More ambitious climate change targets

New Zealand will commit to a new, more ambitious climate change target, Climate Change Issues Minister Tim Groser announced:

“This target is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030,” Mr Groser said. “This is a significant increase on our current target of five per cent below 1990 emission levels by 2020.”

New Zealand will submit the target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. All countries are expected to table targets as part of work towards a new climate change agreement, due to be concluded in Paris in December.

“While New Zealand’s emissions are small on a global scale, we are keen to make a fair and ambitious contribution to the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the most harmful effects of climate change,” Mr Groser said.

“Almost 80% of our electricity is renewable already, and around half our emissions come from producing food for which there aren’t yet cost-effective technologies to reduce emissions. So there are fewer opportunities for New Zealand to reduce its emissions right now.

Those who think New Zealand isn’t doing enough forget that we’re already doing quite a bit.

Some of that is because there aren’t many of us and we don’t have a lot of heavy industry but do have a natural advantage in generating renewable energy

It’s also important t take a global perspective and acknowledge that although farming contributes a high percentage of our emissions, most of what we produce goes to other countries few if any convert grass to protein as efficiently as we do.

“However, I’m optimistic about the future – our investment in agricultural research is beginning to bear fruit and the cost of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles continues to fall. I think in 5-10 years we’ll be in a good position to reduce our emissions in both agriculture and transport.

“In setting the new target, the Government needed to ensure it was achievable and to avoid imposing unfair costs on any particular sector or group of people. . .

“New Zealand’s target is equivalent to a reduction of 11 per cent below our 1990 emission levels by 2030. Our target is expressed against 2005 emission levels similar to the approach of other significant players including the United States and Canada,” Mr Groser said.

“The target will remain provisional until we ratify the new international agreement. The detailed rules and guidelines for national reduction targets are likely to be set after the Paris meeting. These will cover matters such as the rules on accounting for the land sector, and ensuring international carbon markets meet high standards of environmental integrity.”

“The Government will adopt an appropriate mix of policies to ensure the target is met. In particular, we will begin a review of the Emissions Trading Scheme this year, which will include scope for further public discussion on what New Zealand will do domestically.” Mr Groser said.

Federated Farmers says the new target is an ambitious one:

Federated Farmers Climate Change Spokesperson Anders Crofoot says in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which says reducing fossil fuel use will need to be the major focus to achieve this target. However agriculture will also play its part in development of technologies which will increase productivity whilst reducing carbon intensity of primary sector products.

“Agriculture takes its responsibilities as New Zealand and global citizens seriously and the primary sector already has an impressive track record in achieving carbon efficiency.”

“We continue to play an on-going role in meeting the world’s demand for nutrient-dense protein and finding solutions which addresses both climate change concerns and the food security dynamic.”

“To date, the amount of carbon released in producing a block of butter here in New Zealand is the lowest in the world. It is important to make sure our approach to reducing New Zealand’s emissions does not undermine our critical export industries.”

“In a resource-constrained world, it is vital to use resources efficiently and wisely. Climate change does not begin or end at New Zealand’s borders and New Zealand plays a vital world leading role as one of the most emission efficient food producers and exporters in the world.”

Beggering agriculture here would cause great harm to our economy and it would also increase emissions as less efficient producers in other countries increased production to fill the gap left by us producing less.

Anders Crofoot says New Zealand’s primary sector has made huge gains in carbon efficiency in the past three decades, through enhanced animal and plant genetics, as well as through a much greater understanding of livestock digestion and metabolism. He says our agricultural emissions intensity has declined more than 20 percent since 1990.

“Reducing emissions from biological systems such as dairy cows is not easy. That’s why since 2003, New Zealand’s agricultural sector has invested $30 million to help find solutions. AgResearch scientists have already identified five different animal-safe compounds that can reduce methane emissions from sheep and cattle by 30 to 90 percent. Further trials are needed to confirm that these compounds can reduce emissions in the long term, have no adverse effects on productivity and leave no residues in meat or milk. But all going well, we could possibly see a commercial product for use on-farm within five to ten years.”

“Continued investment will be required to develop science to reduce and treat biological agricultural emissions. This is how we can make a considerable contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by getting larger developing country emitters to adopt our technologies.”

“New Zealand is already sharing its developments and gains through the Ministry for Primary Industries and Federated Farmers Global Research Alliance World Farmers Organisation Farmer Study Tours. The aim is to increase global understanding on agricultural greenhouse gas research and engage farmers on environmental management practices that support sustainable productivity.”

Mr Crofoot concluded “The task before us now is to work on solutions built off an understanding of the strengths we have as an agricultural producer, and how best we can grow those strengths in a manner that improves emissions efficiency and farm productivity.”

Business New Zealand says the target is challenging but achievable :

. . .”Our unique profile, with unusual predominance of agricultural and transport emissions, means we must be deliberate about how we achieve reductions without harming the economy.

“Key to this will be a balanced outcome for all countries taking part in forthcoming negotiations in Paris, facilitating investment, technology development and access to markets in a way that provides New Zealand businesses with the confidence to invest in low-carbon solutions for emission reductions over the long term.”

Balance is indeed the key – balance between all countries and between environmental and economic concerns keeping in mind it is the most vulnerable people who would  pay most dearly if that balance isn’t achieved.

117 Responses to More ambitious climate change targets

  1. Andrei says:

    Here is an excellent reason why we should not vote for National.

    In a supposedly secular country the National Party has adopted the neo pagan religion of “environmentalism” and wastes taxpayers hard earned money on tilting at windmills

    Like

  2. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei expresses the view of one group and I note that the public consultation that the Government implemented around the country generally supported a much higher target.

    It seems this target is acceptable to farmers and Businessnz; alright for forestry, although they would prefer higher and not acceptable to scientists, youth, the IPCC and opposition parties. Any target is unacceptable to deniers 😉

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/nz-is-letting-down-the-world-and-pacific-with-paltry-emissions-target-say-critics-q00398.html

    It is also at the low end of the target in 2009 of 10-20%.

    Like

  3. Will says:

    A commercial product available in five to ten years. Genius. As if this nonsense will last that long.

    Like

  4. Mr E says:

    ‘It seems this target is acceptable to ….’

    Another reason why the Greens are not fit to lead. They presume to speak on behalf of people and they presume to think they know people’s thoughts.

    Like

  5. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear Mr E, you really are an interesting individual. Where on earth do I make those claims? It is obvious that I based the information on an news article and prefaced my comment with the qualifying word ‘seems’. Your presumption is far more pointed and presumptuous than mine, and yet another classic example of trolling. No added information just a sarcastic attack on an individual commenter. Sad.

    Like

  6. Andrei says:

    I note that the public consultation that the Government implemented around the country generally supported a much higher target.

    Political manipulation 101 – When agendas are at play “Public consultation” consists of bringing out the wackos and fruit loops who support whatever nonsense is being inflicted upon the long suffering public, most of whom are kept blissfully unaware that “Public consultation” is taking place because the last thing that the inflictors of bigger taxes and profound social revisionism (c.f. abomination marriage) want is for the public to know what they are up to with their latest depredation upon common sense, decency and the family man’s wallet.

    Like

  7. Mr E says:

    “Where on earth do I make those claims?”

    “It seems this target is acceptable to farmers and Businessnz; alright for forestry, although they would prefer higher and not acceptable to scientists, youth, the IPCC and opposition parties.”

    Like

  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    “When agendas are at play “Public consultation” consists of bringing out the wackos and fruit loops”
    I don’t think any of those who attended the Dunedin meeting were accompanied by their psychiatric minders from the mental health unit Andrei 😉
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/343136/climate-change-target-moral-not-economic-question
    http://wiseresponse.org.nz/?page_id=166
    Wise response provided an information meeting before the consultation that included climate scientists. I agree that most of those who attended the meeting felt passionate about the issue and see it as a moral one, but their views are based largely on the evidence also existing in the Government’s consultation document. Perhaps the Ministry of the Environment is full of wackos too.

    Mr E, still attacking with blanks, look at the article that I used and the beginning qualifying phrase. The presuming is largely yours. You’re just being a troll again. Try adding something of value to the thread instead.

    Like

  9. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    Do you honesty think that the following occurs?
    New Zealand Youth Delegation speaks on behalf of all youth?
    Federated Farmers Speak on behalf of all farmers?

    Do you think they are elected representatives for all farmers and youth?
    Do you think they are the judge and jury of what youth and farmers want and think?

    As for your forestry and scientist claims, you seem to have plucked them from thin air. There are no mentions of them in any of the links that I have seen.

    When I see statements like yours, I simply think – this guy is making things up. He is stretching the truth to fit his agenda. He is misrepresenting the situation and the contributors to that situation.

    I would normally be interested in comments about my contribution. But just as I don’t think you are can represent Youth, Forestry, Farmers, and Scientist I am not to worried about you judgement of my comments. You make your judgements with absolutism, without qualification that they are just your opinions. It is another contributing reason as to why I think the Greens are not fit to lead.

    Like

  10. Dave Kennedy says:

    An honest comment at last, Mr E. Regarding, what you say about whether each organisation totally represents the sector, I agree with you. The comment was not intended to be taken so literally, it was just about the diversity of views. It was also intended to roughly indicate the sectors that would have most influenced the Government’s decision around the target.

    In the US research shows that concerns about human influenced climate change is strongest as respondents get younger and and strongest amongst the most educated. Twice as many 18-29 year olds are concerned than those over 65 (60% to 31%). When I visited high schools during the 2014 campaign it was clear that climate change was a major issue for senior students so I would guess more than 60% are concerned here. Generation Zero has been particularly active within the younger demographic too.
    http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/12/how-different-groups-think-about-scientific-issues/

    Recent New Zealand research by Leining and White indicates that in the 18-24 age group 74% believe that human activity is causing climate change, the percentage drops through the age groups and only 35% of the 75+ group support that view. The conclusion states:

    “The findings also suggest that information about climate change impacts and solutions should take into account and cater for differences in perspective between men and women and among people of different ages. If these findings represent a culture shift among younger generations moving into leadership positions, support for effective climate change action could rise on the national agenda.”

    Click to access From_Fact_to_Act_Motu_Note_19_web.pdf

    It is well known that the National Government uses polls a lot to determine political risk and panders greatly to its own voters to ensure ongoing support (politically sensible). Climate change is a long term issue and is going to affect later generations much more than older ones. However a much lower percentage of young people vote and the Green party has a high percentage of educated people and professionals amongst our voters:
    “As usual, the Green vote was particularly strong in the urban university electorates Wellington Central, Rongotai, Dunedin North, and Auckland Central. In Wellington Central – the most highly educated electorate in the country – the Greens even succeeded in beating Labour, securing 28% to Labour’s 27% of the party vote.”
    http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/05/for-a-richer-new-zealand-environmentalism-and-the-green-party-in-the-2011-new-zealand-general-electi.html

    The National vote is strongest in rural communities and there is a close relationship between Federated Farmers and National. Given this Government’s open disregard for many scientists (especially environmental ones), the fact that young people are not influential in the ballot box and the influence of the farming community (who largely feel threatened by any major emission targets) a soft target was predictable. It is also noteworthy that the current target has ben greatly reduced from the 2009 one (10-20%) and we are aligning ourselves with other countries that have high emissions (like Japan) that are also reluctant to make much effort (we have the 11th highest emissions per capita).

    These are my opinions, but based on reasonable evidence. You are welcome to produce evidence of your own (rather than snide remarks) to contradict anything here 😉

    Like

  11. Andrei says:

    This climate change debate is beyond moronic

    Dave Kennedy uses the term deniers when of course nobody denies the climate is changing.

    What the few of us who still retain common sense say is that if you think that any politician can come up with any policy to stop the climate changing you need your head read

    Because they can’t!, which is just as well because if they could they would change it in a way that would suit themselves regardless of the cost to other people

    What they can do and are exceptionally good at is finding new ways of transferring our wealth and resources into their pockets and those of their cronies.

    My God you Chicken Littles are running around clucking about a supposed 0.7°C “warming” over the past century when it is 2°C warmer on the north side of my house than it is on the South side

    Western civilization is dying is a quagmire of vapidity, lead over the cliff by little men and womin who are self serving mediocrities whose only talents are self promotion and deception.

    Like

  12. J Bloggs says:

    Can we dispense with the “Emissions per capita” rubbish – the only reason that is used as a metric is that it allows the high population/high emitters to hide themselves further down the rankings at the expense of smaller countries. Using it means that China and the USA rank behind such pollution powerhouses as Trinidad and Tobago, Luxembourg and Qatar. When you are using stats that state that China only produces half the emissions per capita than those of Greenland as a valid measure of who needs to cut back, then you are arguing rubbish. Come back to me with NZ’s contribution to TOTAL emissions, then I might start listening.

    Like

  13. Dave Kennedy says:

    J Bloggs, so no focus on pulling our weight regarding our per capita influence? Just blame China, India and the US and the rest of us wait for them to act? I can see some moral flaws in that approach 😉

    Others here have expressed some valid concerns about my own carbon footprint, we should all be taking responsibility rather than saying we will just be a fast follower. The same argument could be used for the health and welfare of children (we have one of the worst records in the OECD in this area) but to say that in a global sense the harm we do to children is minimal so we shouldn’t make it a priority is not morally acceptable.

    Like

  14. J Bloggs says:

    No, I’m saying that emissions per capita is a bullshit statistic. Arguably, you could reduce NZ’s e/c overnight by 20% by allowing a million immigrants into the country. Don’t think it would lead to any real benefits though, either locally or global climate wise. And, as I said, it means that the the big offenders can point and say look, we’re much better than all those other smaller countries whose e/c’s are so much higher than us, and in doing so justify their own inaction.

    Like

  15. jabba says:

    “I note that the public consultation that the Government implemented around the country generally supported a much higher target.”
    Now Dave, if the people who support a higher target were told how much the new target will cost them in higher fuel, food, power and indeed all products and services (including higher and new taxes and the dreaded levies), it would be interesting how keen they would be. Remember, you get paid more than most so could afford the higher costs.

    Like

  16. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Arguably, you could reduce NZ’s e/c overnight by 20% by allowing a million immigrants into the country.” only at the point of arrival 😉 Presumably they will want to drive cars heat homes, buy farms and do all manner of stuff that creates emissions. Already our level of commitment is being questioned by other countries:
    http://www.generationzero.org/live_from_lima_nz_s_record_on_climate_not_something_to_be_proud_of

    Jabba, there may indeed be some costs but we are already paying out billions in climate change costs because we have acted already. The damage done through storms, drought and floods (that have become more severe and frequent because of climate change) is having costly impacts to our economy. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/drought-recovery/8747742/Extreme-weather-the-new-normal

    According to Treasury estimates, not reducing our emissions could result in up to $52 billion in costs. The cost of doing nothing is far far more expensive than sitting on our hands. http://www.carbonnews.co.nz/story.asp?storyID=8349&src=hottopic

    Like

  17. Dave Kennedy says:

    oops “because we haven’t acted already” (2nd paragraph)

    Like

  18. Andrei says:

    Jabba, there may indeed be some costs but we are already paying out billions in climate change costs because we have acted already. The damage done through storms, drought and floods (that have become more severe and frequent because of climate change) is having costly impacts to our economy.

    Nonsense Dave Kennedy – storms, droughts and floods have not become more “severe and frequent”, that is just an exceptionally silly piece of propaganda

    The worst natural disaster to ever strike the USA was the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, which occurred in the early days of fossil fuel use.

    Millions died in a Chinese flood that occurred in the eighteenth century before fossil fuel was widely used

    And of course the worst natural disaster in our lifetime was the boxing day tsunami, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the weather

    The biggest calamity to strike mankind in the past 100 years was nothing to do with nature of course but was inflicted upon us by POLITICIANS – that being WW2 of course.

    Politicians are far more dangerous to peoples well being than climate change or fossil fuel use

    Recall The Brits burned 300,000 people alive at Dresden over a three day period, that 3 times as many as died in the boxing day Tsunami and Thirty times the number who died in Galveston in 1900 and that is just one small, almost forgotten horror of those dire years

    Get some perspective my friend as NATO parades its troops 300 meters from Russia’s borders and is building up armies and weapons in Eastern Europe in a manner very reminiscent of the build up to Barbarossa

    Like

  19. homepaddock says:

    Dave – when thinking about per capita you have to take into account the large proportion of our emissions that come from animals which proved food that is exported.

    If we produce less protein the gap will be filled by farmers in other countries who are far less efficient than us. Our emissions would go down but the world’s would go up.

    Like

  20. Andrei says:

    When it comes down to it Dave Kennedy there are 1,4 billion Chinese compared to 4 million of us

    And the vast majority of them do not enjoy the standard of living you do Mr Kennedy but they would like to

    So even if “emissions” are the problem you claim they are (something I strongly doubt) you are pissing in the wind cutting back on our contribution to them because China is not going to, nor is India or any other country of the East where the vast majority of the worlds people’s actually live, work. love, play and die

    They are just going to stare in gob smacked awe at our stupidity as they pick up the business we forgo to save the planet

    Like

  21. JC says:

    “According to Treasury estimates, not reducing our emissions could result in up to $52 billion in costs. The cost of doing nothing is far far more expensive than sitting on our hands.”

    Actually the figures supplied by Treasury and taken up as the gold standard by the Green party are for a cost of $3 billion to $52 billion in the years 2021-2030, ie the higher figure is 17.3 times the size of the lower figure.

    Using this spread so well embraced by the Greens we can assume that if DK is talking about inequality the acceptable range of accuracy would mean the poor may have an annual income as low as $1754 and the top 10% as much as $2.5 million, the actual tonnage of CO2 produced each year could be over a billion tonnes instead of the estimated 60 million tonnes and the actual level of white collar crime 17 times that reported.. or indeed 17 times less than reported.

    So there’s the level of Green probable limits of error.. get within about 17 times plus or minus the real figure and you’re much more credible than National.

    JC

    Like

  22. Name Withheld says:

    They are just going to stare in gob smacked awe at our stupidity as they pick up the business we forgo to save the planet
    As most rational people already do, Andrei
    .
    More effort needed warmists, I think.

    After a report from the Yale Center on Climate Change Communication showed that the term “climate change” elicits relatively little concern from the American public, leading scientists are recommending replacing it with a new term: “You will be burnt to a crisp and die.”

    Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods” and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life.”

    Scientists were generally supportive of the suggestions, with many favoring the term “your future will involve rowing a boat down a river of rotting corpses.”

    “Any of these terms would do a better job conveying the urgency of the problem,” Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for the newly renamed Yale Center for Oh My God Wake Up You Assholes, said.

    Like

  23. JC says:

    Well NW, nothings changed since the first warmist let us all have it..

    Rivers of blood
    Frogs
    Lice
    Flies
    Livestock diseases
    Boils
    Hail
    Locusts
    Darkness
    Death of first born

    JC

    Like

  24. Mr E says:

    JC,

    I really appreciated that you pulled Dave up on the “up to $52 billion in costs” claims.

    Years ago I sent an email to a Scientist whose name was on “up to 80% ” emissions claims. His response was that he could not control what the marketing department did, although he recognised it hampered his scientific integrity.

    In another conversation a well known Scientist said to me “Zero is on the way up to 80%”. To which I pointed out, so was negative 80%.

    I wonder if Dave questions whether making “up to” claims, will negatively impact peoples perception of his integrity?

    I noted that Dave, is just following his failed leaders attempts. This made me laugh.

    “Dr Russel Norman : Does he accept Treasury’s projection in its briefing to the incoming Minister released just last month that continued failure to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions could result in a bill to the Government of up to $52 billion?

    Hon BILL ENGLISH : No, because that was not Treasury’s projection.

    Dr Russel Norman : Does he understand that Treasury is advising him in this briefing to the incoming Minister that the Government will have to buy up to $52 billion in carbon credits on the international carbon market to cover the projected increase in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions if he continues down the current path?

    Hon BILL ENGLISH : No, I do not accept that. The projection the member is using is not Treasury’s projection. All matters related to climate change are subject to considerable uncertainty. For instance, 3 years ago Treasury projected we would be collecting around $1 billion in revenue from the emissions trading system, and I think this year we are going to collect pretty much nothing. So it was at least $1 billion out just over that 3-year period—the main reason being that the world carbon price has come way down because emissions have dropped much faster than Treasury expected.

    Dr Russel Norman : Does he think Treasury got it wrong in the briefing to the incoming Minister released just 1 month ago when it told him that if we continue down our current path, there is a huge cost to pay by the taxpayer if we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

    Hon BILL ENGLISH : It is implicit in an emissions trading system that if the carbon price rises, that puts a further impost on households and businesses. That is why we have an emissions trading system—precisely to send that kind of price signal, but exactly what that price is going to be is a subject of great uncertainty. As I said, no one really predicted as recently as 3 years ago that the current carbon price would be close to zero.

    Dr Russel Norman : Does the Minister not understand that in Treasury’s briefing paper on page 8, where it is referring to the forecast price for carbon prices, it is not referring to the domestic price; it is referring to the international price, because New Zealand will be 315 million tonnes over its target and it will have to buy carbon credits on the international market to cover 315 million tonnes, and if the price is $10 a tonne it is over $3 billion?

    Hon BILL ENGLISH : No, I do not agree with that because there are a whole lot of assumptions involved in it. If the Greens are worried about us getting into a hole, then I think the leader of the Greens should follow his members’ advice from the beach campaign in Timaru, where his members went down to the beach and one of them said: “I put a plastic bag in the hole so I did not get sand in my ears.” That might be very useful advice for him.

    Dr Russel Norman : Instead of making jokes—[Interruption]

    Mr SPEAKER : Order! The member has a right—[Interruption] Order! The member has a right to ask his question.

    Dr Russel Norman : Has he seen this graph from the Ministry for the Environment, his own Government graph, in which the blue line is going up because the blue line—

    Hon Members : Yay!

    Dr Russel Norman : It is our greenhouse emissions, you idiots—


    It goes on and on.

    I think if the Greens would stop trying to ‘ham things up’, some of these matters could be discussed seriously and logically.

    Like

  25. farmerbraun says:

    ” some of these matters could be discussed seriously and logically.”

    Good luck with that Mr E.
    Even so, it remains impossible to dissuade, by a process of logic, someone who holds a position that was not arrived at by a logical process.

    That is why all discussion with climate alarmists has been fruitless.
    There is no logical process which leads to the conclusions that warmists hold to be gospel truth.

    Like

  26. Teletext says:

    It is my understanding that the earth is possibly going through a change in it’s tilt. If that is true then what effect will that have on the climate. Will part of both the Arctic and Antarctic melt and other parts freeze over? No-one knows as no-one is still here to tell us the last time it happened.
    The climate has been changing ever since the world was created and will continue to do so until it eventually dies so how can man change that?
    The arguing about carbon emissions is unbelievable as CO2 it essential for life. Reduce it to zero and all the plants die and then we die. Carbon is essential for life.

    Like

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    Ele, you seem to be of the opinion that emissions from farming can’t be reduced or that our transport emissions can’t either. There appears to be some scientific breakthroughs in this regard:
    http://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/75230/new-zealand-researchers-report-significant-step-towards-reducing-methane-emissions
    and we don’t have to be so focussed on animal based protein in the future: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/farming/285489/venture-southland-considers-oat-push

    Andrei read my analogy regarding child abuse, your argument doesn’t stack up morally. China is probably doing more than us already on a per capita basis: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chinas-reduction-in-co2-emissions-in-just-four-months-totals-the-entire-greenhouse-gases-emitted-by-the-uk-over-the-same-period-10255957.html

    While Fonterra creates more coal mines to power their driers, China is drastically cutting back its use of coal. During the last 7 years under National our emissions have increased by 13%. This is an appalling record.

    JC and Mr E, the higher figure will result($52 billion) if little progress is made, but even if it is half that it is still a considerable sum that will impact on our economy. Treasury wouldn’t have plucked that figure from thin air.

    It is interesting that the Greens often refer to research and papers presented by Treasury, the Ministry of the Environment and the Law Commission etc that the Government often ignore. They claim that they listen to advice but as the Government they decide whether they follow that advice or not. I don’t disagree with that approach, but it does appear that many of the government’s decisions on the environment, education spending, corporate bailouts and subsidies, electoral law and housing bear very little relationship to the advice.

    Julie Anne Genter pushed Gerry Brownlee for some time to get the research and evidence the government used for the Roads of National Significance and with help from the then Speaker Lockwood Smith it was established that no research or credible evidence was used to justify the roads, most failed basic cost benefit analysis. Gerry’s most coherent justification was that people want raods and all successful economies have them. Julie Anne (with her transport planning background) was able to show that many of the planned road developments could greatly improve traffic flow with one or two cheap changes to deal with bottlenecks. The Transmission Gully PPP isn’t going to cost this Government much immediately but a few years down the line the cost tax payers billions more than if had been directly funded by the Government.

    The Government even changed the NZTA criteria to make ‘Government priorities’ a major part of the justification. We saw a repeat of that process with the Northland bridges, they were largely guesswork and many had no desperate need for replacement and one would have involved the reconstruction of a recently replaced structure.

    The same approach is being done with climate change, the target is a purely short term, political one. It doesn’t address the Treasury projections, it doesn’t meet the targets proposed by our climate scientists, it doesn’t meet our international obligations and it doesn’t line up with the submissions received through the consultation process. It does fit with the Government’s plans to develop an oil and gas industry, it fits with the expansion of our roading network and cuts to rail funding and it is tolerable to farmers.

    Russel was right, under this Government we have had no reductions in our emissions (like China and Europe have achieved). Despite our clean energy sources, and a drop in electricity demand, our emissions have increased over the past 7 years by 13%. Like everthing else this Government does, it passes the cost on to the next government or next generation .

    Like

  28. Andrei says:

    It is my understanding that the earth is possibly going through a change in it’s tilt. If that is true then what effect will that have on the climate.

    It is Teletext – it is a phenomenon called precession, something covered in University course on Mechanics (i. e Mathematics and Physics) and well understood

    Here is wikipedia’s article on it as it relates to the Earth.

    Apart from anything else it means that the astrological sign that you were born under does not relate to the astrological sign you are assigned in the Newspaper, the dates of which having been set in concrete many moons ago and not relevant to today’s planet Earth 🙂

    And of course it effects the climate – apart from anything else the land surfaces are not evenly distributed between the Northern and Southern hemispheres and the angle of the solar radiation reaching the surface is effected by this – technically it is known as Solar Flux and measured in Watts per square meter W/m²

    This is one of the things that those who explore the relationship between glacial and interglacial eras consider.

    The Sun itself is not constant in its energy output either – there is the famous 11 year Sunspot cycle (which itself varies in both length and intensity and other longer term semi regular variations

    All of which make this a very hard nut to crack

    But the loopies focus on on thing, minute variations in the atmospheric concentration of a gas that is in itself a mere trace component (albeit important to life as we know it) and go crazy

    “Climate Science” as it is presented to the public has a lot in common with astrology

    Not that that will stop politicians getting in on the act – but what’s new Roman Politicians made policy decisions based upon the examination of chicken entrails

    Like

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei & Teletext a lot of similar ideas were thrown at Dr James Hansen when he spoke in Gore. He addressed each one respectfully and explained the influence each had on the climate. Hansen and other climate scientists use the word ‘forcings’ to describe each influence on the climate, and while numerous things apply forcings onto our climatic systems the extent of influence of each needs to be measured.

    Of course carbon is an essential element of life on this earth, but like when mixing paint, just a small addition of one element can totally change the overall colour. 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmsophere was generally accepted as the level that we couldn’t go beyond to maintain a relatively stable climate (it was 280 ppm in pre industrial times). In around ten years our emissions have leapt to over 400 ppm.

    Like

  30. Dave Kennedy says:

    “There is no logical process which leads to the conclusions that warmists hold to be gospel truth.”
    Science?

    Like

  31. Paranormal says:

    DK, what you and your ilk are doing is politics, not science.

    As for historical CO2 levels: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

    Like

  32. Andrei says:

    .

    He addressed each one respectfully and explained the influence each had on the climate. Hansen and other climate scientists use the word ‘forcings’ to describe each influence on the climate, and while numerous things apply forcings onto our climatic systems the extent of influence of each needs to be measured.

    and explained the influence each had on the climate

    He double talked – nobody can explain the influence each of these has on the climate!

    It is a chaotic system – that is a technical term used in non linear dynamics and means that it is unpredictable even in the short term

    That is why the weather forecast is frequently wrong, often more often than it is right.

    Everything has some impact on the future trajectory of the climate, even when you fart in the bath it alters that trajectory – this is called “The Butterfly Effect”.

    Nobody knows what the world will look like in 100 years – it is unknowable

    Like

  33. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I followed your link (as I generally do) and read the piece from the blog post that you often link to (written by the retired TV weatherman) and as I am not a scientist myself looked up Wikipedia to find out more about the science being used to argue against the importance of CO2. This is a crucial argument for those who don’t accept the influence of human activity on our climate.

    None of what I present is a personal attack but establishing factual information about the scientist concerned, that you are welcome to factually dispute. It is important to determine the context of a scientist’s opinion with things like potential conflicts of interest, whether they have a background in the relevant field and how recent and up to date their work and opinions are.

    The scientist referred to is Vincent Gray and so I checked his credentials compared to NASA, the Royal Society and NIWA who he disagrees with.

    He is a 93 year old chemist whose major research was studies on incendiary bomb fluids made from aluminium soaps. He was a director of building research before becoming the Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Association. He is also the founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that is financially supported by the Heartland Institute. Interestingly there often appears to be connections with the most prominent scientist skeptics to both the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute.

    Gray is a capable scientist who has had a successful career. However he is not a climate scientist and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has had a rather sad history according to Wikipedia:

    In July 2006, the Coalition called on the New Zealand government to institute a Royal Commission on climate change because the public were “being given incomplete, inaccurate and biased information about the effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” when “global warming caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases … cannot be substantiated”.[6] The Government refused on the grounds that the majority of climate scientists in the world agree that there is no longer any doubt that climate is changing due to human activity.[7]

    In April 2007, the Coalition described the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as “dangerous unscientific nonsense” and “lacking in scientific rigour”.[8]

    In March 2008, the New Zealand Listener reported that Owen McShane and Bryan Leyland and the Coalition were lobbying business journalists to cover their questioning of climate change science in order to create an illusion of greater disagreement over the science than actually exists.[9]

    In July 2008, the Coalition issued a press release that stated that the premise that “the globe is warming” was “a lie”. The release also described the Royal Society of New Zealand’s statement on climate change as “an orchestrated litany of lies”.[10]

    In August 2010, the Coalition commenced legal action against the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, asking the High Court to invalidate its official temperature record, to prevent it using the temperature record when advising Government and to require the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to produce a “full and accurate” temperature record.[11][12] In 2012, the High Court declined all claims and ruled that the Coalition pay NIWA’s costs.[13][14] In response to the ruling, the Coalition liquidated the trust fund it administered to handle the court case, in an attempt to avoid financial liability.[15]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

    I think I will stick with NIWA as my main New Zealand source of climate science rather than Gray, thanks.

    Interestingly I have generally used Dr James Hansen as my scientist of note and it has been suggested here that he has no science credibility. I am happy to read links, similar to what I have provided here regarding Gray, that supports that view.

    Like

  34. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, I found more on your important scientist:
    “A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.”
    http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

    This was published nine years ago about Gray’s climate credentials and that of his coalition, but is still relevant:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima/

    Like

  35. Paranormal says:

    Here’s what a real scientist says:
    “First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.”

    He also talks about Climate Change/ Gorebull Warmening being a religion.

    http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

    That DK is from a Nobel laureate. I await your character assassination.

    With the effects being so minimal and there is so much uncertainty in the science, there is no way we should be chasing spurious emissions targets.

    H/T Whale Oil http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/07/i-say-this-to-obama-excuse-me-mr-president-but-youre-wrong-dead-wrong/#more-198727

    Like

  36. Paranormal says:

    So DK – a typical post from you, don’t address the science, just attack the credibility. You’re happy with a railway engineers pronouncements, but not someone that has detailed known scientific fact, that CO2 concentrations were much higher before modern times and didn’t lead temperature.

    As for links for your man Hansen, just google “Hansen is a liar”. but to make it true (by your standards) here is a wikipedia link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman/Hansen_criticism

    It is well documented that Hansen is an activist crusader first and a scientist second.

    Like

  37. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, there are thousands of actual climate scientists you can choose from to support your argument but the two recent links share similar backgrounds and ring similar credibility alarm bells.

    -Neither are climate scientists and although respected in their related fields they do not have any credibility in the area we are discussing.
    -Both have no recent research that is peer reviewed.
    -Both scientists were born in the 1920s (one 93, the other 86 years old), this doesn’t mean that they aren’t good scientists, but one would have to wonder at their knowledge of contemporary developments when they are no longer involved in research.
    -Both are connected to the Heartland Institute where Giaever is the senior science advisor.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

    If I was having brain surgery I think I will stick with a specialist in that field and not one who hasn’t actually practiced for twenty years. I would have the same approach to advice on climate science.

    Like

  38. Paranormal says:

    True to form DK

    Like

  39. TraceyS says:

    “If I was having brain surgery I think I will stick with a specialist in that field…”

    Yet if your diagnosis was not very straightforward you might prefer a multidisciplinary approach.

    Given that your wife is a General Practitioner, Dave, you must certainly appreciate the value of multiple disciplines.

    Like

  40. Gravedodger says:

    Nice DaveK that you debate so focussed and logically.
    Had you resorted to Whakos, Deniers, Warmists, fruit loops, trolls and presented a tired predictable dearth of respect and admission that contrary views can have a validity in political debate, it could have been seen as a weakness for your predictable posturing.

    Like

  41. Andrei says:

    Dear Dave

    From your link number 1

    Scientifically speaking, the difference between weather prediction and climate prediction is the difference between an “initial value problem” and a “boundary value problem.”

    What does this mean?

    This is technically called blinding with science.

    These are actually technical terms from the mathematics of Differential equations and while I can see that predicting the weather is an “initial value problem” how Climate models become ” boundary value problems” totally eludes me – despite the baseball analogy deployed by the author to obfuscate the reader

    This is not science it is sheer nonsense

    As for the Guardian piece, two years old that is an example of “if you repeat a lie,…”

    To describe the whole system you would need to formulate billions of differential equations few of which have analytical solutions and the majority of which exhibit “initial condition instability” (the so called Butterfly effect)

    To show how hard this really is current temperatures being reported from Central Invercargill (your neck of the woods?)

    1.6 °C
    2.2 °C
    3.9 °C
    3.3 °C
    3.4 °C

    Each one of these readings are within a Kilometer radius as of 20:00 10/07/15 – how accurate they are is in the eye of the beholder but the temperature varies in both time and space and in fact is not a well defined term in the sense we are using it (I explain more another time)

    I got them here

    http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/

    Like

  42. homepaddock says:

    Dave I didn’t say any sector shouldn’t do anything. Agriculture is one area where there is some good being done through the International Greenhouse coalition, initiated by Tim Groser. This contrasts with other initiatives which too often trump science with politics and bureaucracy.

    My point was that doing something which reduces production here is counterproductive if it means production increases elsewhere where it is much less efficient.

    Like

  43. Dave Kennedy says:

    “This contrasts with other initiatives which too often trump science with politics and bureaucracy.”
    I would be interested to know what those are (examples), Ele.

    “Each one of these readings are within a Kilometer radius as of 20:00 10/07/15”
    Which is why, Andrei, the official temperature for data purposes is taken at the same spot near our airport (for the sake of consistency) 😉

    “Nice DaveK that you debate so focussed and logically.”
    I do my best Gravedodger, it’s just a pity others can’t approach these debates in the same way 😉

    “True to form DK”
    I’ll take that as a compliment, Paranormal, it is now up to you to refute what I found about your scientists’ conflicts of interest and lack of a credible profile in climate science. You are welcome to try and find something similar on Hansen regarding his involvement in climate science and research credibility.

    “Given that your wife is a General Practitioner, Dave, you must certainly appreciate the value of multiple disciplines.”

    Yes I do, Tracey, climate scientists use the data from a range of other scientists to inform their own speciality. Just as a Neurosurgeon will use a range of data to help with a diagnosis. I would still prefer to have the Neurosurgeon make decisions about a possible brain tumour and not an ENT surgeon. Paranormal thinks that I am making personal attacks on his chosen scientists because I don’t believe that a 93 year old chemist who studied soap and coal has climate opinions with as much value as a NASA scientist who spent the majority of his working life on climate science. Interesting.

    Like

  44. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, The link about Hansen is correct regarding his shift away from science and more towards activism. In an earlier link I explained why that was. Hansen had been frustrated over decades of presenting the science to congress and other political decision makers only to have it ignored in favour of the concerns of the fossil fuel industry. He is also concerned about the future for his grandchildren. This does not diminish his contribution to science and you still need to give examples of where his science seriously fails.

    Like

  45. farmerbraun says:

    Dave Kennedy says in response to this assertion:-

    “There is no logical process which leads to the conclusions that warmists hold to be gospel truth.”

    Science?

    So that is a question.

    Dave , I can explain once more , if you wish , why the scientific process cannot , at this time , arrive at the conclusion that atmospheric CO2 increases above a certain level will produce any significant global warming , let alone dangerous global warming.

    But you seem absolutely determined to not understand this.

    At the present time science can reach no conclusion about AGW , either way. That is, presently , the AGW hypothesis can be neither proved , nor disproved.

    And that is why the modelling exercise has been undertaken . . . . to see if we can at least get a predictive model which may eventually lead to a Unified General Theory of Climate Regulation, without which nothing can ever be proven.

    All we have currently is speculation.

    Like

  46. farmerbraun says:

    This link to a comment may , or may not be helpful, although it does illustrate why the null hypothesis cannot be falsified i.e. the absence of the general theory :-

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/whats-really-warming-the-world-nasa-has-no-idea-not-the-sun-never-the-sun/#comment-1725361

    Like

  47. Paranormal says:

    DK you bleat that people refuse to engage with you and yet you refuse to engage constructively. You prefer to denigrate the person rather than address the science. We’ll just take it that you’ve got nothing but politics to counter the increasing scientific evidence against your religion.

    Like

  48. Dave Kennedy says:

    “At the present time science can reach no conclusion about AGW , either way. That is, presently , the AGW hypothesis can be neither proved , nor disproved.”
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VaBBC8aqpBc
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/02/ipcc-climate-report-conclusive-evidence-humans-warming-planet/

    It doesn’t appear that way to me, unless you believe the scientists associated with the Heartland Foundation, Farmerbraun.

    Like

  49. Dave Kennedy says:

    Farmerbraun, I did the credibility test with Joanne Nova and like other scientists supported here it turns out that her main research was not the climate but work around muscular dystrophy. Again there are links to the oil industry when she was a co-ordinator for a Shell funded science circus and her book “The Skeptics Handbook” was supported by the Heartland Foundation.

    Rather than grabbing random scientists to support your theory why won’t you support a body of joint research by science institutions? The strength of conventional science is the peer review process and none of the scientists featured here have any credibility in the peer reviewed climate science community. In fact very few are even climate scientists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

    Like

  50. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You prefer to denigrate the person rather than address the science.”
    I will question the credentials of the scientists in the same way I would question the credentials of anyone I was hiring for a particular job, Paranormal. Quote me where I denigrated one of your scientists.

    There is no way that I can properly argue climate science, in the same way that I couldn’t argue neuroscience, therefore I do due diligence regarding the sources I rely on. You support the theories of non climate scientists who have connections with the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Foundation while I support NASA the Royal Society, NIWA etc. I support the collective view of peer reviewed mainstream science while you support extreme outliers in the scientific community. I guess when it comes to science I am a conservative, not a radical.

    Like

  51. farmerbraun says:

    What you did do there Dave was completely ignore the question, and then went off at a tangent.
    AGW is not a theory ; it remains speculation.

    If you disagree , then why not say why? And give your reasons.
    I attempted to elucidate the science , which you seemed to be suggesting supported your position.

    I merely pointed out that your position was not supported by the science , and could not possibly be.
    What does Joanne Nova , or anybody else have to do with that fact?

    AGW is not a theory (certainly not mine) ; it is not even a verifiable hypothesis at this stage.

    Like

  52. farmerbraun says:

    You seem to think Dave , that there is something special about the scientific method when it comes to climatology ; there isn’t .
    It has to obey the same rules as every other scientific process; namely , to falsify the null hypothesis, in order to establish cause and effect.
    I pointed out why that is not possible in the case of AGW.
    Why do you insist otherwise?

    Like

  53. farmerbraun says:

    Dave , to suggest that a view has no validity , because it is expressed on a particular blog , shows that you are clutching at straws.
    Address the issue please.

    Like

  54. Will Dwan says:

    Argument from authority is all he’s got. If your political inclination is autocratic, it’s all you need I suppose. But it gets tedious.

    Like

  55. TraceyS says:

    farmerbraun: Give up!

    Dave doesn’t have a clue what hypothesis testing is all about. To be open to that would mean being open to alternative hypotheses and therein lies the problem.

    Like

  56. TraceyS says:

    “Just as a Neurosurgeon will use a range of data to help with a diagnosis. I would still prefer to have the Neurosurgeon make decisions about a possible brain tumour…”

    Dave, it seems that an individual brain tumour is a relatively well-defined problem. The climate change problem is not like this at all. The analogy is therefore of little value. But it is useful for stirring up the emotions!

    Like

  57. farmerbraun says:

    TraceyS says:

    farmerbraun: Give up!

    FB says ; yes you are right. I cannot elicit an intelligent response.

    Like

  58. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, a hypothesis is untested but global warming and climate change has been studied and researched for over 120 years, it is a fully fledged and well accepted theory. Wide spread consensus in the wider science community was achieved in the 80s (thirty years ago)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

    You appear to want to go back 60 years and start the debate and analysis all over again. You chose to use something from Joanne Nova to begin this and yet she has little credibility in the world of climate science. There are hundreds of thousands of climate scientists adding to the body of research in AGW. There is no way a lay person can read and analyze it all so applying some form of filter to discard comment is necessary. Joanne Nova would struggle to pass even a basic filter for most people.

    Tracey, I think AWG has been pretty well defined over the last 120 years 😉

    http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/anthropogenic-climate-change.html

    “I cannot elicit an intelligent response.”

    I am responding as well as I can to arguments that are supported by scientists with no credibility and huge conflicts of interest. I am responding as intelligently as i can to commenters who appear to be stuck in a time and debate that already occurred over 30 years ago.

    Like

  59. homepaddock says:

    Dave – an example of politics and bureaurocray trumping science: the Kyoto protocol dictate that if trees were cut down replacements must be planted in the same place. That would be a good idea if the aim was to save rain forests but not in NZ where you couldn’t cut down exotics in one place and replace them with natives elsewhere without a penalty.

    Like

  60. Paranormal says:

    DK you’re dreaming if you think climate change has been studied for 120 years and they reached todays religion based on that accumulated science. Your so called climate science has flip flopped worse than a green politician – simply because it has been a call to arms for political activists for decades. Can you explain how todays global warming has grown out of the 1970’s global cooling scare?

    You don’t consider being ageist and suggesting individuals born in the 1920’s are not able to keep up as denigrating? Proof again if any was needed that greens moral compasses are out of wack. I guess you didn’t watch the Nobel Laureate speech. Giaever clearly has analysed the climate science you are so for of and found it seriously wanting on a scientific basis.

    One thing is for certain. Both Gray and Giaever are capable of rational and critical thinking – what you’ve said you’re not prepared to engage in when it comes to your religion.

    Like

  61. TraceyS says:

    Dave, I followed the link which you presumably posted as evidence defining the problem of climate change, only to find the oddest of statements:

    “The most potent of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). Alarmingly, these are a result of anthropogenic climate change…”

    Greenhouse gasses are the resultof anthropogenic climate change?

    Surely what they meant to say was “cause”?

    That you post writers who apparently don’t appreciate the important distinction between cause and result is indeed alarming!

    Like

  62. TraceyS says:

    Another old scientist, one the greens don’t like to mention, is Lovelock”

    “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

    He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.

    “It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed

    “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

    In the MSNBC article Lovelock is quoted as proclaiming:

    “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened;” he continues

    “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said

    The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time … it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that”, he added.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

    Like

  63. Dave Kennedy says:

    “the Kyoto protocol dictate that if trees were cut down replacements must be planted in the same place.”
    I guess if we are desperate to save the planet and trees are an important element an some expectation of reforestation would make sense, but I don’t believe that it is presented in such a hard line way that you imply: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/29/planting-trees-climate-change

    I’m sure some things could be managed better around reforestation but we have actually losing forests at a rate higher than it has been for decades in New Zealand. In 2006 280,000 hectares of forest was identified as at risk to be replaced for an alternative land use (mainly dairying) . Since then much has already occurred and is continuing: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/10267167/Landcorps-huge-dairy-plans-start-to-take-shape

    Paranormal, it is difficult to have a discussion with you when you refuse to read my links that provide the background to my comments. From the early beginnings understanding grew:
    “Meanwhile, another Swedish scientist, Arvid Högbom, had been attempting to quantify natural sources of emissions of CO2 for purposes of understanding the global carbon cycle. Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[14] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO2 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.[14][15]”

    You are right that there was initially a lack of consensus, but this grew over time until the 80s when most were in agreement. This is just good science, lots of testing and retesting, peer reviews and many doubting the theory until the evidence and research was pretty conclusive.

    “Both Gray and Giaever are capable of rational and critical thinking – what you’ve said you’re not prepared to engage in when it comes to your religion.”

    I’m sure they are and I even said so. It is just that they are not climate scientists, they have no peer reviewed research in climate science to test their reliability, and their close connections to the Heartland institute would suggest a conflict of interest.

    I find it amusing when you criticise me of supporting mainstream climate science as if it is a religion when you keep repeating verbatim the myths put around by the largely discredited Heartland foundation. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

    As I have said before, the leading institution for Skeptics is the Heartland Foundation and they support and pay any scientists who will take their side in the debate. Most have previously worked for the fossil fuel industry and many are very elderly and no longer involved with current research like Fred Singer, Gray and Giaever (with an average age of 90 years).

    Like

  64. homepaddock says:

    Dave there was nothing in my comment criticising reforestation. More trees are generally good for the environment but the benefits don’t usually depend on where they’re planted. Kyoto required trees to be planted where they were felled. I know people who felled exotic trees who were planning to plant natives elsewhere. They didn’t because under Kyoto they had to pay for not replanting where they were felled and then didn’t have money to spare for new trees.

    Like

  65. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Greenhouse gasses are the result of anthropogenic climate change?”
    Yes, Tracey, it was a little odd. It was just a random site I found with a basic description and useful links. I am happy to link to a less confusing one if you like.

    As for your link to yet another older scientist (95 years) I couldn’t find anything on the Wikipedia link to support your quote as it appears despite his eccentricity he did largely support climate science. Can you provide me with the original source?

    Like

  66. Dave Kennedy says:

    Sorry, Ele, I can’t have explained myself well, I didn’t intend to create that impression. I just had the understanding that the supposed Kyoto requirement has been largely ignored (in NZ especially) when the general intent probably had value. I have no idea what your views are regarding reforestation.

    Like

  67. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, a correction to my earlier comment, it is the ‘Heartland Institute’, not the Heartland Foundation. I was confusing it with the Heritage Foundation which is another oil funded think tank with a similar agenda:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

    Like

  68. TraceyS says:

    “I couldn’t find anything on the Wikipedia link to support your quote…”

    Then you haven’t looked carefully enough. The quotes appear after the heading “Climate” and before the heading “Geoengineering (climate engineering)”.

    Here are links to the original sources:
    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

    “…it appears despite his eccentricity he did largely support climate science.”

    What does a person’s eccentricity have to do with anything? I’m sure that at least half the world’s respected professors could be described as eccentric. Heck, Dave, some might even use the word to describe you. Lovelock is a Fellow of the Royal Society – the credibility of which you’re noticed to have promoted. Who knew they let eccentrics in?!

    Why is it a surprise to you that people can respect science without accepting alarmism by people with specific agendas? Very little of the actual scientific literature on the Climate is truly alarming. Alarm is an interpretation and as such we are each entitled, individually, to either accept or reject it.

    As for referring a serious question to “just a random site”. Isn’t this exactly what you would criticise others for?

    Not good enough. Could you have another go at defining the problem of climate change, in your own words please, if you will.

    Like

  69. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, it was Lovelock’s original (eccentric) approach that made him successful. I have no issues with eccentricity as it his actual science that will really define him. I was also mainly referring to his passion for nuclear power which is out of step with most in the science community. I’m not sure why you are being so hysterical about my use of the word. You appear to be eager to catch me out with anything to score points rather than dealing with the substantive argument.

    And it seems that those who are concerned about climate change are being called warmists, alarmists communists and marxists by commenters here. That appears more alarming to me 😉

    “The term alarmist can be used as a pejorative by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse it. MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel wrote that labeling someone as an “alarmist” is “a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake.” He continued that using this “inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor.”[27]”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_climate_change

    “As for referring a serious question to “just a random site”. Isn’t this exactly what you would criticise others for?”
    Good point, Tracey, but as it is one of many i have linked to and it’s general intent and links support what I was trying to say it isn’t really an issue (there are heaps of others I could have chosen).

    “Not good enough. Could you have another go at defining the problem of climate change, in your own words please, if you will.”

    Good grief, this must be umpteenth thread about climate change that I have been part of here and I think I have explained the issue in my own words (with supporting links) many times before. Are you trying to start the debate all over again?

    I have also been very open about the institutions and scientists that i rely on for my information, Tracey, but, other than the odd paper you throw out that generally questions aspects of the science, you always appear to sit on the fence. Do you trust any science institutions to give reliable overviews of climate science? Do you agree with the others here who appear to highly value the opinions of Singer, Gray and Giaever and quote from the Heartland Institute?

    Like

  70. farmerbraun says:

    “I am responding as well as I can to arguments that are supported by scientists with no credibility”

    That’s just you avoiding engaging again Dave.
    If you honestly believe that the null hypothesis re AGW has been falsified , then please reference one , just ONE person , scientist or not , who states that unequivocally.

    I know that you won’t, because it is an accepted fact on both sides of the debate that falsification is impossible at this time.

    Like

  71. farmerbraun says:

    In the light of your stated position that you are relying on other people to inform your view Dave, I submit the following. It will require that you engage with the subject , but the outcome may be that you can decide for yourself.

    http://jmetz.com/2014/11/24/global-warming-intelligent-design-and-the-null-hypothesis/

    Like

  72. Paranormal says:

    “a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake.” – somewhat alarmist don’t you think, considering what is at stake?

    Is Kerry like you DK? Mrs Kennedy married Mr Right, it’s just she didn’t realise your first name was ‘Always’.

    Like

  73. Dave Kennedy says:

    Farmerbraun, I had glossed over your argument and hadn’t understood it it properly, I apologiose. For some reason I had thought you were claiming that current climate science is still a hypothesis when your were actually referring to the counter view as still having validity as an hypothesis.

    You have obviously been doing some online research and discovered Dr Roy Spencer’s claim:
    “Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.”

    The response to that is simple:
    “This challenge is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, the fact that research has not ruled out a hypothesis does not mean the hypothesis necessarily has any validity. For example, there have been no peer-reviewed papers ruling out leprechauns as the cause of most of the recent global warming, either. But perhaps more importantly, our understanding that humans are causing global warming is not based on just one scientific study, but rather a very wide range of scientific evidence.”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html

    You are clutching at straws if that is one of your strongest arguments. Once there is overwhelming evidence that supports a hypothesis and it becomes a well supported theory, a counter hypothesis is generally just abandoned. There is no purpose in making unequivocal statements about its validity because few scientists are unequivocal about anything, just that the weight of evidence is much stronger for one than the other. Being 99.9% certain is not unequivocal but it would hardly be a position where one would ignore it because of 0.1 % of doubt. Few rational people would throw their behind a counter hypothesis when the odds are so poor.

    You are right that falsification could occur on both sides but the likelihood of it being eventually discovered in mainstream science is more probable because of the amount of scrutiny applied. Very few scientists would be bothered reviewing an outlier unless it revealed something unique or had a growing body of research to support it. Much of the supposed papers by skeptic scientists are not properly critiqued because to most practicing climate scientists they cover aspects that have well and truly been dealt with before and aren’t introducing new evidence. I have linked to the scientific responses to most of the skeptic myths used here.

    Your link to J Metz blog was interesting until I read the examples being use to to assess the validity of the AGW science, and out came all the standard criticisms regarding the 97% claim and the lack of transparency regarding funding. The writer acknowledges that he/she is not a climate scientist and their analysis of the science is a sociological one. If the same approach is used on the skeptic side (and the honesty of the lists of supporting scientists and funding) then even more alarm bell would ring.

    Like

  74. Dave Kennedy says:

    ” “a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake.” – somewhat alarmist don’t you think, considering what is at stake?”

    I don’t think so when we are talking about the potential loss of a planet that we can survive on. Just like I wouldn’t trivialise the threat of cancer or diabetes. A very serious threat has been identified and to down play it would be negligent. However the way we approach that threat is through solid science. I would also say that most scientists don’t over-play their research and are conservative in the predictions which has constantly been revealed as more information comes to hand:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-global-warming-happening-faster-than-expected/
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/28/1249391/study-sea-levels-rising-60-faster-than-projected-planet-keeps-warming-as-expected/

    Click to access Climate%20Change%20-%20Ten%20Times%20Faster%20than%20Predicted%20061410.pdf

    Like

  75. Paranormal says:

    Obviously you don’t do irony DK

    Like

  76. farmerbraun says:

    Nice try dave but it has absolutely no validity.
    All you did was reverse the burden of proof i.e claimed that AGW was true and proven , and therefore the onus was on skepticism to prove it as untrue.
    Facile , but worthless.
    No I wasn’t searching online for anything , and I haven’t read much by Roy Spencer.
    What I was doing was pointing out that AGW remains unproven because the null hypothesis cannot be falsified. You now seem to accept that fact.

    It does not mean that AGW is disproven either. It just means that at this stage we cannot be sure one way or the other.
    That was all that I was saying.

    You are happy to believe that AGW will be proven : I doubt it , and only time , or the unlikely emergence of a Unified General Theory of Climate Regulation will ever change that.

    I fully expect that in time there will be accurate models which do not depend on atmospheric CO2 levels, and positive water vapour feedback , to drive global average temperature.

    Like

  77. farmerbraun says:

    Paranormal says:

    “Obviously you don’t do irony DK”.

    Funny , wasn’t it? But I’m pretty sure that Dave doesn’t get it , still.
    I guess that , like me , you are looking forward to the entertainment that the Paris conference later this year is bound to provide.

    I predict that the outcome will be an agreement that the climate will ignore.

    Like

  78. farmerbraun says:

    Here you go Dave : a test in which every science student should easily score 10.
    Have a go 🙂

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

    Like

  79. Paranormal says:

    An interesting test Farmerbraun. 10 out of 10, but DK won’t like it.

    I suppose it is naughty seeing humour in “the potential loss of a planet”, but you’re right – he still doesn’t get it.

    Like

  80. Gravedodger says:

    Clearly a rogue result as I managed a rather ordinary 10/10 fb.

    Perhaps that other rogue prediction invading the media from science second graders that the sun has gone awol from the beloveds settled science and London citizens could be skating on the Thames again in around 20 years time.

    Some made up data from a computer model triggered by an observation that lowered Sunspot activity could be related to Magma streams or some other grasping at straws theory.

    Then what will the luvvies embrace to assist them with justification for attaching themselves to funding streams at the hallowed halls.

    Then again should that version of Armageddon prevail there will be two new streams for employment, guarding firewood supplies and building log fires, lets hope the technology survives the craven muppets with their crusade for preventing CO2 creation to assist the earths atmosphere to keep the peoples warm.

    How sad if the percentage of the worlds scientists who have decided on the basis of their flawed science that cyclical climate change is in fact not the result of mans profligate activities in harnessing the vast energy stored as coal, gas and oil and it was the bloody sun all along.

    Will Alphonse Gore give the millions back, not in your Nellie he will be chuckling into his Jack Daniels and reminiscing as to how easy the scam actually was.

    Like

  81. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Obviously you don’t do irony DK”
    I guess the intent of a statement is sometimes hard to pick here due to past lines of argument, and that in itself can often be ironic 😉

    “All you did was reverse the burden of proof i.e claimed that AGW was true and proven , and therefore the onus was on skepticism to prove it as untrue. Facile , but worthless.”

    FB, I did not say that AGW was true and proven, just that the bulk of research and evidence supports that it is highly likely. Skeptics do gave an important job to do to continue testing current thinking but proving a theory is untrue is patently unreasonable and I would never promote that as an expectation. You are being disingenuous to suggest my view is as you stated.

    “It does not mean that AGW is disproven either. It just means that at this stage we cannot be sure one way or the other.”

    This is a highly loaded statement because it implies equal balance between the two to the extent that we can have no confidence on acting on either position. AWG is a fully accepted theory that has had decades of solid, peer reviewed, research to support it. It may never be proven in the same way that gravity is an accepted theory but we still have times when the likes of Einstein discovers situations where the theory cannot be applied.
    http://www.quora.com/Why-can-a-scientific-theory-only-be-disproven-and-not-proven

    There is always a tipping point when a theory that is supported by a large body of evidence can’t be ignored and must be considered as a basis for action. The theory and evidence behind AWG is one of those situations and the tipping point occurred over 30 years ago.

    Like

  82. Andrei says:

    Phooey Dave Kennedy – it is patently obvious you are utterly clueless when it comes to thermodynamics and a mathematical illiterate.

    The whole AGW debate as presented to the public is pernicious

    Fact: without the Greenhouse effect the planet would be unlivable baking during the day and close to absolute zero overnight

    Fact: the major GHG is not CO₂ but H₂O

    Fact: if all the CO₂ were to be removed from the atmosphere life would cease exist – its prescence is vital to our well being friend.

    Because all these things are fundamental to our well being and prosperity unscrupulous people seek to gain control over them to hold power over us – thus for example the iniquitous idea of carbon taxes, if you are of the left and emissions trading schemes if you are of the so called “right” – either way those who produce pay their tithes to those who would rule over us

    Helped in their wicked schemes by credulous dolts such as yourself who swallow their bullshit hook line and sinker.

    And bullshit (not science it is) though scientific factoids are used to weave the patter

    Like

  83. Dave Kennedy says:

    “How sad if the percentage of the worlds scientists who have decided on the basis of their flawed science that cyclical climate change is in fact not the result of mans profligate activities in harnessing the vast energy stored as coal, gas and oil and it was the bloody sun all along.”

    Again Gravedodger, who are saying that the science is flawed? Link to the science or scientists and the institutions that support them and I will probably be able to make the same links as I have before. You are putting your faith in people and institutions that are in a tiny minority, many aren’t even climate scientists and a good number are being supported (often financially) the the likes of the Heartland institute.

    The claims that climate scientists are part of a religious cult or are ‘craven muppets’ supporting a misguided crusade just don’t stack up when this is applied to NASA or the Royal Society.

    Where do you get your inside info from, the same ones being promoted earlier?

    Like

  84. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, I’m impressed by your confidence. I do not have the scientific background that you obviously do to question those who have discounted the H2O hypothesis.
    I guess we must compare this:
    https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

    With this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/

    The first is the Royal Society (around 350 years old with 1,400 fellows) and the second is written by Steve Goreham (an electrical engineer, employed as a policy advisor for the Heartland Institute).

    https://www.heartland.org/steve-goreham

    Both pieces read well to someone like myself who isn’t a scientist, but again I think I will side with the Royal Society on this one. If in doubt trust the actual scientists rather than an electrical engineer and business executive (MBA) who is currently the director of the CSCA.

    Like

  85. TraceyS says:

    “Tracey, it was Lovelock’s original (eccentric) approach that made him successful.”

    That statement demotes his real achievements, such as the development of the electron capture detector and its significance to CFCs and ozone depletion, in preference of attributing success to the man’s persona. Do you really think that success can ever be ‘made’ mainly through wackiness or theatrics? Your statement comes across as veiled denigration even if you don’t realise it yourself. I’m happy to uncover that despite you regarding my approach as being ‘picky’. Success is won – not made.

    “I’m not sure why you are being so hysterical about my use of the word.”

    Mild sexist put-down there Dave. I’m not “hysterical” at all and I don’t know what reason has been given for you to think that. In this case I pulled you up for essentially ‘playing the man’ which is precisely what you repeatedly pull others up for. So my intention is to try and an maintain some consistency. You will notice that I have never gotten personal about any of the scientists you have referenced. Others have. But have you ever suggested any of the men is being “hysterical”?

    “You appear to be eager to catch me out with anything to score points rather than dealing with the substantive argument.”

    And you want to be a politician LOL! Get used to it, Dave. And for the record, I have no particular drive to catch you out. You just make it so easy…

    “And it seems that those who are concerned about climate change are being called warmists, alarmists communists and marxists by commenters here. That appears more alarming to me ;-). “The term alarmist can be used as a pejorative by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse it. MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel wrote that labeling someone as an “alarmist” is “a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake.” He continued that using this “inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor.”

    I have never referred to you as alarmist, communist, or Marxist. But alarmism does exist or there would not be commentary on it. All I said was I reserve the right to not ascribe to it. For as long as is possible I will defend that right too.

    “Good grief, this must be umpteenth thread about climate change that I have been part of here and I think I have explained the issue in my own words (with supporting links) many times before. Are you trying to start the debate all over again?”

    No. I just wanted to hear it put succinctly into your own words. Since you consider that a personal medical diagnosis is an appropriate analogy perhaps you could state the problem in a similar way to a doctor explaining to her patient the problem of a brain tumour (your analogy)?

    “I have also been very open about the institutions and scientists that i rely on for my information, Tracey, but, other than the odd paper you throw out that generally questions aspects of the science, you always appear to sit on the fence. Do you trust any science institutions to give reliable overviews of climate science? Do you agree with the others here who appear to highly value the opinions of Singer, Gray and Giaever and quote from the Heartland Institute?”

    I am also open about the sources of my information, Dave, am I not? The climate change problem is complex and can be broken down into parts to make it easier to analyse. I have made it quite clear in the past (recently actually) that I have a definite opinion on particular parts. I do not “always”… sit on the fence”. Regarding valuing the opinions of others, I try to be open to valuing all opinions in some way, but prefer to rely on articles such as the following^ which is balanced, analytical, credible, informative, current, and notably absent of emotive reaction or agenda.

    To quote from it:

    “The dominance of natural variability and weather processes on the time scales we can explore with these datasets limits what can be said about climate change and climate sensitivity.”

    That one sentence, if I’m not being too presumptuous, sums up where the main difference lies between your position and the positions of the rest of us commenting here. You seem to think that climate sensitivity is settled but it is not. I’d be happy to read some equivalent research which suggests otherwise – because I actually quite like certainty even when the news is not good.

    ^http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Fasullo/publication/275243335_Climate_variability_and_relationships_between_top-of-atmosphere_radiation_and_temperatures_on_Earth_Variations_in_temperatures_and_radiation/links/553ab2c10cf245bdd7644860.pdf

    Like

  86. Name Withheld says:

    And it seems that those who are concerned about climate change are being called warmists, alarmists communists and marxists by commenters here. That appears more alarming to me
    You are not alone, Mr Kennedy, in feeling the awesome pressure of criticism.
    You just cant make this stuff up.

    Like

  87. Gravedodger says:

    Don’t worry No Name, the deniers, Tories, capitalists, and carbonistas are nothing to be alarmed about, think of them as realists maybe and there are many reasons to be sceptical.

    DaevK uses this forum because his little house on the praire is on a back road to nowhere, Ele provides a much bigger stage.

    Btw you “can” make stuff up, hence the predictions of doom have been postponed due to uncooperative and inclement weather, sort of since, um well two decades and counting.

    Like

  88. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Senior alarmist Michael Mann, who helped devise the hockey stick graph that is part of climate science religious iconography, also feels the awesome pressure of occasional criticism”
    Nameless one, compare this comment from your little article full of sweeping generalisations with the reality:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/michael-mann-climate-war

    The ‘occassional criticism’ was a fully funded attack from the Heartland Institute (often daily abuse) and a lengthy court case around fraud that was eventually thrown out.

    It is interesting how we appear to live in parallel universes, each with a totally different take on reality. Again I think I will side with the scientists and not oil funded institutions that finance smear campaigns. The most disgusting was the infamous Unabomber billboard: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509

    Good Grief, Tracey! You ranted at me because I called a scientist eccentric and now you are accusing me of being sexist because of remarking on your over the top reaction. ‘Eccentric’ just means that an individual’s thinking has aspects that are different from the norm and most biographies about the scientist in question identified that. His support of nuclear power is one example. The word may be a form of abuse in your circles but it certainly isn’t in mine. I am even happy with your suggestion that I might be too 😉

    I think you have taken on personally general comments I made in reference to most who comment here regarding sources. You do put up research that appear to be examples of solid science. Your last link was an interesting one but I am not sure where you think it fits in relation to climate science in general (or your intent in linking to it). I am no climate scientist but in reading the conclusion it claimed that it was a small piece of research that needed more time to produce more conclusive results and would potentially add some value to climate models. It also referred to the difference in low and high cloud systems and the different impact each had on surfacing temperature. It also suggested that the forcings identified were minor in regards to climate change.

    What did you think it was about?

    Like

  89. Mr E says:

    “I think I will side with the scientists and not oil funded institutions that finance smear campaigns.”

    Dave,
    When you were sitting in Gore listening to Jim Hansen, did you think to yourself, I will pay no attention to this man because “Hansen’s tour is being sponsored by a number of groups, including 350.org, Greenpeace, Organic Systems NZ, Oxfam, The Pure Advantage (business leaders group), the Institute of Policy Studies, and a number of interested academics and individuals.”

    Did you think – this Scientist is receiving money from groups that clearly want him to decree AGW, therefore he is not to be believed?

    Like

  90. Dave Kennedy says:

    Good point, Mr E. I think there are two identifiable communities and scientists here and I think you are right to identify a potential conflict of interest for each.

    On one side we have the fossil fuel industry that promotes its interests through conservative think tanks (The Heartland Institute is the most prominent). These think tanks have also been used by the tobacco industry when research identified health concerns. Few climate scientists can be found to support the views of the oil and coal industries and many of the scientists currently employed are elderly and no longer involved in research. Most of these scientists have previously worked for oil or coal companies (see previous links). Others doing speaking rounds (like Lord Monckton) are able orators, but not scientists. The prominent AGW organisation in New Zealand has been funded by the Heartland Institute.

    It is obvious that the fossil fuel industry has the most to lose if we reduce our use of carbon and as it includes the highest earning companies in the world, it has considerable power. The key elements of the campaign for the fossil industry and the think tanks is to limit regulation and taxes (as these are considered as communist style interventions) and to question the science to delay any action that would limit profits. The same approach was used regarding the concerns about the tobacco industry.

    On the other side we have the initial movement coming from a science base, culminating in the 80’s when a scientific consensus caused a number of groups to identify AGW as a concern. You are right regarding the large number of organisations, businesses and NGOs that are supporting the likes of Hansen to do speaking tours. They cover a range of groups from environmental activists, to NGOs (with a focus on social justice) and to the Pure Advantage business alliance. There are many that you missed like Forest and Bird, Generation Zero http://www.generationzero.org/ and Coal Action Aotearoa that I am a member of: https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.wordpress.com/

    You could say that those described above are the activist groups supporting AGW science, but there will be a whole range of reasons for why they do so, from protecting endangered species and environments, fearing for future generations to seeing the potential in green business opportunities.

    We also have most of the world’s science institutions, governments and the United Nations (IPCC) agreeing that AGW is an issue of considerable concern. The Heartland Institute and Monckton claim that they are all part of a global conspiracy to introduce a communist system of control across the world. My belief is that our Government doesn’t support AGW science because it wants a communist style of governance, but because they are convinced by the science (that is what Groser claims).

    When comparing Hansen with the likes of Fred Singer we can see a clear difference in their history and approach to science.

    Hansen has devoted most of his career to climate science and was even identified as an expert in this area for presentations to the US congress. Climate change has been Hansen’s life work and when employed to speak he is only talking about an area of science he is familiar with. When questioned after his presentation I witnessed, regarding outlying aspects of science, he refused to comment as it was outside his sphere of research.

    Singer has been a leading scientist of AGW skepticism and although he was involved with much worthwhile science early in his career it appears that he has often been open to employment from the tobacco and oil industries to question science that will impact on their profitability. This is an extract from Wikipedia:

    A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.[63] Scheuering writes that Singer had cut ties with the institute, and is funded by foundations and oil companies.[3] She writes that he has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal, and that SEPP has received grants from ExxonMobil. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering argues that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies that pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.[3]

    In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called “the denial machine” met at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer’s group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.[64] The week after the story, Newsweek published a contrary view from Robert Samuelson, one of its columnists, who said the story of an industry-funded denial machine was contrived and fundamentally misleading.[65] ABC News reported in March 2008 that Singer said he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but he acknowledged that SEPP had received one unsolicited charitable donation of $10,000 from ExxonMobil, and that it was one percent of all donations received. Singer said that his connection to Exxon was more like being on their mailing list than holding a paid position.[66] The relationships have discredited Singer’s research among members of the scientific community, according to Scheuering. Congresswoman Lynn Rivers questioned Singer’s credibility during a congressional hearing in 1995, saying he had not been able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal for the previous 15 years, except for one technical comment.[3][67]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

    As regards the influence on each scientist from the groups that sponsor or employ them it appears that Hansen is employed because of his body of research and he is just focussing on his own work in his presentations. Singer is employed because of his status as scientist and he is employed to comment on areas outside his research experience.

    Like

  91. Dave Kennedy says:

    “hence the predictions of doom have been postponed due to uncooperative and inclement weather, sort of since, um well two decades and counting.”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/extreme-weather-climate-change.html#.VaMKJcaqpBc

    Like

  92. TraceyS says:

    “Your last link was an interesting one but I am not sure where you think it fits in relation to climate science in general (or your intent in linking to it)”

    You really can’t see where it fits, Dave?

    The authors state their objective clearly:
    “Here we examine the empirical evidence relating temperatures and TOA [top of atmosphere] radiation, and try to understand it.”

    Would you consider that earth’s energy budget is relevant to “climate science in general”?

    From Wikipedia:
    “Research to quantify changes in these amounts is required to accurately assess global warming.” (my bold)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

    The article: “Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth” by Trenberth, Zhang, Fasullo, and Taguchi (2015) belongs in this research domain. It is written by four climate scientists and published by an institution you trust. Why on earth would you question my intent on linking to it? That borders on paranoid.

    I don’t even haven an “intent” for you to be suspicious about. What I have is an interest. What is wrong with having an interest in the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases? I think this issue is relevant to all of us and each of us should take some level of interest in it. Why is it also necessary to have to have an intent? I don’t think it is.

    The study introduces the consideration of climate sensitivity by stating “[i]t is difficult to determine feedbacks from observations, and even more difficult to determine the climate sensitivity.” It draws a conclusion that “[t]he observational record is too short, weather noise too great and forcing too small to make reliable estimates of climate sensitivity.”

    So how does Dave Kennedy, if not these learned researchers, know how sensitive the climate is to the greenhouse effect?

    You don’t know?

    Then how do you “accurately assess global warming”?

    Such a simple question deserves a simple answer.

    Like

  93. TraceyS says:

    Name Withheld at 8:37am: surely that is a parody?

    Like

  94. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    You are trying to discredit scientists based on the fact that they receive funding from a lobby group. But you seem to then try an manipulate the issue to be about who the lobby group is and what they do. For some reason you think that makes the money more of less influential on science?

    The question is not who the lobby group is and what they represent. The question is – does the source of money influence science and research outcomes? If you are saying yes to one (Singer) then you must have to say yes to the other (Hansen).

    By holding such principles it would be hypocritical not to discount evidence from both sources.

    Like

  95. TraceyS says:

    But given this…I’m not so sure:
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/29/pre-traumatic-stress-syndrome-climate-trauma-survival-tips/

    Is this really a THING?

    OMG

    Like

  96. TraceyS says:

    “By holding such principles it would be hypocritical not to discount evidence from both sources.”

    Not if one considers there to be “good” vs “bad” money.

    So much of this silly debate is about moral vs immoral, right vs wrong, good vs evil, believer vs denier. Taking sides is divisive and will get us nowhere on matters that require collaborative and largely voluntary effort.

    Like

  97. Dave Kennedy says:

    “By holding such principles it would be hypocritical not to discount evidence from both sources.”

    I agree Mr E, so that is why I presented the evidence from both sides. My conclusion was that Singer was being employed because of his background in science and not because of his personal body of research. The fact that he was employed by the oil and tobacco industries to comment on science that impacted negatively on the industries immediately created a conflict of interest on anything that he produced, especially if what he found favoured those who employed him. This is a valid conclusion.

    Hansen was employed by groups because of his research and I think you would struggle to find proof that Hansen’s research was influenced by 350.org or Pure Advantage because it predated both. Infact Hansen’s research was probably influential in the formation of both.

    Do you have evidence otherwise?

    Like

  98. Dave Kennedy says:

    “observational record is too short, weather noise too great and forcing too small to make reliable estimates of climate sensitivity.”

    Tracey, you did realise that this was in reference to their own research and not to climate research as a whole? Which is why I asked why you linked to it.

    Did you think it was evidence supporting the effect of H2O above that of CO2? This was a minor piece of research that identified a small forcing that could be useful in providing more accuracy to climate models. What did you think its significance was?

    Like

  99. TraceyS says:

    I think this explains why they used the dataset they did:

    “The TOA radiation record is limited in length and quality, and earlier estimates made use of the broad-band estimates from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment [ERBE]. Higher quality estimates from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) begin only in March 2000, but now contain nearly 14 years of record.”

    “Data for TOA radiation come from CERES measurements with improved instruments and algorithms relative to ERBE to reduce data uncertainty by a factor of 2 to 3 [Wielicki et al. 1996].” (my bold)

    Dave, if I had thought “…it was evidence supporting the effect of H2O above that of CO2” then I would have said so. Did I?

    The significance of the article is that using the most current and sophisticated dataset, the researchers concluded that “[t]he observational record is too short, weather noise too great and forcing too small to make reliable estimates of climate sensitivity.”

    I have done my best to respond to your many questions so how about you have a go at my simple one: How you know how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases and how do you accurately assess global warming?

    Perhaps you might refer to work that cites an older study using the less accurate datasets?

    Like

  100. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    Dr Jim Hansen’s NZ tour contained a presentation named “Climate Change: a scientific, moral and legal issue”. Google search suggests this presentation was only delivered in New Zealand and I think it is safe to conclude written after the tour funding was concluded.

    From what I know of his presentation, plenty was not science, rather opinion, and the title of his presentation reiterates that. Opinions can be swayed.

    Previous publications seem vastly more specific and scientific in nature than his NZ tour topic.

    On that basis I see no reason why one would conclude Singers research was more or less impacted by money than Hansen’s NZ presentation.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml

    Like

  101. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I still don’t understand why you chose this particular research to link to as it is one of thousands of pieces of work that is helping provide more accurate data around climate science. The scientists concerned even claim it accounts for a small part of climate forcings. I think that you have misinterpreted the statement you are repeatedly quoting to be in reference to all climate research when it is only related to their small study.

    “How you know how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases and how do you accurately assess global warming?”

    This is just returning again to the very basics of the debate that have been visited many times before on past threads. However to humour you, Tracey, here is a useful starting point. I have linked to this before and I think it provides a good overview:
    ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

    The accuracy of Wikipedia has been assessed as almost as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica and is generally good to start with. You will note the it even refers to your scientist Lovelock who pioneered the discovery of an additional GHG.

    The accuracy of climate change predictions is increasing over time as modeling includes more data like the study you recently linked to. Inaccurate models shift to greater accuracy as more knowledge is included (not dissimilar to flight simulators).
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

    Actually I need to thank you, Tracey, because although I was aware of Lovelock I had never engaged with him because of my primary support of Hansen as the leading spokesperson. However Lovelock actually makes a compelling argument in support of AWG here and is a recommend view:

    Thanks to you I have learned more about ‘groupthink’ and Lovelock, and I have since used both to support my arguments elsewhere. Despite the fact that I feel your arguments are often incoherent and largely focused on trying to catch me out (with ‘gotcha’ moments) you do search the web and inadvertently find the odd useful link. The last science link was also interesting but I don’t think it was what you intended 😉

    Like

  102. Dave Kennedy says:

    “From what I know of his presentation, plenty was not science, rather opinion, and the title of his presentation reiterates that. Opinions can be swayed.”

    You obviously haven’t attended one of Hansen’s presentations Mr E. Hansen’s book preceded his New Zealand tour and there was nothing it that was different to his presentations. Hansen’s message and presentations have been pretty consistent for over 30 years (but updated with current science). Here is my account of his talk in Gore:
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/gore-hosts-hansen.html

    It is clear Hansen is more motivated by his drive to share his knowledge and science than to meet the needs of any sponsors. He didn’t get a lot of money and it was mainly his travel and accommodation costs that were covered. He was employed to share the research he had already completed.

    Singer received an income for writing academic reviews of other’s research on behalf of those who employed him and payment would obviously be made on the completion of that work. Financial influence on what resulted is clearly possible and a conflict of interest easily established.

    Thanks for the link to Hansen’s recent publications, I will use this a lot from now on to support the fact that Hansen is still collaborating with the science community and his latest book was published by the Oxford University Press.

    Singers most recent work was published by the NIPPC
    http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

    Like

  103. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    Let me be as clear as possible.

    Hansen was paid by a lobby group to present a view. Even if it was consistent message you cannot claim with absolution that money has not affected his view. You cannot claim with absolution that money for his NZ presentation did not affect his delivery.

    That same goes for Singer. We’ll never know for sure. Frankly speaking I suspect money has not affected eithers view point..

    My point regarding this is quite simple. Your constant claims of money affecting science get tiresome. Every scientist needs money to do work. There is no way to 100% ensure money source has not affected the outcome. I think the best thing to do is to check methods and scientific rigour. Something you apparently like to gloss over.

    In my science days, I have applied for ‘Climate change’ funds, I have investigated Methane and even lectured University Students about it. I know the accusations you sling as Singer can easily be slung all over the show. Even at your own preferred references.

    I would also note when it comes to understanding science, if you only recognise/support, or pay for the point of view that suits your agenda, you will never truly understand science. I get frustrated when the likes of Hansen or Monkton are funded to promote their view when the counter view is no where to be seen. Lack of balance is just politics. And I am surprised the likes of Hansen fronts to such things.

    Like

  104. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, you can refuse to engage my with my reasoning if you like but I do think there is a huge difference between employers like the Heartland Institute and NIWA. The Heartland Institute openly opposes AGW and campaigns against the anyone that supports it (often using underhand tactics). There would be an expectation that anyone they employ will support that line.

    Those employed by NIWA and the Government will have no expectation of a particular outcome and the scientists employed are free to pursue whatever theory they wish if the evidence supports it. Do you have evidence otherwise?

    Do you feel that balance means that for every climate scientist interviewed there should be a skeptic interviewed to provide an alternative view? Surely this is giving the skeptic voice a greater level of attention than their percentage of support deserves. This has happened in the past and I think it caused a view that there was equal support for both.

    If seeking specialist advice it is just due diligence to check out past work or connections, I even do this with plumbers and builders I employ. Are they registered? Are they well regarded and are they reliable and consistent with their work?

    Hansen was a long work history in his field, he is well regarded for the accuracy of his work and he is still engaging with climate research. His research was funded by an institution that has ethical guidelines.https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/general_law/ethicsfaq.html

    Singer has had a mixed history in his work and many of his employers had political or business drivers that would be likely to influence his work. This is a valid and rational response.

    You claim I have a predetermined agenda and yet all I have argued here is that I am careful about who I chose for advice and information. What scientific body trumps the Royal Society or NASA? The fact that you appear to give the likes of Singer and the Heartland Institute the same value defies reason.

    Here is the first goal of the Heartland Foundation regarding climate change for 2015:
    ■ Defend and recognize Dr. Willie Soon and other brave scientists who challenge unscientific claims that global warming is a crisis.”

    It looks like a predetermined agenda to me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

    Like

  105. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    You are all over the show with your issues. You rarely focus on one and nail it.

    Firstly, I have engaged you on this issue of fund source. I have tried to engage your reasoning but you fail to answer the most basic of questions, challenging the foundation for your reasoning.

    Why does the source of money have varied outcomes on Science, as you suggest? That is what you are suggesting, that Scientific conclusions vary according to who is handing the money over.

    Frankly, I don’t think that is right. I struggle to understand how you come to that conclusion.

    Secondly, you suggest a predetermine agenda by the Heartland institute-foundation whatever they are. Because they recognize a scientist. So the funding of Hansen by Greenpeace etc, wasn’t the recognition of an AGW supporter? Wasn’t predetermination?

    Every biff you fly at Heartland and be biffed back at your buddies. It surprises me you can’t see the silliness of your hypocrisy.

    Like

  106. TraceyS says:

    Really, Mr E, this should not surprise you. Dave sees only what he wishes to see.

    In his comments here he proves this fact time and time again.

    I’m going to take my own advice and give up on trying to expand his appreciation.

    Like

  107. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, interestingly I feel that I have presented some well articulated and supported arguments and it seems that you just refuse to accept them.

    “Why does the source of money have varied outcomes on Science, as you suggest? That is what you are suggesting, that Scientific conclusions vary according to who is handing the money over.”

    YES! But also what the contract involves (written or unwritten).

    Singer is a remarkable and successful scientist and he was a pioneer in early satellite technology and space science in the 50s and 60s especially. Singer is also very political and has often stepped outside his sphere of expertise to support ‘free market environmentalism’. Almost every cause he got behind in his corporate support has ended up with him fighting against conventional scientific consensus and he has been generally proven wrong. In these cases his scientific credibility was used politically as few were areas that he had any background in:

    -He questioned the link between UVB and melanoma and has been proven wrong.
    – Singer was involved in the Reagan administration’s efforts to prevent regulatory action to reduce acid rain.
    -He disagreed there was a link between CFCs and the depletion of the Ozone Layer
    -During Operation Desert Storm in 1991 he thought the that smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires would have little impact and would disappear almost immediately. Instead the smoke rose to over 10,000 and lingered for almost a month.
    -He supported to tobacco industry to claim that second hand smoke couldn’t cause lung cancer.
    -Singer also argues there is no evidence that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind.

    The difference between Hansen and Singer is like chalk and cheese to me. Hansen has remained in his sphere of scientific expertise and refuses to make a call on science that he hasn’t worked in. His so called activism has come out of his science and his genuine concerns for the future of the planet and his grandchildren.

    Singer has been known as a hit scientist for hire by corporate and political interests and is happy to comment and make judgements about science outside his areas of expertise. The track record of his scientific advocacy roles has been poor and it certainly appears to me that his own political agenda has influenced his science in an unhealthy way.

    Hansen comes from a background of ethical science and he is engaged by different organisation because of his research.

    Singer approaches much of his current work with an anti regulation political agenda and it appears his science ethics take a back seat.

    After writing this you may be partially right, money may not compromise Singer as much as I have claimed, politics has a similar influence – but then again it his politics is about market forces, which does also involve the power of money.

    I wonder what battles round earth scientists and their supporters had with flat earth map makers?

    Like

  108. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I’m going to take my own advice and give up on trying to expand his appreciation.”

    Tracey, I’m hurt, I already stated that you have widened my knowledge and I have learned a number of new things from you.

    Although you do still confuse me, what were you trying to expand my appreciation of? Art? Science? Eccentric thinking? 😉

    I guess we have reached another natural conclusion when I respond to most of yours and Mr E’s questions while you determinedly and disingenuously avoid mine until you have no more angles to attack me with. You then start consoling each other and talking about me as if I’m not present….it’s a little sad really (and very rude).

    E noho rā

    Like

  109. TraceyS says:

    Dave, I answered all of the questions you asked me and yet you left mine unanswered.

    Like

  110. TraceyS says:

    If I happened to have missed one then it was accidental. If you remind me of the question I will respond.

    But I would remind you that it is a courtesy to reciprocate.

    Like

  111. Paranormal says:

    DK you are so ideologically blinded it’s no wonder you meander in circles.

    You praise the saintliness of those worthies that follow your religion, the pseudo-science of gorebull warmening, and yet you seem completely blind to their venality.

    The hate and venom spewed by them when defending the indefensible is legend. Just look at what they have done to individuals who are brave enough to speak their truth. David Bellamy is a good example. An excellent and knowledgeable presenter no longer able to work in his field. Then there is your blind acceptance of your heroes disgraceful behaviour exposed in the climategate emails.

    You Greens try to take the sanctimonious high ground when in fact you are as guilty of that same low behaviour. Just look at your posts above for an indication of your blind acceptance and fervent deference to your religion. It doesn’t matter what the religion is, there’s always the fundamentalists.

    Like

  112. Paranormal says:

    Two things Singer is correct on:
    – He disagreed there was a link between CFCs and the depletion of the Ozone Layer
    -Singer also argues there is no EVIDENCE that the increases in carbon dioxide produced by humans cause global warming, and that if temperatures do rise it will be good for humankind.

    But then that’s science – you know the stuff you refuse to do.

    Like

  113. Mr E says:

    Dave,

    “YES! But also what the contract involves (written or unwritten).”

    What are the contractual terms for Singer Dave? Those that you dislike? I am pretty sure you don’t have any hard evidence regarding terms and are simply trying to use anecdotes in a very unkind way. That is the sort of behaviour I expect from activists, not from politicians. Ok maybe from Winston. But not from politicians that promote “principles”

    Let us do a compare and contrast. Hopefully it will keep you on the issue of ‘fund source directing science’.

    I am sure you can agree on most these thing:
    BOTH scientists have historically delivered valuable science
    BOTH scientists have made scientific errors and judgement calls
    BOTH scientists have moved into fields that are not their expertise
    (Hansen is discussing morals and law. He is neither a social scientist nor a lawyer)
    BOTH scientists have used lobby money to promote their findings -beliefs

    Anecdotes can be flung at any scientist, they nearly all accept money to achieve outcomes.

    I see no differentiation between Hansen using Greenpeace money and Singer using Heartland money. There is no evidence that it has swayed their conclusions, but the possibility exists for both.

    Without hard evidence it is pointless (and unkind) to question scientific integrity on fund source. When it comes to funding, science is a glass house built on a gravel pit.

    The best thing we can do is rely on scientific evidence to determine who is right and who is wrong. If you feel you not in a position to debate methodology – don’t. It is ok to say nothing, to take a political position of accepting, trusting, or believing your selected experts. It’s ok.

    I would think more of your political position if you took this stance, than I do with you slinging mud without hard evidence.

    Like

  114. JC says:

    All you really need to do to get an overall idea of climate is to look at the predictions the warmers make.

    http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/watts-big-list-of-failed-global-warming-predictions/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

    There’s a few few crossovers between the two lists but the end result is dozens of predictions that were wrong, alarmist, often ridiculous and in all typical of a religion based on the Second Coming or Daisy of Peanuts fame whipping away the ball.

    JC

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: