to know from it how the big version responds in its real context. This is because it’s not just a scaled down representation of the real thing. It’s a thing of its own. The more she studies it, the more she will know about model cars. It would be ridiculous to expect that it would make her a better driver.

    But she can certainly learn things applicable to real cars from the model which will help her to understand real cars better. Likewise we can learn things from climate models applicable to developing a better understanding of the real climate. The more we study climate models, the more we will know about model climates. I agree that this can be useful and is alone sufficient to justify the time and resources spent on climate modelling. But the more we study models will not make us better “drivers” of the climate.

    Sometimes these models may appear very “true” to what they are modelled on. This is nice. But until they pass the test of repeatability (as Paranormal pointed out) the trueness cannot be disregarded as simply a curious coincidence.

    The climate models which are accurate this decade may be a matter of chance more than anything. Over the next decade it is on the cards that other models will be the accurate ones. If all is to be believed, complete confidence is simply a matter of developing thousands of models to increase the probability that a few will happen to be right (my daughter is really good at this!).

    Here is something we agree on – that models are useful and good for learning from. As an active learner I can see that. But I can also see how “settled science”, closed minds, insults thrown at challengers all detract from learning. It would be far more encouraging to see you exercising greater curiosity around where others are coming from. I think that political posturing gets in the way of this however. It is a shame.

  135. JC says:

    “Just because temperatures have plateaued again doesn’t mean it won’t climb again”

    Or go down. No one knows which way it will go.. certainly not the models which have failed by the scientists own criteria that 15 years is sufficiently long to know they have mucked something up.

    “(like the top layer of the ocean”

    Like +.03C/decade (Argo) is significant.. like hell.

    “We have also experienced increased volatility in weather and some of the highest and lowest recorded temperatures over the past few years.”

    Crap. Records have always been made and broken. The typical media response we get to some weather event is “Its the worst XXXX in X years!”.. which tells us its all happened before.
    Its during the cold spells of the PDO that we get wild weather, the warm times right now are benign with cyclones at record lows in most of the NH. When was the last time we had a cyclone with the power of Bola?.. thats right.. none since.

    You get the same thing all round the world.. wild claims about weather that are usually explained by its happened before, subsidence problems, massive human development that even moderate storms are bound to cause more expensive damage than 100 years earlier.

    There was a doozy in Stuff a few days ago, all about a horror story about Miami flooding due to a rise in sea level. I simply typed into google “miami subsidence” and up came page after page about the massive subsidence problems near the Florida coast.
    Quite a lot of people checked Google after the record flood in the UK last year.. the authorities had closed the pumping stations that had been in use for decades to control water levels.

    Thats your “weather volatility” in most cases.

    JC

  136. Paranormal says:

    D(ic)K – were NASA really stupid enough to say that 2014 would be the warmest ever? – or perhaps was it the warmest since measurements started? Two very different things. It still remains you are a politically motivated liar.

    You really should stop the politically motivated hyperbole. This is exactly what Mr E was trying to help you with.

    Just to help you again: http://openyoureyesnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Icecaps_and_Glaciers.jpg

    Must have been plenty of motorcars spewing out CO2 in Minoan times then…

  137. Mr E says:

    Dave, I didn’t miss your point.

    You and RBG keep suggesting globally we swap milk and beef for the likes of lentils and now you’ve said insects!!!!

    I can now see where you are going with your Hitler remark. When you force people to chuck a cockroach in their coffee, I would predict you become the most hated man ever.;)

    That is really what you are suggesting though isn’t it? Global control of peoples diet. You don’t think people will swap milk for cockroaches by choice do you?

  138. Dave Kennedy says:

    “However, the scientific consensus doesn’t recommend what specific actions should be taken.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by specific, but the solutions are very clear and well known. Many we have discussed here already. The stopping point for you is that it does involve government intervention in the same way we do for virus epidemics, CFCs, tobacco, lead and anything else that poses a danger to humanity.

    “Is there any hope of reaching you Dave?”

    Not on this, Tracey. You can continue to support the fossil fuel industry and i will continue the battle to save the planet for my kids. You don’t have to throw me a branch, I don’t want to go where you are. This issue has got beyond the point of reaching agreement with oil companies and coal miners, our situation has got beyond that.

  139. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, don’t attribute everything you hear to climate scientists, some of it is just excitable journalists. No one weather event can be attributed to climate change, but if there are a number of extreme events that push the boundaries of normality, one probably can.

    Paranormal, I am not politically motivated despite what you and Mr E claim, climate change is hardly a vote catcher in New Zealand. Again I am only repeating what more authoritative institutions are saying and what motivates me more is a future for my kids.

    Mr E, I say:
    “Actually farming insects may actually be the most productive but I am still trying to get my head around that ;-)”

    and you say:
    “I can now see where you are going with your Hitler remark. When you force people to chuck a cockroach in their coffee, I would predict you become the most hated man ever.;)”

    “That is really what you are suggesting though isn’t it? Global control of peoples diet. You don’t think people will swap milk for cockroaches by choice do you?”

    Good grief, talk about disingenuous and misrepresentation.

  140. Mr E says:

    “i will continue the battle to save the planet for my kids”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Laughed my pants off. I am trying to think of what super hero you are…… Give me a minute. I can vision it… Got it- You are part of the International Rescue team!!! Must be!!!

    I hope you get as many chuckles out of this as I did.

  141. Name withheld says:

    Very good Mr E.

    “i will continue the battle to save the planet for my kids”
    Good grief Mr Kennedy! What a warrior you are!
    Is this you?.
    Or maybe?.

  142. TraceyS says:

    Yes Dave, I will continue to support the fossil fuel industry – as you do with your overseas trips. I don’t know my carbon status but I wouldn’t mind guessing it is overall net negative (and improving). Can you say the same?

    There is also a public service side of fossil fuels – needed to provide a basic level of infrastructure, transport, and support. Then there is the fossil fuel component in raising and educating and then providing labs and facilities for those who will provide the bright ideas and inventions of the future.

    I am sorry that you are not able to accept my branch. Really sorry, especially at this time of year – goodwill and all. I am perhaps the most likely person here to find middle ground with you and you reject me. Sad.

    Would it help if I joined the Green Party? Would I even be welcome? One of the reasons why I joined the National Party was it accepts alternative thinkers – once the domain of the Greens I think.

    Good luck to you and yours for 2015 and beyond.

  143. RBG says:

    So childish, Mr E & Name withheld.

    Good on you Dave Kennedy for sticking up for your, and everyone’s kids. While I disagree with JC and Paranormal about a lot of things, I have more respect for them than this latest entrant in the discussion “Name withheld” . At least JC and Para (mostly) argue about the issue. Name withheld has only made nasty personal comments and has had nothing constructive to add to the debate.

    TraceyS, I’m not sure what you are suggesting with releasers and retrievers, have you been hanging out with the local hunt club and gun club? Your comments do go off in weird ways, but it is the season of goodwill, so I hope it makes you happy.

    I’ve said this before (so perhaps Mr E will object to me repeating it), but it would be great if JC and Paranormal were correct and we weren’t heading for serious impacts from human induced climate change .

    I hope you guys are right, but in the same way that I listened to the scientific consensus on smoking and lung cancer and so don’t smoke anymore, I’m listening to the scientific consensus on climate change and am advocating for a transition to a low carbon society (and I don’t fly anymore.)

  144. Mr E says:

    Oh come on RBG. I little sense of humour in the blogging world goes a long way. I even bet Dave is having a laugh. Or perhaps a chortle. I can imaging Dave chortling.:-)

    I guess to fully appreciate the humour you need to know what Dave looks like:

  145. JC says:

    “JC, don’t attribute everything you hear to climate scientists,”

    Careful there, the IPCC would attribute “low confidence” in your previous remarks on weather extremes, volatility etc..

    To remind you what it actually says:

    “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”

    They have yet to pronounce of plagues of locusts but maybe IPCC AR6?

    “some of it is just excitable journalists.”

    Of course. But the IPCC and the 97% of scientists in the “consensus” have a moral duty to publicly refute such nonsense but in fact they all encourage it because it raises the fear level.

    They do not protect their science or their reputations because they are 97% political climate activists. That is why the public wont have a bar of them.

    JC

  146. Dave Kennedy says:

    “One of the reasons why I joined the National Party was it accepts alternative thinkers – once the domain of the Greens I think.”

    Tracey, I’d love to attend one of your National Party policy conferences or experience a policy review team to see how your membership works through debating policy and what advice you seek. I always used to think conservative parties are all about sticking with the status quo and not embracing progressive policies like the Greens. I will look forward to the coming revelations of alternative policies to deal with our crises of housing, inequity and growing debt.

    Mr E, you have outed me, I am a sort of Green superhero but you found me in my fighting uniform while normally I have a mild mannered Clark Kent styled persona:

    What I do find interesting is the cloak and dagger style of operating for most of the commentators here that appears to fit with the National Party. Lots of anonymous hit people throwing around scuttlebutt. Thanks to Mr E everyone will know what this Marxist hitman for Stalin looks like 😉

    It would be lovely to see images of those I often seem to be chatting to but I suspect if your identities were ever exposed you may end up having to do a Tony 😛 http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/

  147. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    Did you notice the similarity to my favourite thunderbird?

    I have dug out a picture from the family archives especially for you. Don’t ever say I’m not forth coming.

  148. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you are the enemy of the ‘underworld’? Forgive me a loud chortle, I mistook you for another of National’s ‘black ops’ men 😉

  149. RBG says:

    Mr E, no you’re not funny or clever when you distort and then sneer and snigger at the warped version of what you claim people have said. I pointed out that vegetarian food has a lower carbon footprint than meat and you translate that as Dave and I want to set up a global food police to control everyone’s lives. Thats just bullshit. What is funny isTraceyS as a National party member pretending to be disappointed in the Greens for suppressing free thinking. The public never hears anything but total adherance to the party line coming out of National.

  150. Name withheld says:

    What is funny isTraceyS as a National party member pretending to be disappointed in the Greens for suppressing free thinking.
    No…
    THIS. is funny.
    And kinda sad in a pathetic sort of way.

  151. Dave Kennedy says:

    Name Withheld, you’re right it is funny, in an honest and open way.

    What isn’t funny for me is how National’s leadership have increased the budget for this area by well over 100% since 2008:

    “leadership, advice, coordination around national security matters, leading collaboration within the New Zealand intelligence community, managing the National Cyber Policy Office and providing assessments to support national security.”

    More is spent on spying, spinning and supporting the Prime Minister’s office than developing policy and oversight of Government Departments. It is already clear that a good amount of the expenditure and staffing is more about the Prime Minister’s black ops than national security.

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/john-keys-immoral-governance.html

  152. Name withheld says:

    “leadership, advice, coordination around national security matters, leading collaboration within the New Zealand intelligence community, managing the National Cyber Policy Office and providing assessments to support national security.”

    Ah yes…. all important National and world-wide issues that the Greens would have us entrust to a refugee from The McGillicuddy Serious Party, the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party and the Random Trollops. A person now reduced to standing on paint cans to get noticed.
    And you want to be taken seriously?
    Now that is also funny. In a sad and kinda scary way.

  153. Dave Kennedy says:

    Name Withheld, I guess it is all to do with perceptions and we do have different world views. Spending millions more on our spying capacity and spin when we have such a low terrorism threat is nonsensical. At the same time the government cuts spending in health, housing and supporting families. Money should be spent where the needs are greatest and our economy would get greater benefit from spending in R&D to support our own industries than spying in support of multinationals (the real focus of Five Eyes).

    Metiria may be short in stature (all that the cans represent) but she certainly won respect for some of her strong and intelligent speeches in Parliament 😉

  154. Mr E says:

    RBG,
    Dave is chortling. Try it. I’ll even accept a chuckle if you don’t want to look stupid. You might find that the world is not such a bad place after all. Shortly after that I expect your view of climate change to alter.

    Dave and you have both suggested a change away from dairy and beef to alternatives – Dave (less popular than Hitler) said bugs.

    How do you suggest this happens? Why would people swap milk on their weeties for bugs? What would motivate them to do that?

    Yours and Dave’s line of less beef more lentils(bugs) is a common one, I have heard it all before from socialist types. Sadly they all clam up when asked how such a transition would occur. I wonder if you will too? Or perhaps you are to busy tee heeing around your house?

    Either way, I’ll be happy.

  155. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    Not a National party member. Never have been. Have never had a party affiliation. Have historically voted both left and right.

    Do you think I should join? Throwing my weight behind a party could most certainly help.

    Then again I value my independence.

    What is your advice to potential members?

  156. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Yours and Dave’s line of less beef more lentils(bugs) is a common one, I have heard it all before from socialist types.”

    I guess that the opposite if that is the view from one eyed capitalist types that, intensive (monoculture) farming of beef and milk will save the world.

    I do chortle away at your outrageous statements Mr E, because your world seems to very black and white and full of extremes.

    I was chatting to someone yesterday about the lack of diversity in our food now and how we don’t celebrate what we can grow successfully in Southland. Our humble 1/4 acre garden grows more rhubarb, gooseberries, various currents then we can use ourselves but it is rare to find, what are considered delicacies further north, in our local supermarkets.

    Our current food system of mass quantities and little variety is actually reducing choice and quality for the consumer while enhancing the profits of supermarkets. We should be taking advantage of our local conditions to grow what can’t be grown elsewhere. We would love to have more local stallholders supplying a variety of locally grown food but the free trade system is doing great damage to our local economy.

    Shortly our hospital will be contracting HBL to provide food for patients. They plan to have pre packaged meals supplied from a central source that will be heated in microwaves in each ward. If it is like an earlier version, little of the ingredients will be locally sourced, and the fish may come from Vietnam and the potatoes from Holland. This is incredibly short sighted.

  157. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, As for joining a political party, we had someone join the Greens who was a CEO of a major organisation who had a passion for policy. He got frustrated with the dictatorial style of policy development in both National and Labour and has now been contributing to our policy for a few years. He doesn’t always share the same overall philosophy of most in the party (he was a National supporter) but he has some specific areas of expertise that has been invaluable. He enjoys being engaged with good process.

    Given your many disparaging comments about the Greens and your style of argument I do think you are best suited for National, however 😉

  158. Mr E says:

    Not one of these CEOs I presume.
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10902551

    I wonder when you are creating your veges at home if you price up the value of creating them? Including your unemployed time?

    My Veges will never ever cover their cost. Never not ever never. I do it out of pride. Nothing else.

    You call my view black and white, but I constantly ask you questions you avoid. You and RBG dance on the head of an wild raspberry thorn. A raspberry dominating an important area that needs a good dose of roundup.

    The honest truth is I view many of the Greens policies damaging to NZ in every way including socially. It is a repetitive scenario where I pick up a policy and shake my head in disbelief at the illogical rhetoric based conclusions. One of these days I am hoping to pick up a policy and it makes sense. But I’m not holding my breath. Particularly when I read your comments.

  159. TraceyS says:

    “The public never hears anything but total adherance (sic) to the party line coming out of National.”

    I think this gives the public confidence. Confidence that shone so bright it blinded the likes of you, RBG and Dave, on election night.

  160. TraceyS says:

    Mr E, I think that expeller pressed huhu grubs should make a nice creamy milk….mmmmmm!

    Dave, do some research into this over the break and report back to us will you?

  161. Mr E says:

    Perhaps while Dave is doing that research he can look up the definition of monoculture. Then visit a farm.
    It is Christmas, so peace and love etc

    Merry Xmas eveyone!!!

  162. Dave Kennedy says:

    Merry Christmas, Mr E, I hope your Christmas meal was as satisfying as mine 😉

    It is interesting how when people actually engage with our MPs in their area of expertise, they are generally impressed. A local journalist tutor, blogger and supporter of the right asked me if I could supply a Green MP for him and his students to grill. What he found wasn’t what he expected: http://cqae.co.nz/2013/04/04/bugger-me-days/

    Mr E, we are heading towards monoculture industrialised farming that is practised elsewhere and it has clear disadvantages when taken to the extreme, both ethically and environmentally: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture#.VJt10MAAA

    This report was written 10 years ago and it is interesting that many of the recommended actions have been avoided as farming continues to intensify and head towards monoculture practices:
    http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/Growing-for-Good.pdf

    The wider economy benefits from biodiversity: http://www.landcare.org.nz/files/file/746/Biodiversity

  163. Mr E says:

    “Mr E, we are heading towards monoculture industrialised”

    No we are not. Clearly you don’t understand what a monoculture is.

  164. Dave Kennedy says:

    “No we are not. Clearly you don’t understand what a monoculture is.”

    Mr E, Yes we are and yes i do 😉

  165. Mr E says:

    Cows eating cows, sheep eating sheep. What an aweful view of our future farm systems you have.

  166. TraceyS says:

    “Actually farming insects may actually be the most productive but I am still trying to get my head around that.”

    So am I, Dave.

    Let’s imagine then that huhu grubs. for example, take off as the insect of choice for consumers. There is demand for them and a small market develops. At first the main supply channel is through local farmers markets but soon the wild foragers cannot keep up with the insatiable demand now that a growing mass of people have been sold on just how nutritious, delicious, versatile, and ‘environmentally friendly’ a diet based on huhu grubs is. Many farmers see an opportunity. It should keep the Green politicians out of their hair….but will it?

    The first consideration is where to source a whole lot of rotting wood. If the price is low enough pine logs usually destined for exporting could be a potential option. Then the farmer considers other costs – things like the transportation and processing costs (key component fuel and oil). Another thing that occurs to him is the environmental cost. All that rotting wood to feed the grubs and the release of decomposition gasses (greenhouse) and the nutrient leachates…

    Soon after he comes to his senses and realises that this idea won’t have political support for very long. This is just replacing one so-called “monoculture” with another.

    The greatest diversity is in the microbiome. Animals are a key contributor to this. The human body has more microbe cells than human ones. This is probably true of other animals. Not sure about insects.

  167. JC says:

    “This report was written 10 years ago and it is interesting that many of the recommended actions have been avoided as farming continues to intensify and head towards monoculture practices:”

    But DK you love monoculture. You are one of NZ’s strongest and most passionate advocates for the practice! You especially love all the features that flow from it.

    Climate science as espoused by you is a classic monoculture.. anti-competitive, blinkered, monopolistic etc etc.

    This piece from 2009 should put you right:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/dangers-of-a-monoculture-reactions-to-the-hadley-emails.html

    Here’s the conclusion of the monoculture/forced monopoly that is your climate science:

    “History teaches us that whenever we allow a monoculture – whether is be totalitarian one-party rule or enforcing a single state religion, corruption follows. Without scrutiny of their actions, actors in such monocultures have few checks and little accountability. Worse, those at the center of such monocultures can become convinced of their own righteousness, such that any action they take in support of the orthodoxy is by definition ethically justified.

    This, I think, is exactly what we see at work in the Hadley CRU emails.”

    JC

  168. TraceyS says:

    Interesting reading just now about the next generation dubbed “Millennials” and how according to the Pew Research Center “[t]hey are more inclined toward trust in institutions than were either of their two predecessor generations — Gen Xers (who are now ages 30 to 45) and Baby Boomers (now ages 46 to 64) when they were coming of age.”
    http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/12/10/the-millennials/

    As an older “Gen Xer” who, according to the survey Ele posted; https://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/how-millennial-are-you/, lives and thinks more like a “Millennial” I’ve got a good perspective on the next generation. What I see is that the Greens are looking to become more of an institution and certainly more orthodox than in past. Whether by coincidence, or design, this change is likely to be in full awareness of the next generation’s trust in institutions (now…only to get them voting!) This does not encourage and foster alternative thinking and as I wrote earlier; much to the amusement of Dave. Such thinkers will find their places elsewhere eventually. They will spread out into all corners.

    In fact poll results today show another drop for the Greens by 1.6 points – 15% drop from election night results. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/328297/national-labour-rise). This will not be what they expected to happen. Aren’t you guys meant to have a big surge in popularity following elections when people realise their grave mistake, Dave?

    I reckon Metiria needs more than a couple of paint cans…a full-on renovation is required.

  169. TraceyS says:

    I did not space those words out on purpose (in case anyone is wondering!)

  170. RBG says:

    You’ve latched on to the insect idea TraceyS, I suspect because it’s easier to scoff at and ridicule that than it is to laugh at the idea of growing fewer animals and more crops. No one, other than Mr E, is suggesting replacing milk with cockroaches. Those of us who accept that NZ, and the rest of the world, needs to reduce greenhouse gases, are suggesting that we have fewer methane emitting cows, fewer CO2 emitting miles driven by tankers and less coal burnt making milk powder. LESS NOT NONE! Maybe use some of that irrigation Homepaddock is keen on to water more crops. Reduce (not eliminate) dairy , grow more crops. Yes, cropping still uses fossil fuels. We need to decrease fossil use, only those putting up strawmen claim we need to give it all up. Why is the suggestion that we reduce dairying (which isn’t paying well anyway) treated with such contempt? Homepaddock/Ele I’d really appreciate your opinion on this question.

  171. TraceyS says:

    The dairy payout being down should naturally encourage the opportunity of bug farming, but from what I have read about the farming of bugs, it is far from natural. In fact, it sounds more industrialised than any sort of farming we currently have in NZ.

  172. Mr E says:

    This quote still seems relevant.
    “Yours and Dave’s line of less beef more lentils(bugs) is a common one, I have heard it all before from socialist types. Sadly they all clam up when asked how such a transition would occur. I wonder if you will too?”

  173. RBG says:

    Mr E, you are the one who has clammed up and refuses to answer the question of ‘why can’t we reduce (not eliminate) dairying?’ As has Homepaddock. Your silence speaks for itself, you have commented on another thread since I asked the question and you have said before that you read all comments. In spite of being keen on ‘free thinking’, TraceyS doesn’t seem able to think past insects. I’m NOT suggesting ‘bugs and lentils’. There’s more to agriculture than milk powder production, but it is clear that you lot are only interested in scoring points against the green party. Right now thousands of NZers are on holiday and they will see the state of the rivers and they will see more dairy conversions and they will be asking why cant we cut back a bit on the number of cows? Some of you will translate that as suggesting mass slaughter of the dairy herd, instalation of a totalitarian communist regime forcing people to only eat huhu grubs and lentils, but then you are just f-ing weird.

  174. TraceyS says:

    RBG, can I please draw your attention to the fact that the view espoused, by the scientist whom Dave referenced as supplying evidence of human induced climate change (Matthews, D) in the marathon-commentary post “Should never have called it ‘global warming’”, is that the net quantity of CO2 emission required by climate models to stabilise global warming is “zero”.

    Yes, zero. I’m not sure that I can necessarily agree, but then I am not a scientist after all, and this is what the expert chap is saying. So let’s use that as the context for Dave’s subsequent comments suggesting that a diet including insect-based proteins might potentially replace milk (and I am also assuming) meat proteins. For the purposes, it doesn’t really matter whether he meant wholly or in part.

    I totally understand that he was thinking, and writing, futuristically. Great – good on him. This is awesome! But just because I value freedom of thought doesn’t mean that I should agree with the product of Dave’s thought processes. Clearly, I do not. And as long as I am able to speak freely I will. Therefore, you have my expression of disagreement, which is entirely justified on the following basis:

    As one who believes that climate change model are accurate enough to rely on to inform policy directions, Dave should also realise that there isn’t time to experiment with getting rid of one protein producing system and replacing it with another, equally – if not more – unnatural, industrialised, and intensive system. This is just tinkering around the edges and the orthodox position on climate change is that this is futile.

  175. RBG says:

    “RBG, can I please draw your attention to the fact …..“ thereby trying to draw attention away from the fact that neither you, nor anyone else, is prepared the answer the question as to “why can’t we reduce (not eliminate) dairying in New Zealand?” Looks like that question has gone into the “too hard basket”.
    As for requiring nett carbon emissions to be zero to stabilise global warming- well ‘yeah’ , what bit about a stable system requiring stable, or balanced inputs and outputs, is too hard for you there? Surely even a non-scientist can get the bit about how you can’t keep adding something to a system and expect it to be stable.
    I can’t follow the rest of your reasoning. I’m not Dave, and I didn’t suggest we “experiment with getting rid of one protein producing system and replacing it with another, equally – if not more – unnatural, industrialised, and intensive system.”. Actually, I don’t think he said that either.

  176. TraceyS says:

    Of course there are systems which can be added to without destabilising them. New Zealand’s population has been added to. Has that destablised the system? Some might say yes. However, it is how the system is added to which matters, not necessarily how much is added.

    When you write“…you can’t keep adding something to a system and expect it to be stable.” you are advocating on behalf of inertia.

  177. homepaddock says:

    “why can’t we reduce (not eliminate) dairying in New Zealand?”

    It’s not a particular type or method of farming but the effect it has which matters.

    Some sheep and beef or cropping farms have a more detrimental impact on water quality than some dairy farms.

    Regional councils have brought, or are bringing, in plan changes which deal with the impact and in doing so influence how people farm to ensure water quality is of the standard people demand.

    They’re not telling people what to farm but they are requiring them to ensure that how they farm doesn’t negatively impact on water quality.

    This will reduce dairy cow numbers in some areas.

  178. Mr E says:

    I’ve asked ‘how’. RBG has countered that with ‘why not’ and demanded a response. My answer to ‘why not’ is simple. Every example of ‘how’ it would be achieved is either ineffective or inhuman. Unless RBG has an alternative suggestion?

  179. RBG says:

    So Homepaddock, in response to Regional council regulations (which have been put in place to deal with one of the impacts of dairying ) there may well be a decrease in cow numbers. And when international pressure on New Zealand from it’s trading partners to reduce greenhouse gas emissions comes into effect, then one could expect dairy cow numbers to decrease in response to regulations put in place to deal with the greenhouse gas emission impacts of dairying.
    Mr. E- the ‘how to reduce dairy cow numbers’- umm- not get so many cows in calf perhaps?
    TraceyS –“Of course there are systems which can be added to without destabilising them.” Well not in science in a closed system there aren’t. Every year giga tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are added to the Earth’s atmosphere. Unless an equal amount of greenhouse gas emissions are removed, the system will not be stable. When you try and argue against that fact, all you do is demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles.
    Social science (your area of expertise? ) has different rules to ‘hard science’. Your confusing the two is demonstrated by your comment “When you write“…you can’t keep adding something to a system and expect it to be stable.” you are advocating on behalf of inertia.” Well, inertia in the hard science definition is the property of matter that causes it to resist any change in its motion. A body at rest remains at rest unless it is acted upon by an external force. It is part of Newton’s first law of motion. So, yes I would not argue against the laws of physics. But you would be arguing against the laws of science if try to claim that you can add CO2 to the climate system and still expect it to remain stable.

  180. Mr E says:

    “Mr. E- the ‘how to reduce dairy cow numbers’- umm- not get so many cows in calf perhaps?”

    Haha. So very very ignorant of dairy systems.

    Replacements make up a small proportion of the total born. To force cow numbers down using this strategy, RBG would send the dairy sector broke. Imagine the NZ state of poverty in this scenario.

    Then think about all those cows, emitting so called green house gases, with no product. Our national carbon output per unit of food produced would go up massively.

    Then think about all those dry cows not producing food. The cost of milk going up. The socially struggling, questioning how to feed their kids, when so many products contain milk. Easter would be a disaster when ‘a glass and a half of full cream milk’ becomes unaffordable.

    Perhaps we could all eat dark chocolate coated cockroaches?

    Such an appealing vision the greens promote.

  181. RBG says:

    FFS Mr. E, then you could cull some of them (humanely) . Parts of the dairy sector will already be going broke in the next year or so and that has nothing to do with the Greens. The drop in the milk payout shows how unwise it is to have a huge proportion of our export earning dependent on 1 narrow industry. That you can’t think past dairy (or insects and lentils) shows how limited your outlook is.

    For TraceyS who said “Of course there are systems which can be added to without destabilising them. – since you are claiming that, how about you describe some.

    For an example of a system that doesn’t remain stable when you add to it- the human body. (This is quite topical as many people overeat at this time of year ) If you continually increase the inputs (ie food) to an adult human body, but you don’t balance that by increasing the outputs (ie energy expended) then the nett energy input will be increasing and the adult human will put on weight.

    Since you claim to be so interested in science, I am surprised that you seemed so incredulous at the idea that we need to have nett zero carbon emissions to stablise the climate system. Since you have trouble with that concept, can you get your head around the idea that you need to have nett zero energy inputs to maintain a stable body weight?

    In the same way that nett zero energy inputs into your body doesn’t mean not eating, it means balancing input/ output, nett zero carbon doesn’t mean never using carbon based fuel systems, they just have to be in balance. So algae produced biofuels can be used and oil can be used to make plastics etc, but the nett carbon emissions to the atmophere must be zero to maintain a stable climate system.

  182. Mr E says:

    More of those stupid comments some greens are famous for.

    RBG is not the first to suggest killing cows simply because they burp, but has joined the ranks of wanting to carelessly kill cows to further the opportunities of humans. I can imagine RBG tapping away at the computer, burning CO2 flat stick and chuckling at the thought of killing cows to facilitate it.

    The most important consideration of RBGs suggestion is the effectiveness. For which is wont be. You see methane is emitted from grass fermentation. If cow stocking rates are reduced and the remaining cows eat the grass left by others methane is still emitted from that additional grass. Some might think less, but trials in France showed lowering cattle stocking rates tended to increase methane production(but not significantly). The logic is simple. Pasture quality is lower at lower stocking rates, and the methane producing process goes into overdrive to digest the lower quality feed.

    RBG’s suggestion will result in the pointless death of cows simply because they burp. And it is likely to make things worse.
    That is of course unless RBG is suggesting closing some dairy farms all together. If that is the case I’d love to hear how that might happen. Suggestions like that tend to happen in countries governed by communism.

  183. TraceyS says:

    Research actually shows that older people’s health is better if they are not trim (in their older years), but have some padding. This was, in times gone by, said to be “having something to come and go on” and it applies particularly to young and old. The saying shows an understanding of the dynamic nature of health.

    Increasing caloric intake (and weight) may well have the effect of stabilising health for some people (just as reducing it may for others). I know several people whose BMI is absolutely ideal but they have been professionally advised to gain weight. And there are others who have been advised to reduce weight even though their weight (and health) is quite stable.

    “…you need to have nett zero energy inputs to maintain a stable body weight…”

    Simplistic nonsense and just plain wrong. Zero net energy inputs are required to maintain a *static* body weight. Surely you are not advocating for a static, mars-like, climate here on earth?

    Explain your theory to a child, or someone underweight to start with, or a person with other factors which make sustaining weight difficult. A “stable” (ie. healthy) body weight is not necessarily a “static” body weight.

    The critical mistake you make is to assume that the Earth’s climate is stable to begin with. Where is your evidence of this Mr/s science guru? Everything I’ve read and seen suggests that the climate is dynamic, not stable.

    And by the way, I don’t “claim” to be interested in science, I am interested in science (and social science, and engineering, and education, and farming, and a whole lot of things). If you were more interested in farming then you may realise that farmers generally trade in commodities – the price of which goes up and down according to external factors. Should we shun trading in commodities because of this reality? What an extraordinarily conservative position that would be.

    “I am surprised that you seemed so incredulous at the idea that we need to have nett zero carbon emissions…

    It is understand that you are surprised because I actually think it would be wise to be able to recover what humans put into the atmosphere, water, and environment in general, and have said so in comments previously. But the development of such technologies requires oil in the meantime. As does the development of your vaunted algae farms.

    Anything which increases the price of the commodity of oil will also hamper the progress of these developments. Most of those factors can not be controlled so it seems fatalistic to want to add more factors, like seeking to reduce production, which would push the price up and slow our progress towards development and adoption of new technologies.

  184. homepaddock says:

    “. . . then you could cull some of them (humanely) . . .”

    Oh yes, and who would pay for that, how would you dispose of the bodies and what would the environmental impact of that be?

    How interesting that yours is the most expensive and least practical method of herd reduction. If the problem we’re dealing with is that of the environmental impact of intensification, why not sell them to others who are farming less intensively or for meat (the price of beef is high) or as live exports.

    If it’s reducing greenhouse gases, sale for meat would be the most practical and least expensive option.

    Mr E is right about feed quality. Another consequence of fewer cows would be more hay, silage and bale age made using fossil fuels.

    Pressure from trading partners and the concept of doing ‘our fair share’ by cutting production is based on politics not science.

    The scientific approach is to take a global perspective not a national one. Reducing our dairy production would almost certainly increase emissions as our competitors who produce protein far less efficiently than us increased production.

  185. RBG says:

    A vegetarian diet has a lower carbon footprint than a meat eating one. As part of a worldwide reduction in GHG emissions people should eat less meat and get some more of their protein from plants. Dairying anywhere in the world releases more GHGs than growing plant crops. That NZ is a bit more efficient than other countries at dairy production doesn’t justify refusing to acknowledge the fact that a diet heavy on animal based foods results in more emissions than a plant based one. Unsuprisingly you and Mr E were delighted that I suggested culling cows as a means of reducing the size of the national herd, you will have guessed I’m not a farmer and my reply will fit with the greens want to slaughter cows meme, you anti-greens are so fond of . I have read the science on climate change, animal farming needs to be reduced globally and it is experts in that area who should decide ‘how’. The National party line is that New Zealand shouldn’t have to reduce our GHG emissions because we ‘feed the world’, it is an arrogant stance that demonstrates an inability to think beyond the status quo.

  186. TraceyS says:

    As a child, I used to dislike coming up through the Waitaki Valley in summertime because it was all brown and dead. Nowadays it looks green and alive. We shouldn’t forget that without life (all forms) there would be no dynamic climate at all here on earth. Cows are life, so are the bugs which thrive on their wastes, the birds that hang around grain crops, and the children born to farmers and other workers. As Mr E recently espoused; farms are far from monocultural. They’re teeming with life.

    Cow emissions, therefore, cannot be compared on equal terms with, say, cars. Cars are not life.

    Both Dave and RBG advocate for alternatives to reduce either dairy farming specifically or livestock farming in general. Dave has an interest in insect farming. Not sure what interest RBG has – maybe soybean or other high protein seed or grain? Nuts even?

    Maybe NZ could become the insect-farming capital of the world. Leading by example. Nothing wrong with that. But how would we stop what is happening here:
    http://www.agweb.com/article/insect-farmings-road-to-profit-chris-bennett/

    That is, insects being bought for animal feed elsewhere in the world. It is always going to be more attractive to process insects through an animal’s gut that to eat them directly. Just as it is for many grains. In many ways it is healthier too. Grains never evolved as a feed for humans. We can obviously eat them but they have defenses designed to ensure the grain fulfills its purpose, which is not to fill a human gut, but to propagate. Some of these defenses block absorption of minerals and nutrients.

    New Zealand could grow insects (or other crop) for human consumption and try and market them against meat and milk proteins on the foundation of them being “greener” and good for the planet (not yet established). But if the only customers willing to buy them are overseas farmers for animal feed then our efforts are futile. As a commodity product we would have no ability to resist and no right to dictate.

  187. JC says:

    “A vegetarian diet has a lower carbon footprint than a meat eating one.”

    JC

  188. Mr E says:

    RBG has failed on the ‘how’. As have so many others. Yet RBG still bangs a cow killing drum, while the Green Party awaits the filling of the caldron.

    Sadly the only mooted way global demand for dairy would declined is communistic like control of human diets. Let’s face it, that is not going to happen on a global scale.

    What is much more realistic is the promotion of NZs low cost, high output low emission systems. The greens seem to ignore this, I think it is because it doesn’t suit the Moto of gain support from outrage.

    Another realistic oppotunty is also the future of genetic modification. In this example the greens seem to avoid this obvious opportunity, out of some apparent moral stance. I think the cost of this stance could possibly be AGW and the loss of life.

    It seems killing cows is easier than admitting they’re wrong and changing tact. Killing cows, such an odd thing to do for a vegetarian promoter.

  189. TraceyS says:

    Of course satisfaction of demand can be controlled in other ways. Such as communistic-like control of markets.

    I am sure that the people who suggest a reduction in cow numbers, reduction in oil exploration, and so on will recognise the effect those actions would have on prices. As the supply becomes increasingly limited, the price progressively rises, thus marking it more difficult for consumers (starting with the poorest) to obtain. And the usage will subsequently go down.

    They don’t give a damn about demand, Mr E, it’s irrelevant when the tools are manipulation and control.

  190. Mr E says:

    Let’s not forget Tracey, that typically market gardens leach more nutrients than dairy farms.
    Shortly after RBG creates a river of red blood, our rivers will run green with pollution.

  191. TraceyS says:

    Yes, Mr E, will we remember to factor this into measuring the impact of the new insect farms, eg. the pumpkins and other vegetables being grown to feed the worms, flies, and other yummies? Or will obvious connections be denied out of vanity?

    Give me meat and three veg any day.

  192. Mr E says:

    As I salt and pepper a home killed mutton shoulder for new years eve dinner, I think about typical sheep farmers who leach a lot less N than typical market gardeners.
    There is some irony when I think that the meat source was an Otago high country farmer, and the farmer had historically told me his farm would fail the original ORC rule plan changes for nitrogn.
    I imagine most vege crop systems in that catchment would fail the 20kgN/ha limit. Meaning that the methane emitting ruminants really are one of the few community tolerable systems that will be allowed by law. Replacing ruminants with typical cereal or vege systems may soon be illegal because it is unacceptable in the communities eyes. This is what RBG promotes.

  193. TraceyS says:

    Tell me Mr E, does the farm in question still fail the new water plan rules? From my own experience with the ORC I would be surprised if they hadn’t listened and adjusted the final rules to change that scenario.

    Enjoy your mutton. Tonight my family and I will be enjoying wild venison for dinner – cooked on the BBQ. Our farm may produce only one species (beef cattle) for commercial sale but it is far from being monocultural. When I am up there – which is not often – I marvel at all the life. Plants, ducks, insects, eels, koura, pigs, deer, goats. Not all welcome, but definitely all accepted!

  194. Mr E says:

    Tracey,
    Yes the farmer now meets the modified levels I understand. And is pretty relaxed about it all.

    The life under a microscope would blow your mind, I am sure. Free living nematodes coat our wide variety of pasture species, in their hundreds and thousand. And fertility that supports pasture production also supports subterranean life. Every spade full supports uncountable cultures.
    Our farming systems has supported diversity, when you look hard enough.

    Vension on the BBQ sounds great. One of my all time favourites.
    We are so incredibly blessed to have such a great variety of culinary delights, when I think of all of the feasting over the last few days.
    Sadly not all enjoy the variety that you and I feast on. And they want the rest of us to be limited to their preferences. Cockroaches indeed.

  195. Paranormal says:

    RPG – are you vegetarian? I was a vegetarian for over ten years.

    Typical for a lefty demanding sweeping change for all, when it’s not as simple as you think. Some people will not tolerate a vegetarian diet. For a start have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_diet

  196. Paranormal says:

    Getting back to the theme of this post that ‘Science Matters’. I’ve been catching up on my reading and found this is spot on: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/26/google-goes-off-the-climate-change-deep-end/

    Dk and RPG should take note. Science does matter and significant political decisions should be based on scientific evidence, not hyperbole.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: