Sunday soapbox

Sunday’s soapbox is yours to use as you will – within the bounds of decency and absence of defamation. You’re welcome to look back or forward, discuss issues of the moment, to pontificate, ponder or point us to something of interest, to educate, elucidate or entertain, amuse, bemuse or simply muse, but not abuse.
Purple Clover's photo.

Life becomes easier when you accept the apology you never got.

130 Responses to Sunday soapbox

  1. Dave Kennedy says:

    “But the negative consequences of climate change are absolutely real. They will happen, even if the world does get in place a comprehensive agreement. The thing is to try and minimise the damage.”
    Tim Groser
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1412/S00091/lisa-owen-interviews-climate-change-minister-tim-groser.htm

    “I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
    Margaret Thatcher
    http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

    “I believe man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that this country and this world faces. That is why we have the world’s first green investment bank here in Britain.”
    David Cameron
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/26/climate-change-serious-threat-david-cameron-prime-ministers-questions

    Some people believe that man made climate change is a conspiracy to bring in marxist type regulations and redistribute wealth. But these three obviously don’t believe that nonsense. 😉

    What three prominent global leaders or internationally recognised scientists can you find to support the other view (even two will do)?

  2. Paranormal says:

    Of course we should believe everything politician says….

  3. Will says:

    Good grief, you really think Tim Groser is stupid enough to actually believe all that? It’s called playing the game.

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Thatcher supported an active climate protection policy and was instrumental in the creation of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in founding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter.” Wikipedia.

    So let’s get this right, you guys believe that that the only institutions that have the climate science right are rightwing think tanks like the Heartland Institute, that are funded by oil companies. You believe that the majority of climate scientists are faking their research to line their own pockets and even though one of the worlds strongest capitalist leaders, Margaret Thatcher, was instrumental in creating the IPCC, it is actually some sort of marxist plot?

    You also apparently think that David Cameron and Tim Groser are liars and can’t be trusted. When I have challenged you to produce links to scientists that you would believe (other than the thousands of scientists working in the climate field) you produce a collection of scientists who are well over eighty and haven’t published research for over twenty years (and have links to the Heartland Institute and the fossil fuel industry).

    You claim that support the scientific understanding of man made climate change is a ‘religious’ belief despite the decades of scientific research that supports it. You believe that ‘Climategate’ destroyed the credibility of climate science, when it didn’t at all, and the abuse that Michael Mann has received is deserved.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VbVNPkKqpBc

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/

    You have few credible practicing scientists supporting your views who are not linked to oil companies, you can’t produce one world leader who disagrees with the the majority scientific view (apparently you can’t trust any politician anyway, including Tim Groser) and you deny the proof that exists before your very eyes. The droughts the floods the increasing frequency of storms have had no impact on your understanding.

    Incredible 😉

  5. TraceyS says:

    “Some people believe that man made climate change is a conspiracy to bring in marxist type regulations and redistribute wealth. But these three obviously don’t believe that nonsense. ;-)”

    Straw man, Dave, and I don’t wish to play your game. You perhaps should have stopped typing after “Some people believe…”. We only know what people believe if they tell us directly. I know what I believe and it’s not what you think I believe.

    But it is useless telling this to someone who thinks they can determine how much empathy an individual feels by the car they drive.

    Now I’m off to take the old Corolla for a spin and get my daily dose of empathetic feelings… 🙂

  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, despite us both driving the same make of car (my Corolla was made in 1990) I can only know what you believe if you are prepared to share. When it comes to climate change you have never made a strong statement for or against, but have put up multiple links to outlier research and talked in riddles.

    I was responding to Will and Paranormal who have been very clear where they stand. Note that I began with the word ‘some’, and you are welcome to exclude yourself from that group. I would put you in a subset of people who are climate change agnostics (for political reasons). 😉

  7. JC says:

    “What three prominent global leaders or internationally recognised scientists can you find to support the other view (even two will do)?”

    Margaret Thatcher (2003 Statecraft) completely refuted her earlier thoughts and actions).
    Vaclav Klaus, economist and second President of the Czech Republic.
    Freeman Dyson, among the greatest scientific genius’ that have ever lived.
    Roy Spenser, particularly famed for his work on providing the most accurate measurements on global temps via satellites.
    Robert Linzen, member ISI Highly Cited database and American Men and Women of Science database (go check them out).

    JC

  8. TraceyS says:

    1990 – Ditto! (although I mostly drive another vehicle). I don’t suddenly change my personality or behaviour when changing vehicles.

    “When it comes to climate change you have never made a strong statement for or against…”

    Actually, I have, and quite recently. The problem is that you don’t care to accept my perspective.

    “I was responding to Will and Paranormal…”

    Really? But they didn’t comment until 6:10am and 7:10am. You posted your comment at 1:35am. So unless you are a mind-reader, or time has flipped into reverse, you were not responding to them.

    Oh, I forgot, you can read minds!

  9. TraceyS says:

    Dave, you claim that I “…have put up multiple links to outlier research and talked in riddles.”

    Every single piece of research I have referenced has been mainstream.

    Don’t blame me if you can’t get your head around it. Maybe get to bed a bit earlier?

  10. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, a common suggestion here is that climate science is a sort of marxist plot when in actual fact Margaret Thatcher was the driving force behind the formation of the IPCC. She was a scientist herself and was convinced by the research:
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm

    Her shift in position later was more of a political one and possibly related to her health as she was suffering from dementia from before 2000.
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/thatchers-battle-with-dementia-20130408-2hhsg.html

    All the next two you name are poor choices as champions for your cause.

    Vaclav Dyson had to step down as Prime Minister in 1997 because of funding irregularities and I discovered his links with dodgy Russian oil deals and his close relationship with Putin.

    Roy Spenser is a respected scientist and has done some well regarded work, however he is out of step with most mainstream scientists with his views on climate change and his support of intelligent design as opposed to evolution.

    Robert Linzen is your strongest choice, he is a very capable scientist but is also widely known as a contrarian. He is now retired from climate research and much of his work has been found lacking in peer reviews since: http://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

  11. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Every single piece of research I have referenced has been mainstream.”

    While most of your links have been to science from mainstream scientists, most were not peer reviewed.

    As for your personal comments…oh dear, you are struggling for an argument if you are resorting to that level of debate, tch tch 😉

  12. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, good point about Paranormal and Will, however this debate has lasted through numerous threads and their skeptic views have been very consistent throughout.

  13. Will Dwan says:

    Thatcher encouraged and exploited AGW in her bid to destroy the coal miners’ union. I thought everyone knew that.

    I am well aware that climate changes, but my doubts about human emitted CO2 have grown to the point where I can’t be bothered trying anymore. Especially since it seems to be getting colder and dryer now. Did anyone see poor old professor Renwick trying to talk his way around the ice-age theory last week? I actually felt sorry for the old goat.

    I drive a battered 94 Skyline, bought in a moment of mid-life madness. Such a fun car! Not sure why this is relevant. I think there is a rat living in it.

  14. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Thatcher encouraged and exploited AGW in her bid to destroy the coal miners’ union. I thought everyone knew that.”

    Your claim that her international advocacy for climate science and forming the IPCC was just part of a strategy to crush a union defies logic, Will 😉

    “it seems to be getting colder and dryer now”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69567269/Hundreds-flee-rising-floodwaters-in-North-Island

  15. Will Dwan says:

    Floods do happen now and again Dave. I’ve had a bad one myself in ’92. But the weather trend in my area has definitely gone colder and dryer since about 2003. Farmers are sensitive to these things because they affect us so intimately. We don’t need to read about it on Stuff. I recently made the decision to reduce cattle numbers in favour of sheep. They seem to like it this way. They struggled in the humid ’90’s.

    Defies logic? No it doesn’t. She wanted to reform the economy (Thatcherism) and hated the stranglehold the unions had over the country through energy supply. So she needed a way to sell nuclear power as better for the environment than coal. The C02 theory had been around for ages, she funded it and gave it legs. Later admitted it was a fix. This is basic stuff, it amazes me the things you don’t know.

  16. Will Dwan says:

    I feel bad now, like I’ve told a child there is no Father Christmas.

  17. Paranormal says:

    So let me get this right DK.

    Are you saying Thatcher believed in AGW so strongly she set up an organisation to promote AGW?

  18. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, you state your views as if they are common knowledge, but it is a great example of groupthink (I love this term, thanks Tracey). All evidence I have seen support the view that Thatcher was sincere about her climate change concerns. I never agreed with her policies or politics (I experienced the effects when I lived in the UK), but the level of corruption and dishonesty you attribute to her is difficult to accept, even for her.

    The general weather patterns we have been experiencing fit NIWA’s climate change predictions. More severe weather events, heavier rain falls in some areas and droughts in others and a general increase in average temperatures. My coastal property was flooded for the first time in living memory and other coastal areas are experiencing similar higher than normal tides.

    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/coastal-hazards-and-climate-change-guidance-manual-local-government-n-21

  19. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Are you saying Thatcher believed in AGW so strongly she set up an organisation to promote AGW?”

    Partly, Paranormal, but mainly to do more research:

    “Back in 1988, however, it was a different politician who put the science of climate change firmly on the global agenda. Unbeknownst to many, that person was Margaret Thatcher.

    “As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain’s national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change. Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.

    “She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK’s foremost climate change research centre).”
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm

    Will made the wild claim that she used this to help crush the coal miner’s union, but the that battle had ended at least 3 years before she was doing her climate change work.

  20. JC says:

    DK, you demanded just two people with cred in politics and science to meet your own standard of a successful rebuttal to your position on climate change. I gave you four and you immediately set about with the only tool you have ever displayed, ie, ad hominem, scorn and accusations to obscure.

    Here’s some more for you to use the only weapon at your disposal..

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

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    There.. thats 35,000 plus scientists and 9000 PHDs to sink your venom into on behalf of your fellow scientific frauds, flim flam artists, identity thieves and all round climate change crooks.. those fine fellows who are all in the pay of politicians and espoused by media.. the two professions in the world that reliably rank lower than prostitutes in public surveys.

    Oh, and the UN My World internet survey is now up to 7.69 million, and climate change is still dead last.

    JC

  21. Paranormal says:

    So with a bit more questioning the real facts come out. She was actually championing more research.

    You don’t feel any shame discrediting Thatchers later repudiation of AGW by having a go at her state of mind? It seems she was thinking clearly and analytically. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

    I realise you don’t do irony or spot hypocrisy, but how can you hold up Thatcher as a Gorebull Warmenging champion when she ‘only’ (in your opinion) had a chemistry degree and was backed by big business, with perhaps a bit of big oil thrown in as well?

  22. TraceyS says:

    “While most of your links have been to science from mainstream scientists, most were not peer reviewed.”

    That is simply not correct, Dave. Perhaps you will find a single piece of climate science research that was referenced by me and NOT peer reviewed? I don’t think you will. But as always, happy to be corrected.

    “As for your personal comments…oh dear, you are struggling for an argument if you are resorting to that level of debate, tch tch ;-)”

    Dave, you have called me both an “exploiter” and a “bunny”. So suck it up baby (it was meant as a bit of fun anyway but I see that I forgot my 🙂 ).

    I really think we’d all function better with more sleep – me included! But I am definitely not struggling for an argument no matter how tired.

  23. TraceyS says:

    Will Dwan at 11:40am, the significance of your battered 94 Skyline is this: Dave can tell that you are a person who feels a high level of empathy and compassion towards others. You never speed past a pedestrian trying to use a crossing, nor take candy from children, and you always notice people who need help, take care of people who are vulnerable, and generously donate to charity.

  24. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I gave you four and you immediately set about with the only tool you have ever displayed, ie, ad hominem, scorn and accusations to obscure.”

    JC, I just used due diligence to check their level of credibility and general status. It is a fact that Margaret Thatcher was suffering from dementia from before 2000, so any sudden swing in her thinking in 2003 must be considered in light of that. This is no personal attack it is just fact and logic. Vaclav Klaus (sorry I got his name wrong in my last comment) had huge issues of honesty and conflicts of interest to cause serious doubts about his views.

    Your scientists are known to be outliers in their views and Linzen’s research has not survived peer reviews.

    I didn’t mention Dyson earlier, he is a great scientist but he also admits he isn’t a climate scientist and just disagrees with the politicising of climate science. He is also another one of your collection of very elderly scientists (91) who is not currently working in the climate area. Again this is no personal attack but reasonable concerns about their ability to comment on current climate science.

    As for your list of scientists from Wikipedia it pays to read it all, here is what it states:

    “For the purpose of this list, a “scientist” is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.[B] Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report’s three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.”

    Also other lists that have been compiled by the likes of the Heartland Institute have turned out to be highly inaccurate.

    Taylor’s article in Forbes was a misrepresentation of the research and what his source had actually supported was the difficulties of climate science being accepted by scientists working in other industries and for obvious reasons. Here is a quote for the same research:
    “…we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change. Given this, the defensive institutional work of these professionals to maintain existing institutions clearly exceeds the mere maintenance of ‘routines and rituals of their reproduction’ ”

    The petition project (also known as the Oregon Petition) has no credibility when the signatures have been checked and the manipulative way it was presented was exposed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

  25. Paranormal says:

    So Tracy what would be Dave’s opinion of someone that drives a Black 2006 Ford Territory SUV? Just lucky you drive something that is groupthink approved 😉

  26. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, your last statement highlights your disingenuousness in approach, however, yet again you come up with another brilliant link that supports one of my previous arguments. You’re a gift that keeps giving 😉

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, surely ones car reflects the affluence and lifestyle of the person concerned to a certain degree but can only be a rough assessment. I used to drive a Subaru turbo and not many people would have guessed that we drove it because it had the best seats to support my wife’s back when she was having problems at the time and for 14 years I drove a Humber 80.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/new-zealand-becoming-banana-republic.html

  28. farmerbraun says:

    ““For the purpose of this list, a “scientist” is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences,”

    Whereas in reality a scientist is someone who adheres to the scientific method in answering questions, testing hypotheses, and acquiring knowledge.

    Thus we see the problem with Dave’s argumentum ad vericundiam.

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, it wasn’t my list it but I would have no problems with a combination of both definitions.

    I would also suggest that those actually involved ti a particular scientific field would tend to have the most understanding of their specialised area. I would have difficulty with trusting a plumber’s assessment of the work of an electrician.

  30. JC says:

    “I would also suggest that those actually involved ti a particular scientific field would tend to have the most understanding of their specialised area.”

    Please state Margaret Thatchers credentials for speaking on climate science.

    Also, MT was actively warning about scientific overreach on climate in the early 90s:

    http://www.cei.org/pdf/4678.pdf

    JC

  31. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC

    The majority of world leaders tend to base their decisions on advice. Despite the huge lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry, world leaders have generally accepted that the science behind AGW is solid. Even though the National Party have long supported the coal and oil industries with some enthusiasm and had a high level of skeptics in their caucus, you would struggle to find any claiming that AGW is not real. Margaret Thatcher’s drive to set up the IPCC was to ensure that solid science rather than politics drove the debate and her involvement destroys the myth that it’s formation was a marxist plot.

    I think I have provided ample and wide ranging evidence that the skeptic side of the debate involves a very small element of the scientific community and is largely supported by the oil industry and think tanks like the Heartland Institute.

  32. Name witheld says:

    The majority of world leaders tend to base their ideas on advice
    The majority of world leaders tend to base their ideas on Political advice.
    There….Fixed it for you.

  33. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, I think there is an element of truth there, but there is only so long you can ignore the science before the proverbial hits the fan. National ignored the science as long as it could to until the evidence became to difficult to hide. Long term planning is hard to put in place with a 3 yearly cycle of elections and making decisions to keep investment in climate action as low as possible will incur huge costs shortly.

    You reap what you sow (or don’t) and National is finding there is little to reap as the house crisis bites, the dairy price drops, the Christchurch rebuild slows, climate change is costing us 100s of millions a year in storms, flooding and droughts and the balance budget appears ever more distant.

  34. JC says:

    “I think I have provided ample and wide ranging evidence that the skeptic side of the debate involves a very small element of the scientific community and is largely supported by the oil industry and think tanks like the Heartland Institute.”

    You have proved to yourself in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary that everything you say is true and represents the thoughts of the vast majority of scientists and general public.

    This is why such Green philosophy represents somewhere between zero and 10% of all the populations of the world at the polls.

    In short, you remain unbelievable.

    JC

  35. Will says:

    I did not mean to imply Mrs Thatcher was corrupt Dave. It’s just that AGW was a narrative that suited her purposes. I’ve no doubt she persuaded herself she was doing right by the environment at the time, it just was not her primary motivation. You are the same, it is obvious you want to harness capitalism’s wealth creating power to the yoke of socialism, given that socialism is such a hard sell these days saving the planet makes for a better story. And your conformation bias makes you see AGW wherever you look. I can still remember NIWA’s prediction for the Waikato…warmer, wetter, increased, strong westerlies. We got the opposite.

    Apparently I am an ‘innate sceptic,’ born under a Tui sign. Am I supposed to apologise because I don’t share your beliefs, or anyone else’s? And don’t tell me it’s science. The whole point of science is you don’t have to believe it, it makes falsifiable predictions. You alarmists have been proven wrong so many times it is an embarrassment. Your ‘scientists’ have been exposed as frauds, that’s when they are not being rescued from polar ice…what is the point?

    Cheers Tracey, interesting theory about auto-empathy. I like to think the car you drive reflects the car you want to drive. A Skyline is a poor man’s Audi, but with Japanese reliability.
    Dave has a powerful need to occupy the moral high ground. Presumably, if someone owns an expensive car they are rich and selfish, and it is right to use state violence to rob them. Something like that.

  36. TraceyS says:

    “…yet again you come up with another brilliant link…”

    Thank you for your kind words Dave. I’m glad to have been able to again provide you with something entertaining and educational. Did you watch right through to the end…or at least from 14 minutes onward?

    “…reminding people of the benefits of co-operation or the advantages of community cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people. In one study we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who is poor…suggesting that these difference are not innate or categorical but are so malleable…”

    “…You’re a gift that keeps giving :)”

    Dave, one day you might realise that you do not always have to be in defense mode and that sometimes it’s better not to be. Maybe your tendency has got something to do with no prospect of ever being anywhere but opposition?

    But if you and your Party never achieve anything other than reminding people that there are others out there in greater need than themselves then I think that you will have served a useful purpose. The upside is that you will never have to risk losing your empathy because you will never have been anywhere near power.

  37. TraceyS says:

    Will,

    “Cheers Tracey, interesting theory about auto-empathy. I like to think the car you drive reflects the car you want to drive. A Skyline is a poor man’s Audi, but with Japanese reliability.

    Dave has a powerful need to occupy the moral high ground. Presumably, if someone owns an expensive car they are rich and selfish, and it is right to use state violence to rob them. Something like that.”

    Thanks Will, but credit goes to Dave for introducing the theory initially. I think the point of it went something like this…rich people buying flash cars in increasing numbers reflects all that is wrong with this world.

    Looks like all that is needed to correct this is a spare 46 seconds of their precious time…a “nudge” so to speak.

    Dave and his Party “nudge” and may need to accept that’s all they will ever do.

  38. Mr E says:

    Temptation to break from exile,

    Who said?:
    ‘Our private vehicle fleet is large, old, and inefficient by international standards’

    ‘The XXXXX Party will:

    1. Lead by example and replace the Crown fleet (where appropriate) with zero emission electric vehicles, starting with the limousines, and allow work-place charging across the government sector.
    2. Offer a $1,000 cash back payment to the first 10,000 New Zealand-new electric vehicles sold, costing $10 million.
    3. Co-invest in the roll-out of a nationwide network of 30-minute fast-charge stations across New Zealand, costing $10 million to build 30 plus stations.30
    4. Increase fuel economy standards for vehicle imports.
    5. Set national electric vehicle deployment targets and adaptively manage government policy to ensure the targets are met.’

    Will – if you changed your voting ways, in no time flat you’d have a shiny new expensive electric car and you’d soon become a non caring person like Dave thinks we all are anyway. 🙂

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    “you will never have been anywhere near power”
    Very damning Tracey. It depends on what you mean as power I was recently on the governing executive of an organistion with 50,000 members, I have a similar role in one with 5,000 and have governing roles in a number of local organisations. I may have even been an MP if our polling had remained consistent through the election. If four of our MPs come to an untimely end in a plane crash or something I will be in. I have also had leadership roles in a number of schools and have probably taught over 1000 kids (I reckon that is pretty powerful). My comments here cause a whole group of people to come out to attack me, I must have some power otherwise they wouldn’t bother. 😉

    However I don’t crave for power, just getting some social justice and environmental wins would be good enough for me. Just remember too that a party doesn’t have to be in Government to score some good wins, there are heaps of private members bills that the Greens have pushed through, lots of changes achieved in select committees and a number of campaigns that have forced the Government’s hand. The latest being the single use plastic bag one that Denise Roche led that caused Nick Smith to make a small step towards dealing with the problem. It all adds up.

    “You alarmists have been proven wrong so many times it is an embarrassment.”
    I don’t think, so Will. Climate change isn’t an exact science, like the weather it is still impossible to predict specific outcomes and the extent of them with great accuracy. As more data is collected the more accurate it is becoming. Skeptics concentrate on the inaccuracies as if it is proof that the whole theory is wrong, but generally what has been predicted has happened and often far faster than predicted.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-copenhagen.htm
    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/earths-climate-is-starting-to-change-faster-new-research-shows/

  40. TraceyS says:

    No idea, Mr E, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a Party ever co-lead by Jeanette Fitzsimons.

    https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/labour%E2%80%99s-transport-policy-more-cars

  41. TraceyS says:

    “If four of our MPs come to an untimely end in a plane crash or something I will be in.”

    Yeah, it’s not like there would need to be any democratic process or anything.

    But seriously Dave, there are perhaps some things that you just should not commit to words.

  42. Dave Kennedy says:

    Lighten up, Tracey, I would never wish that on my MP friends and it isn’t likely to happen either. However for most of the 2014 campaign we were polling high enough for me to be elected and immediately after the election we polled at 17.5% (which would have given us around 22 MPs). But I guess that is the luck of the vote on the day. In 2002 National had only 27 MPs, so fortunes can change quite dramatically in a short time.

  43. Paranormal says:

    Dk at 7.21 – and there’s your issue. You’re so busy discrediting the source you refuse to look at the science. Even a casual look at the data will raise questions that your beloved eco-worriers can’t answer.

    As for global warming prediction fails: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

    And the failed predictions just keep coming. What level of disconnect between the actual observed data and your glorious models is required before you will start to look at the science?
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/connect-the-dots-climate-model-failure-hansen-global-warming.html

  44. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, it appears that you rely on very narrow sources for your information and their interpretation of the data. You accuse me of bias when I rely on a wide range of scientific research and collective views and yet when I look at Anthony Watts’ website and background all the same names and institutions appear, Fred Singer, the Heartland institute etc. Watts is a paid speaker for the Heartland Institute. He is not a scientist (he doesn’t even have a degree), his background is as a weatherman for Fox News (another dubious institution for misinformation).

    ‘Watts Up With That’ claims that it is the world’s most viewed site on global warming and yet many of the contributors are not scientists and few are climate scientists. It is popular in the same way that Whale Oil is a popular source of political news. Relying on Watts for climate information is just not rational.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    I just struggle to understand why you keep going back to such discredited people and institutions, that are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, to spread doubt about the science. You also trust them above NASA, the Royal Society and NIWA when they are packed full of real scientists doing ongoing peer reviewed research.

    “You’re so busy discrediting the source you refuse to look at the science.”

    Paranormal, you may have qualifications in Meteorology and have a vast knowledge of climate science, I don’t. Anthony Watts despite his lack of qualifications has enough of an understanding to present something to me that could appear convincing and I wouldn’t be able to question it. I do rely on credentials and potential conflicts of interest when I listen to an opinion. I don’t think NASA is full of corrupt liars who are trying to make money from a climate hoax, because they have a track record of success and send rockets into space with great skill. The Heartland Institute doesn’t have that reputation and has some real issues around ethics, it will stop at nothing to try and destroy the reputations of climate scientists:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

    Snake oil salesmen can be very convincing and spin yarns that come across as credible, but at the end of the day they are still selling snake oil. For goodness sake, don’t buy it!

  45. TraceyS says:

    “…immediately after the election we polled at 17.5% (which would have given us around 22 MPs). But I guess that is the luck of the vote on the day.”

    I’m sure some luck is involved. But maybe the differences between the poll and actual outcome is more telling of people’s tendency to avoid extremes when making final decisions on important choices?

  46. farmerbraun says:

    Forget the people Dave: just look at the data, and see how it compares with the models.
    Reality trumps model projection , every time.
    Only not in climate “science”.
    Why is that?
    It seems awfully like religious belief to me.

  47. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, our research found that many who were considering voting for the Greens, switched to Labour at the last minute because of concern that Labour may become too small. National won the last election because it ran a smart campaign despite Dirty Politics. Although the Greens ran a good campaign too (we spent more than Labour), most voters didn’t see a Government amongst a fractured opposition with Kim Dotcom giggling in the background. Perception is everything and as Labour is the largest opposition party when it struggles to find a convincing leader and is unable to work with potential coalition partners, there is no convincing alternative to National.

    As I said said before, fortunes change and when National had only 27 MPs in 2002, the public felt that National had little to offer then too.

  48. Paranormal says:

    Dk – you’re kidding yourself if you think Green support migrated to Liarbour last thing before polling day. It was Liarbours worst result in decades. Maybe you would be better served by looking at your polling methodology?

    On a similar vein, as Farmerbraun says, rather than sticking your head in the sand and relying on a faith based approach, have a look at the data and methodology of the two camps. One of them is just not consistent with the real world outcomes.

  49. TraceyS says:

    “…Labour is the largest opposition party…”

    Think about that. You said that Greens polling result of 17.5% after election night’s result of 10.7% is explained by nearly 7% of your actual support having had migrated to Labour just before the election. Since Labour polled 25% on election night you are suggesting that their actual level of support (minus temporary Green support) was about 18%. That would put the two parties about equal.

    You wrote:
    “Perception is everything and as Labour is the largest opposition party when it struggles to find a convincing leader and is unable to work with potential coalition partners, there is no convincing alternative to National.”

    No wonder they don’t want to work with Greens. The perception is that you’re clearly fighting over the same diminishing vote. Voters don’t want to be fought over, they want to be won over with good, sound, realistic policies and leadership on the issues that matter most.

  50. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, the issues with the IPPC models have already addressed but skeptics keep pushing the same points (and by the same discredited individuals) as if they haven’t and ignoring updates. NASA has even published different models from different sources showing there is a variation but a general trend does remain consistent.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

    I presume reality is what is observably happening at a given point or tracking back through recorded records. Obviously projections can be checked as time passes but I think you will find that in many instances such as surface sea temperatures or Arctic and Antarctic ice melt, that the reality has exceeded projections. I linked to some earlier articles on how change has occurred in many areas faster than expected.

    The idea that thousands of scientists working all over the world doing peer reviewed work in a variety of disciplines are all pursuing a false theory and the Fox News weatherman and a cluster of mainly elderly scientists (who all have links with the oil industry) know better is not logical.

    I am being accused of having a religious belief and yet it appears there is blind faith that behind the fact that Mr Watts must be correct and everything he puts up on his site is scientifically accurate. I don’t have the scientific knowledge to debate him as I don’t know how he has manipulated the data to suit his purposes as he is no doubt paid to do.

    I also find when the scientists involved with peer reviewed science have their research questioned (and James Hansen was the same) they generally respond respectfully and answer the question as best they can. If it outside their field they tend to refer to others and not answer themselves. The abuse that Mann has experienced for his Hockey stick graph from skeptics has been appalling. That sort of behaviour is more like a religious reaction than anything I have said and I have also been careful to recognise the scientific contribution of many of the skeptic scientists here, most were recognised for research outside of climate science.

  51. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey & Paranormal the polls put us at around 13-14% leading up the election and we got just under 11%. It is quite possible that we lost around 1-2% of the vote through that one scenario I mentioned which would have put Labour on around 23% and us on 13%. What I mentioned was just one part of the survey. Some may even have gone to National.

    People have all sorts of reasons for making choices and most tend to be ‘heart’ ones rather than ‘head’ ones too. Now that we have a presidential contest that is only really between the leaders of Labour and National, few voters actually engage with policy and it comes down to who they feel more comfortable with as leader. That is where Cameron Slater is often an important part of National’s campaign strategy 😉

  52. Dave Kennedy says:

    Also Tracey the time in the polls during election year when Labour had their best result, so did the Greens so we don’t necessarily take votes off each other. I know past National voters who have shifted to the Greens as well.

  53. TraceyS says:

    You’re actually right Dave. Labour’s losses didn’t go to the Greens at all but to National and NZ First. Greens were flat.

    But as you say “perception is everything” and you’re promulgating a certain perception when saying “our research found that many who were considering voting for the Greens, switched to Labour at the last minute” when going on about that 17.5% anomaly.

  54. Will Dwan says:

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, July 8 2004.

    So much for peer review. It’s funny how you describe WUWT as unscientific (try reading one of Bob Tisdale’s ENSO updates) and then go on to quote the Guardian as if a political rag to the left of Pol Pot is comparatively credible.

  55. Paranormal says:

    DK said: “I don’t know how he (Watt) has manipulated the data to suit his purposes as he is no doubt paid to do. ”

    Have you stopped for a moment to consider that maybe, just maybe, it’s not Watt that’s manipulating Data and the incentives are there for your vaunted Jones, Hansen, Mann et al to do just that?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

  56. Paranormal says:

    And from an excellent post by Judith Curry: “Spiegelhalter raises an important point: the manufactured and enforced consensus on climate change results in an unknown amount of evidence that we are not hearing about that would challenge the consensus.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/13/the-siddhartha-heuristic/#more-15688

  57. farmerbraun says:

    Dave , the following graph may help you to put the recent warming into perspective. The comment also explains why science cannot establish that anything out of the ordinary is happening to global average temperatures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/27/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-2/#comment-1994852

  58. JC says:

    FB,its always good to see Lamb’s graph on temps put up as in this paper..

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/clip_image002_thumb2.png?w=980&h=566

    There’s the MWP in all its glory and even after 20 odd years of denial and trying to get rid of it by the Mann crook its now back in IPCC 5 and his graphs and hockey stick have been quietly but ruthlessly removed from IPCC thought.

    I like this series of graphs from Oklahoma uni on Holocene temps as they start far out and narrow as we get closer to our own time..

    http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

    JC

  59. Andrei says:

    Still babbling on about climate change – something that we can do nothing about any more than we can stop the Sun rising in the East.

    Meanwhile John Key’s Government is about to sign some more of New Zealand’s sovereignty away to the Godless Empire.

    I swear that our masters have come up with the “climate change debate” as a distraction to keep us diverted from what they are really up to as they transform us into mindless pampered (for now) serfs

  60. Will says:

    They are all godless empires Andrei. Agenda 21 is the one we’re fighting here. It’s the scariest of them all.

  61. Dave Kennedy says:

    Have you stopped for a moment to consider that maybe, just maybe, it’s not Watt that’s manipulating Data and the incentives are there for your vaunted Jones, Hansen, Mann et al to do just that?

    No, Paranormal, because a large part of the scientific community have worked with them and have peer reviewed their work. They have widespread support and years of peer reviewed research behind them.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

    “the manufactured and enforced consensus on climate change results in an unknown amount of evidence that we are not hearing about that would challenge the consensus.”

    All the conflicting theories and views from many of the scientists you have linked to all inform the consensus. You have linked to scientists that are outliers who have done research that doesn’t support the majority and yet I find their research openly being addressed. Show me example of suppressed research. If a large number of scientists are share the same conclusions and contrary research then that will be regarded seriously. There are a number of skeptic positions that are constantly repeated and these are being regularly addressed, this is one example of many.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/Deutsche-Bank-CRU-report.pdf

  62. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I wondered when that hoary old conspiracy theory would raise its head. Guess which institution is feeding that one as well?
    https://www.heartland.org/Agenda21

    And guess who is Australia’s champion for the same conspiracy at Lord Mockton’s launch?

    Anne Bressington probably is sincere about her beliefs, but she has an amazing collection of them.
    http://reasonablehank.com/2013/03/04/ann-bressington-the-sitting-member-death-threats-and-disordered-thinking/

    I’m just surprised that you guys don’t join the dots. You are telling me that I am part of the Climate change ‘religion’ that includes practically all world leaders and national scientific institutions. You are also informing me that the IPCC (that was set up by Margaret Thatcher) is a part of an international conspiracy that is hiding all conflicting research.

    Meanwhile you have a cluster of scientists (most in their 80s and 90s), media personalities and journalists (including the eccentric Lord Monckton) that all have connections to the Heartland Institute that is funded by the corporates that have the most to lose from climate action.

    And then Will introduces the conspiracy theory of them all (even beating chemtrails), Agenda 21 and who is behind it?……..The Heartland Institute again.

    It’s a small world 😉

  63. Paranormal says:

    ” If a large number of scientists” – DK you just don’t understand the difference between science and politics do you?

    BTW what do you believe the climategate emails showed?

  64. Will says:

    So you are saying that There is no Agenda 21? It does not exist?

    I do hope that is true. At least you’re not pretending you have not heard of it.

  65. Dave Kennedy says:

    “you just don’t understand the difference between science and politics do you?”
    Paranormal, I think I do which is why I largely have faith in the ethical constraints that most scientists operate under that the Heartland Institute that you support doesn’t. If you claim not to support this Institute then you need to analyse why most of whom you use to support your arguments are linked to it.

    “So you are saying that There is no Agenda 21? It does not exist?”
    Of course it exists, it is a voluntary, non binding action plan for working towards a sustainable use of the planets resources. The Heartland Institute and other right wing groups feel threatened by it because it looks at the collective good of communities and countries around resource use and waste management. Some people think that it threatens individuality, property rights and the ability to exploit a market or resource for their own ends.

    A possible scenario could be if a community was suffering from a drought and a wealthy land owner had a recreational lake on his property that was also used to irrigate his golf course. Agenda 21would suggest that water could be appropriated for the good of the community and food production. For many property rights are sacrosanct and even the idea that something like could be a possibility is frightening.

    I guess key elements are looking at achieving a sustainable population, encouraging biodiversity, protection of fragile environments and addressing inequality. The way that these goals are approached depends on the voluntary efforts of each country, I would suggest our RMA, state housing and our welfare system are ways that we address the goals here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    I look forward to seeing any links you have to any other Heartland Institute mouth pieces in regard to this 😉

  66. Will Dwan says:

    “Agenda 21 would *suggest* that water could be …etc.”

    I fear it would do a lot more than ‘suggest.’ For the good of the community of course. How many millions rot in unmarked graves because of innocuous little ideas like this?

    We won’t have it.

  67. Dave Kennedy says:

    “We won’t have it.”

    Sorry, Will, your comments are sounding more and more like these:

    I will leave you to your fight against the marxists, warmists, and agenda 21. The Heartland Institute can probably provide you with ample resources 😉

  68. Paranormal says:

    DK your comment “which is why I largely have faith” pretty much sums up why Climate Change is considered a new religion. So you’re telling me that those scientists that follow you faith are ethical and those that don’t follow your faith are not ethical. How did you reach that faith based understanding?

    I notice you didn’t comment on the climategate emails that showed a distinct lack of ethics from your religious leaders.

    How do you see your political leanings described when you talk of nationalising private assets?

  69. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, a simple comparison may clear this up for you:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VbhGyUKqpBc
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509

    “How do you see your political leanings described when you talk of nationalising private assets?”
    When individuals and companies monopolise a resource necessary for survival that results in widespread suffering I believe some intervention is necessary. It comes down to how far you support the pursuit of personal wealth over the good of the wider community. Surely private ownership and economic freedom should be balanced with sustainable management of resources and social justice. A banana republic type society occurs when a few capture the wealth of a society with few checks and balances and when the state has too much control over wealth and resources it kills innovation, individual determination and healthy markets. I don’t support the extremes of either.

  70. Will Dwan says:

    You’re seem little shrill there Dave, especially as my original comment was just an offhand remark to Andrei. One might think Agenda 21 is a touchy subject for you. Clearly I need to learn more, I’ll start with these Heartland blokes you recommend. They sound ok.

  71. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I think amused would be a better description than shrill and yes I think those Heartland blokes probably would appeal to you. Here is a link (they have been very supportive of the New Zealand climate change skeptics in the past):
    https://www.heartland.org/
    The institute supports a number of your conspiracies.

    I will stick with these blokes who have just sent a spacecraft beyond Pluto. They seem pretty reliable to me:
    http://www.nasa.gov/

    …and these blokes seem to have a good track record too:
    https://royalsociety.org/

    Horses for courses I guess 😉

  72. Paranormal says:

    A banana republic, and for that matter most of the poverty in the world, comes where there is no certainty around property rights.

    Have you actually read the climategate emails yourself DK? In them it is clear they have fabricated the results, by amongst other things, reducing the medieval warm period. Add to that their collusion to ostracise those with differing views and it paints a very unethical picture of your religious leaders.

    If you want a link battle go here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

    Or even here:
    http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/11/21/union_of_concerned_scientists_are_charlatans_108371.html

  73. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, obviously we will never agree. You will always trust your what you read on those blogs you favour over anything I present. If Mr Watts or Mr Hartsfield and the Heartland Institute make a claim then that is where your heart lies. That is your choice, as it is my choice to favour NASA and the Royal Society above a Fox News weatherman. You are a supporter of fringe movements and outliers and I support mainstream science. I think that is the point we have reached that cannot be progressed further.

    As for property rights and Banana republics, I think you will find that those in leadership roles in those states are very confident about who owns what with a high level of certainty 😉

  74. Paranormal says:

    “You are a supporter of fringe movements and outliers” – an unusual position statement from a Green.

    And you again raise the point that you have faith in your scientists rather than having any opinion on the science involved. You prefer to link to your favoured ideologues rather than debate the merits of the subject at hand. In this case you linked to a politically motivated group that provided the political reaction to the climategate saga. Did you follow any of the links I provided? The Watts page was an excellent collection of links on the climategate debacle, not just Watts opinion.

    Regardless of that we still have the ongoing distortion of data to ensure the ends justifies the means…
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/

  75. tom hunter says:

    In order to drop our CO2 production to zero by, say 2030, I wonder what price a litre of 91 petrol have to go to, starting in 2017? Presumably the price would be infinite by 2030, thereby completely stopping its use?

    Similarly, what would electricity increase to in order to close Huntly?

    Same with Natural Gas, used by many households for cooking and heating, especially in Auckland and Wellington.

    And in all of these cases, what would the Greens do when we reach the tobacco limit, where the remaining 10 or 20% of the original total remains irrespective of the price? The so-called “inelastic” margin? They’d have to just ban the use of all these, no? Or perhaps have penalties for their use, backed by inspectors and fines, which amounts to the same thing.

    Finally, I wonder what will happen to all that unused oil. There’s about 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil at the moment (and it’s been increasing for years now, even before fracking). That’s about $60 trillion and most of it is located in perhaps a dozen countries that have nothing else. They’d have to sell. Moreover, with demand for it crushed in the developed world and supply exceeding demand, the developing world would be nuts not to try and use such a cheap, powerful energy source.

    Wonder how the Copenhagen Conference is going to deal with all this?

    Thank goodness for nuclear power – although that’s more for China and India of course – oh, and France.

  76. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom, 2030 is a little close, the Greens have a target of 100% reduction by 2050. Surely by that time electric cars will dominate

    Closing Huntly would be easy as electricity demand is dropping and as houses become more efficient, will drop even more. Obviously there are lots of schools etc that have gone solar too.

    Methane gas from farms and gas from wood waste could eventually replace natural gas.

    Tobacco use is dropping steadily and now no prisoners can smoke.
    http://www.sfc.org.nz/infotobacco.php

  77. Dave Kennedy says:

    Margaret Thatcher closed coal mines down in a short space of time when it had been the main source of fuel for the industrial revolution. It’s alright leaving fossil stuff in the ground. However a just transition should be planned for the workforce involved and new industries established. These sort market shifts from one technology to the other does happen on a smaller scale and could happen with oil and gas too.Here is a document I helped produce for the transition from coal:
    https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jobs_after_coal_may2104_lowres.pdf

    Most countries using nuclear power are phasing out the technology:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

    We are also seeing the development of eco cities:
    http://www.masdar.ae/en/masdar-city/detail/one-of-the-worlds-most-sustainable-communities-masdar-city-is-an-emerging-g

  78. Dave Kennedy says:

    “The Watts page was an excellent collection of links on the climategate debacle, not just Watts opinion.”

    It was a collection of mainly opinions and there were a few of them Paranormal, I’ll give you that. My earlier link debunking the rather tired Climate Gate conspiracy covered all the concerns using science and context rather than just opinion. However I appreciate that pure opinion has a high value for you.

    Here is part of the Wikipedia coverage:

    Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian’s analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words “data”, “climate”, “paper”, “research”, “temperature” and “model” were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with ‘climate sceptic’ websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

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

    I think I will go with the Wikipedia version and its 146 referenced links than what the Fox News weatherman says 😉

    Out of interest, here is what Wikipedia says about Watts:

    Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.[58] On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: “major announcement coming”.[59] The New York Times published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans “are almost entirely the cause” of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team’s draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been “spuriously doubled”, and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.[60][61] Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. Steve McIntyre, who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been “very last minute and limited”. He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent satellite temperature measurements were closer to the NOAA figures.[62]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    Most scientists or real researchers don’t have much respect for Watts and McIntyre. I’m afraid you are backing a couple of lame climate ducks, Paranormal.
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/steve-mcintyre-and-anthony-watts-fail.html

  79. Mr E says:

    The Tesla P85D = $105,000USD

    =$157,000NZD

    I wonder how many profit driven, uncaring, capitalists could buy one of these? How many would?

    I wonder how many – share all their wealth, sensitive, eco warriors could buy one of these? I suspect the lack of ‘could’ precludes the ‘would’.

    Profits increase sustainable opportunities.

  80. Paranormal says:

    Still denigrating the individual than addressing the clear errors in your religion DK. All power to you then.

    Are you aware of how Wikipedia works? You seem overly reliant on its dubious information when it comes to politically charged topics.

    But us that follow science and not just faith based stuff, will continue to raise questions regarding the validity of your religion.

    Thankfully the politicians are realising they have run out of political capital on the whole AGW tax raising scam and will slowly back away from it.

  81. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, It was merely an example of technology. Given a large number of Wellington taxis are Hybrids and you can by a 2nd hand Nissan Leaf now for under 20,000 I can see a large number of cars being electric in 10 years. Simon Bridges is keen to encourage this too. It would be easy to create incentives for bring in electrics as 2nd hand imports and new cars. Our luxury car market is booming and those buying in that market could easily afford a Tesla. In Norway there are incentives for electric vehicles and the numbers being registered have more than doubled every year since 2010.

    Are you aware of how Wikipedia works?
    Yes I am, Paranormal. It is a little like peer reviewed science, it is open to anyone checking the references and accuracy and challenging what is presented. It is now regarded to be just as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, especially regarding academic and science topics. There would be more rigour around climate change I would imagine.
    http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    “But us that follow science and not just faith based stuff”
    You mean the Heartland Institute, the TV weatherman and an eccentric collection of elderly scientists? It sounds more like a cult to me.

    I also find it interesting how you call facts denigrating the individual. How can you possibly defend the Heartland Institutes behaviour and excuse their stated agenda? Watts has no scientific qualifications and no credibility when his own attempts at research have been easily shot down and yet you use him as your primary source. The majority of the actual scientists that you link to are well over 80 years old (two in their nineties) and few have been involved in actual climate research for decades. It is a little like rolling out Colin Meads to play rugby in a team again, he was very successful player, he probably still knows a lot about rugby but his knowledge and skills related the current game are somewhat diminished. By the time James Hansen is 80 I probably would be saying similar things about him.

    When I want to employ a contractor for some important work or advice I do due diligence and check out their qualifications and track record before employing them. It appears as if you don’t like the idea of AGW and are not discriminating about the sources you use as long as they fit your position. There are not many skeptics who are practicing scientists in the climate field and you appear to have just about produced them all, regardless of their reputation.

    “Thankfully the politicians are realising they have run out of political capital on the whole AGW tax raising scam and will slowly back away from it.”

    A number of countries have introduced carbon taxes in different forms and many have stuck with them for some time. The Greens carbon tax was widely praised in NZ as it actually provides more economic certainty for businesses to work around compared to a cap and trade or ETS scheme.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world

  82. tom hunter says:

    the Greens have a target of 100% reduction by 2050. Surely by that time electric cars will dominate

    Love Tesla. Have done for years. Kudos to Musk: incidentally his other big effort – Space X – has proved NASA wrong on the costs of building a new rocket from scratch and then conducting repeated launches to LEO. NASA was out by several orders of magnitude – in their area of expertise. I’m sure you would have advised Musk to simply drop the idea, after all the experts had spoken.

    Okay – so 2050? Then we’re looking at a doubling of CO2 by 2100 under any realistic economic scenario.

    In that case I’d be better off spending my money on adaptation rather than spending $NZ157,000 on a Tesla – much as I’ve always wanted one.

    Since electric cars will reduce in price over time with mass production why bother increasing the price of petrol at all? How would you ever know that the increased pain on consumers had had any effect on the transition to electric cars at all, especially if the target is way out in 2050. If the desire is reduced CO2 rather than increased government revenue, why not subsidise electric car purchases?

    It all reminds me of the idiots in the 1970’s demanding that the world had to adopt the Chinese one-child-per-family model if we were ever going to keep the global population below 15 billion or so. People who said that the birthrates would fall naturally as countries became more capitalist and got richer were dismissed as fanatical believers in wild, uncontrolled markets and societies. Salvation would only be found with the central state and enforced (encouraged- cough) birth control measures, all of it planned and conducted by expert bureaucrats, people with PhD’s like Paul Erlich. You would not want to argue with Paul on that subject would you Dave: especially not back in the 1970’s. After all, he was the expert.

    Food for thought there Dave.

    In any case, the question remains: how much will a litre of petrol increase in price once a Green-Labour government is in power, say 2020 on? I don’t need an exact figure but is there a forecasting graph?

    Closing Huntly would be easy as electricity demand is dropping …

    Demand is not increasing, which is not quite the same thing. Also, the concern has to be with baseload power – industrial plants that need large, continuous supplies of electricity, rather than houses and schools. Since the scientific, business and numbers-oriented Green Party are tracking this you should be able to put a time on when Huntly will be closed and the costs that will impose on the system?

    Also, you do realise that wind and solar are not baseload providers? They have to be backed up by power plants that can be switched on quickly – a capability typically provided only by fossil-fuel power plants fed by gas and coal, or nuclear …

    Most countries using nuclear power are phasing out the technology:

    Ummmm – No, at least not where it counts, and little European countries don’t count. There’s China:

    As of September 2014 the People’s Republic of China has 21 nuclear power reactors operating on 8 separate sites and 28 under construction. Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GWe of capacity by 2020.

    and India

    Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.[1] As of 2013, India has 21 nuclear reactors in operation in 7 nuclear power plants, having an installed capacity of 5780 MW[2][3] and producing a total of 30,292.91 GWh of electricity[4] while 6 more reactors are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 4,300 MW.

    The big boys of the 21st century growth in capitalism. They know they can’t meet their power needs via renewables: it’s fossil-fuel or nuclear. Your opposition to nuclear power is a very sad hangover of 1970’s hippiedom: nothing modern or forward looking about it at all – and not realistic even if your only looking at CO2 reduction and ignoring the hit on people’s pocketbooks. It’s why a number of environmentalists have begun to re-think their opposition to nuclear power – not that India, China, and France are taking any notice of them anyway. The most notable economies in your list of those intending to dump nuclear power are Germany and Japan:
    Germany:

    Germany plans to wean itself off CO2-belching coal-fired power stations. But new figures show that coal power output in 2013 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

    Got that Dave? Even starting to shut down nuclear power resulted in massive increases in coal-fired power stations to meet demand. You should note that Germany is also buying power from France to plug the gap. Moreover the government is now in panic mode as solar and wind have failed to provide the base load power their industry needs and the electricity prices required to support them are now so far out of whack with the USA that German companies are offshoring to America. German consumers are not happy.

    There there’s Japan:

    Japan’s greenhouse-gas emissions rose to a record in the year ended March as the closure of nuclear power plants increased fossil fuel consumption.

    As a result, pressure is now growing to switch some nuclear plants back on. People are apparently anti-nuclear only up to a certain power price, especially when they see that’s it actually counter-productive for CO2 emissions.

    You should also check out the state of Vermont, which recently closed the only nuclear reactor it had, supplying 60% of the state’s electricity, only to find that renewables could not cut it there either – with the result that they are now dependent on buying electricity from Ontario Hydro. They better hope the latter don’t find better-paying customers in Canada any time soon.

    Brilliant. Your combination of anti-nuclear power and pro-renewable power has really delivered on slowing CO2 production in those two star examples. At a minimum you’ll need to support both, otherwise your AGW protestations won’t be taken seriously.

  83. tom hunter says:

    Reuters: April 1, 2030

    Aotearoa Peoples’ Party spokesperson, Dave Kennedy, today announced:

    Petrol use is dropping steadily and now no prisoners can burn petrol.

    A spokesman for the Westport Chainsaw Club, quoted on the condition that his identity not be revealed, replied that their remaining members would soon make an attempt to break out the 4,678,989 prisoners in New Zealand.

    When questioned about this Mr Kennedy chuckled, saying Where are they going to get the petrol from? In any case, our drones can detect such emissions within minutes.

  84. Paranormal says:

    Yet again you claim agism rather than following the facts of the science. You discredit Watts for a lack of scientific credibility but don’t see the lack of credibility in your revered institutions that are populated by the likes of Jones and Hansen – people that climate gate (if you choose to actually read the emails yourself) clearly shows have an agenda and vested interests.

    I notice you haven’t said much about what has come to light about the current round of temperature manipulation. Or for that matter that we’ve had nearly 20 years of no warming completely against your hockey schtick predictions. Is there no possibility in your mind that they got it wrong?

    When you check out a contractor you want to employ, do you listen to gossip and decide based on how old they are, or actually check their work?

    And just to finish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60

  85. Will Dwan says:

    You are missing the point about Watts Dave. He began writing about climate ‘science’ because he saw them attributing ordinary meteorological phenomenon to AGW. They were on his turf, his area of expertise. Most of these blogs have an angle, his is weather.

  86. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom, you make some very valid points regarding nuclear energy and the growth of the technology in China and India. You are right that the transition to cleaner energy is a fraught one and there is no easy answers. Your reference to action versus adaption regarding climate change is also a valid one as even in New Zealand it has been projected that our emissions under the current policy settings will actually still be increasing by 2050.

    I guess it comes down to 5 different approaches and philosophies:

    1) Denial of any science consensus around climate change therefore no action is necessary and our carbon based economy can continue and expand.
    2) Acceptance of the science consensus but believe that there is no will or probability that any serious action will occur in time, adaption to a new climate is the only logical response.
    3) Acceptance of the science consensus but believe that market forces will provide the solution in a timely fashion without government or leadership. Little action is needed at the governance level.
    4) Acceptance of science consensus but use a combination of light transitional legislation and a reliance on market forces and being a ‘fast follower’ of international trends (current NZ response).
    5) Acceptance of science consensus and a strong Government response using multiple strategies including a carbon tax and a well planned transition to a low carbon economy that is well informed and consulted (my preferred option).

    I believe there is enough evidence elsewhere that supports taking a bold and leading approach to both adaption to a changing climate and working towards a low carbon economy. This approach actually has economic benefits. While there may be some initial costs it sets up as a leader in growing markets to our economic advantage. China has already recognised this but because of it’s size it is much harder to achieve. New Zealand’s size gives us an advantage.

    Pure Advantage identified this some time ago and they have approached this from a business perspective: http://pureadvantage.org/news/2012/06/11/new-zealands-position-in-the-green-race/

  87. TraceyS says:

    “Yes I am, Paranormal. [Wikipedia] is a little like peer reviewed science, it is open to anyone checking the references and accuracy and challenging what is presented.”

    Dave, this explains why you said that few of the very recent (mid-2015) climate research papers I referenced were not peer reviewed (when in fact all of them were). You are confusing peer review with literature review. Recently published articles can’t form part of many literature reviews due to their recency. Therefore you can’t expect recent works to be widely cited or referenced. However, referencing is not equivalent to refereeing! (ie. peer review).

    Scientific peer review, which is scholarly peer review its nature, is nothing like Wikipedia editing in the sense that scientific peer review is certainly NOT open to “anyone checking the references and accuracy and challenging what is presented.” That is literature reviewing. Anyone can do that. Anyone at all. But whether or not they have done it well enough for formal publication is the subject of peer review.

    Although it seems a bit circular, here is Wikipedia’s definition of peer review:

    “Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief or the editorial board) deciding whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review.”

    There are, of course, other types of peer review but would you trust any other when it comes to science?

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

  88. Dave Kennedy says:

    Paranormal, your religious adherence to those same conspiracy theories is impressive. You claim that I haven’t read the emails myself and yet you have ignored the evidence that I provided that clearly showed that they were cherry picked from a huge mass of correspondence from a small group of scientists and presented out of context. Several independent reviews found that they had little relevance to climate science overall and there had been an orchestrated attempt to use them to discredit all climate science in a dishonest way. You only have to look at the way the heartland Institute generally operates to understand both motive and intent.

    As for global temperatures, plateaus occur often and 2014 recorded another another increase: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

    “When you check out a contractor you want to employ, do you listen to gossip and decide based on how old they are, or actually check their work?”

    When that approach is applied to science it probably comes down to relevant qualifications, the quantity and quality of their research (the amount of authenticated peer reviewed work they have led) and how recently they have been working. I haven’t been teaching in the classroom for a few years now and my registration has shifted to ‘subject to confirmation”. I can still teach but I an considered no longer up to date in my knowledge and will need advice and guidance and an appraisal to achieve a current practicing certificate.

    The Scientists that you have largely used would be in a similar category and I would be reluctant to consider their opinions as being as relevant as someone still working in the field.

    As for Mr Moore, you do wheel out some interesting characters to support your arguments 😉

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

    Will, I see Watts’ website as one of the key sites for AWG skepticism and it was funded by the Heartland Institute to serve this function. I am sure he has enough knowledge (and some academic training) about weather to comment on this area, but there is a vast difference between understanding weather and climate. It’s a bit like the difference between an attendant at a service station giving mechanical advice about a car, the depth of understanding and experience won’t exist. This is why his own attempts at research have been found seriously wanting by real scientists. Much of his blog is directed at undermining climate science as it was funded to do.

  89. TraceyS says:

    Dave, if a tax funded “well planned transition to a low carbon economy” were that easy to achieve then don’t you think childhood deprivation would have ended by now?

    The reality is that even the best laid plans are not easy to achieve – especially when they involve changing mass human behaviour. Anyone who has actually tried it knows. You come across “green” in this regard in more than one way. You think it’s as simple as telling the children to line up, button up, and listen to Dave. It is a style reflected in everything you write here. But that is just reflective of a lack of real-world experience.

    Your desire to drive “[a]cceptance…and a strong Government response” says it all really: follow along or get the big stick!

    You will never attract many (genuine) followers with such devices.

  90. JC says:

    Ah, Wikipedia. As virtually everyone knows its totally corrupted in climate matters by the famous William Connelly.. Green party fanatic:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

    To that infamous company we can add others with dubious credentials or ethics at Skeptical Science, Hotwhopper, DeSmogBlog, Peter Gleike, Dana Nuccitella, Guardian, RealClimate.org and others.

    JC

  91. farmerbraun says:

    JC you missed out Hot Topic ; our very own little nest of useful idiots.
    No science discussion is permitted at that site, so the inhabitants are forced to talk amongst themselves. It is a very good example of anti-science.

  92. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I agree with everything you have written about peer reviewing and literature reviews and apologise if I stated some of your research hadn’t gone through that process when they had, I just didn’t see evidence of it and do understand the difference.

    Wikipedia appears to cover both forms of review with their scientific entries:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_scientific_articles

    JC, While I still believe that Wikipedia is 98% accurate, I would agree that any private blog should not necessarily be regarded as having the same standing as sites representing larger institutions (although they generally use real science to support them). That is why I would rather refer to NASA or the Royal Society who have greater scrutiny around accuracy and represent the collective understanding of working scientists. The Heartland Institute is the skeptics equivalent I guess, but it clearly has political objectives.

    FB, While I find that Hot Topic is supportive of the science consensus you will have noted that I haven’t linked to that because although Gareth Renowden is a clever chap, he is not a scientist. He hardly deserves the title of idiot, as he is clearly not, just because you disagree with him.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/about-2/

    While I have been accused of making personal attacks and being ageist it is interesting that it is you guys that are calling those who have contrary opinions ‘infamous, dubious and idiots’. I do note a sort of religious fervor about your comments and yet i have been very restrained about how I have referred to your Lord Monckton who is the most widely known skeptic and was even supported by Federated Farmers and the Republicans to provide a skeptic view on AWG.

    I have linked to this before but this fully supported assessment of Monckton’s track record and credibility (from a conservative source) makes very entertaining reading. He is the epitome of anti-science and yet the at the forefront of the skeptic movement. The fact that he has such high status amongst skeptics is the most obvious indicator of skeptic credibility.

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

    Defend you champion if you can 😉

  93. Dave Kennedy says:

    oops, punch line diminished 😦

    “Defend your champion if you can!”

  94. farmerbraun says:

    Dave, in my view , anyone who says that “the science is settled”- any science-, and refuses to permit discussion , is not just an idiot, but also a would- be fascist dictator.
    Nobody is likely to mistake Gareth for a scientist because the scientific method is anathema to him. And he makes that clear through his actions.

  95. farmerbraun says:

    It just occurred to me that Gareth may be a supporter of the Green Party.
    Do you know?

  96. farmerbraun says:

    Dave it continues to amaze me that you seem unaware that argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad vericundiam , are both logical fallacies.
    Surely you can do better than to trot these out ad nauseam.

  97. tom hunter says:

    a strong Government response using multiple strategies … a well planned transition ….

    I used to hear Muldoon saying the same thing about the 1979 Oil Crisis.

    Will.

    Never.

    Get.

    The.

    Point.

  98. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, this discussion is becoming a little repetitive, nothing is necessarily settled in science but an overwhelming consensus is the closest there is. Even the laws of gravity have been found proved wanting in some situations apparently. It is just when skeptics form such a tiny part of the total climate science research streams, and much of what they present has been found wanting though peer reviews, it is clear where the balance of opinion should rest. It is your choice to support the outliers rather than the majority but for me, the odds that 97% of scientists are correct are pretty high.

    Like Tracey has inadvertently done before, you have ironically supported my argument. AWG is hardly a fallacious premise (argumentum ad populumas) it has come about through decades of research and peer reviews to reach a logical conclusion. I have linked to the history of the research before. The first theories were presented over 100 years ago and broad consensus was achieved in the 80s. Amusingly you also refer to the use of authority figures to support an argument from outside their field (argumentum ad vericundiam) and this is clearly what the Heartland Institute do all the time, wheeling out aged scientists who are held in some regard for their past work to argue against something they have no connection with. Poor old David Bellamy was the saddest example of this after having supported AGW in the 90s he admitted that he based his change of heart on Singer’s writings and not any wider reading. Singer himself gets wheeled out of retirement as a ‘scientist’ to support numerous industries under attack from real science.

    Tom, I guess in ten years time (or possibly even less) one of us will be saying “i told you so”. Are you a betting man? 😉

  99. tom hunter says:

    Are you a betting man?

    Against governments executing multiple strategies as part of a well planned transition, especially in a complex environment?

    Every time.

    And it’s worked out well for me so far.

    By contrast I’m aware of, and in some cases personally know, plenty of poor, sad bastards who bet the other way: Club of Rome fanatics from the 1970’s, supporters of Think Big, fervent Labour voters circa 1984-87, Tony Blair supporters a decade later, Chavez boosters, Iraq War supporters, Peak Oil doomsters, Obama supporters now, ….. the list is endless.

    In effect, my actions (or to you, lack of actions) represent a far greater bet than anything you might propose. And unlike such a bet, I’m all in.

  100. TraceyS says:

    “Like Tracey has inadvertently done before, you have ironically supported my argument.”

    Dave, it is so sad that you consider it to be ironic when someone supports your argument (whether deliberate or not doesn’t matter).

    “AGW is hardly a fallacious premise (argumentum ad populumas*) it has come about through decades of research and peer reviews to reach a logical conclusion. I have linked to the history of the research before. The first theories were presented over 100 years ago and broad consensus was achieved in the 80s.

    Be careful of giving too much weight to the bold bits, Dave (there is a name for doing this). The number of years’ research, the extent of peer reviews, the consensus, when first theories arose, the logical appeal: all irrelevant to truth which exists independent of any of these.

    Ironically, what looks to be logical is not always so (and vice versa). I am not sure you accept that when you struggle to see that a phenomenon (eg. me supporting your case) could possibly be true – just because it doesn’t appear logical to you (that I would do that). Therefore you attribute my apparent support to a silly mistake. But actually it is you who is mistaken.

    * I don’t think that AGW can be argumentum ad populum for the reason that, globally, it isn’t a widely held belief (when it certainly is a global matter): See http://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-the-world-thinks-of-climate-change-2015-7:

    “Four in 10 adults throughout the world have never heard of climate change.”

  101. farmerbraun says:

    Dave all that I have ever argued is that AGW can be neither proved , nor disproved at this time. This depends neither on authority , nor consensus, which you say are critical to your stated position.

    No amount of authority or consensus can change the state of the science, right?

    The fact is that we do not know whether of not AGW exists. There is no empirical evidence that leads to a conclusion , either way.

    That is the present state of the science , and that is all that I am saying.

  102. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E, Interesting link, one of the superseded theories listed is the idea that there may be an ice free arctic sea and yet it says:
    “Nevertheless, scientific studies in the 2000s of climate change project that by the end of the 21st century, the annual summer withdrawal of the polar ice cap could expose large areas of the Arctic Ocean as open water, and an ice-free Arctic is possible before 2015 due to Arctic shrinkage. Although the North Pole itself could potentially remain ice-covered in winter, a navigable seasonal sea passage from Europe to the Pacific could develop along the north coast of Asia. Cases of an ice free North Pole have already been discovered.[1]”

    Tom, it appears that you are betting on the defeatist view that man will do do little to meet the climate threat rather than the existence of the threat. You also failed to recognise the success of collective actions to save the ozone layer. Even if NZ was one of a few countries that moved more rapidly to a low carbon economy, the economic benefits would be substantial according to Pure Advantage, who include some of NZs most successful and innovative business people.

    Tracey, your logic never ceases to amaze me. You appear to be saying it is possibly more logical to support the illogical and I am ignoring the logic that the illogical may be logical if one accepts that what may be illogical could very well be logical although odds that that it will be, are logically low. I think I will take a more logical approach to the science, thanks 😉

    “The fact is that we do not know whether of not AGW exists. There is no empirical evidence that leads to a conclusion , either way.”

    FB, I will pass you on to NASA so that you can have that argument with them. The likelihood that AGW is real is supported by a huge mass of pretty convincing evidence. The weight of evidence supporting the skeptic view is very, very miniscule. To ignore this fact would be very unwise.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Here is the Heartland Institute’s position (note blatant support of the fossil fuel industry that funds it):
    https://www.heartland.org/issues/environment

  103. farmerbraun says:

    ” The weight of evidence supporting the skeptic view is very, very miniscule”

    Blatant falsehood Dave , and you know it.
    The sceptical view is that natural variation explains everything that we see in climate, and that AGW is unproven. There is no empirical evidence to the contrary.

    Miniscule , indeed. 🙂

  104. Dave Kennedy says:

    FB, I suggest you join the Heartland Institute in challenging NASA about their body of empirical evidence supporting AGW, there does appear to be a heap of it.

    The Heartland Institute is described by the Economist as “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

    You will note that Heartland’s 2015 goals are not based around an honest pursuit of truth but just to fight against the science consensus (on behalf of their funders) and includes:
    “Defend and recognize Dr. Willie Soon and other brave scientists who challenge unscientific claims that global warming is a crisis”

    This seems very much like a denier approach rather than honest skepticism.

    Whereas NASA’s mission is to:
    “Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth”

    I really struggle to understand why intelligent people are so supportive of the Heartland Institute and its agenda when it is so clearly not a principled organisation and is so obviously corrupted by those funding it. But I guess a number of you support Tracey’s logic when approaching science 😉

  105. Gravedodger says:

    Sheesh People, Ele will have to change the post title To;

    “Sunday July 26th Post”

    I did note One commenter thought he might be repeating hisself.

    As one who uses recent comments as an alert system this thread will become confusing in a couple of days.

  106. TraceyS says:

    I said:

    “Ironically, what looks to be logical is not always so (and vice versa).”

    Dave interpreted:

    “You appear to be saying it is possibly more logical to support the illogical…”

    Where did I say that or anything like “more” logical to support the illogical…? I didn’t even use the word “support” or anything similar in meaning.

    “…what may be illogical could very well be logical although odds that that it will be, are logically low. I think I will take a more logical approach to the science…”

    What may look illogical may well turn out to be logical when tested. But you can’t determine the “odds” of anything purely by how something appears. Does Spacetime seem logical to you? If nothing which seemed illogical had ever been investigated then we’d surely have whole branches of science that would be missing.

  107. Dave Kennedy says:

    Gravedodger, I have noticed that as soon as ‘climate change’ is mentioned there is a sudden flurry of intense activity. This is the umpteenth discussion on this topic and I think all contributors are guilty of repetition. However from my perspective I have worked out through reading all the links provided to me that there is a common denominator to most of them, the Heartland Institute. I have realised through this useful discussion (for me) that this is the mothership for all denialists and skeptics. This is concerning because it is a rather dishonest and compromised organisation.

  108. TraceyS says:

    I will stick with my approach; of wide-eyed, open-minded curiosity when it comes to science. As is my right heaven forbid that should ever change.

    Thanks

    🙂

  109. Dave Kennedy says:

    Sorry Tracey I was deliberately winding you up because it did sound funny. However, because AGW has been tested through several decades of science, testing the logical and illogical, the weight of evidence must mean something? Putting too much effort and time into outliers delays the useful work that may make more of a difference. Don’t put too much energy into supporting the illogical, it may have value as you say, but the odds are against it.

  110. tom hunter says:

    Whereas NASA’s mission is to:
    “Drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth”

    I always love it when non-scientific people – that is people who’ve never taken much interest in the subject, as opposed to politics or literature for example – start pontificating about things like NASA. “They landed a man on the moon – very precisely” was my favourite from some old hippie twit on Kiwiblog a few years ago.

    For those of us who actually have followed NASA over the decades it has been to observe a slow, sad descent from the heights of the Apollo program to the shabby depths of scrabbling around the corners of the US government for anything that might get them a bit of extra funding. AGW is one of those things. Ever read the comments of the scientist who was James Hensen’s boss? For all the crap about him being muzzled they

    The shuttle was the classic camel-is-a-horse-designed-by-committee product, which actually ended up costing more per flight than the Apollo missions – and that just to get to LEO rather than the moon – while destroying 1/5 of the fleet and killing fourteen astronauts. Their project to replace it crashed and burned in budget overruns and schedule delays until the Obama administration mercifully killed it. Right now their big thing is the SLS (Space Launch System), a rocket bigger than the Saturn 5 which is also behind schedule and over-budget, as well as having no missions planned, let alone funded for it. But it provides jobs in key districts, hence it’s more common name around the space traps: the Senate Launch System.

    I already mentioned how they got the cost figures completely wrong in assessing Elon Musk’s Falcon rocket series – wrong as in five-ten times off the actual costs.

    As I pointed out earlier, this has all happened in the area where NASA are supposed to be the experts.

    The SLS is corruption, Dave, just not the type so easily understood as cash under the table. The process has been corrupted. You think that somehow the AGW stuff escapes that – with all the juicy billions involved with tax revenue for politicians, and subsidies for renewable energy companies, as well as all the shiny-assed bureaucrats required for planning, conferences, rules, regulations and their enforcement? That’s not a gigantic, vested interest? Nobody should be suspicious of it?

    …. but just to fight against the science consensus (on behalf of their funders)

    And what’s wrong with that? That their “funders” have a vested interest – as opposed to the pure and unsullied nature of envronmentalists, or NASA? Tell me again how ordinary tax deductions are counted as “subsidies” for the fossil fuel industry – I love that one.

    I well recall the “scientists” trotted out by your ilk in the 1970’s and 1980’s to fight against nuclear power: they had PhD’s – but not in nuclear physics or power – they weren’t experts, and they sure as hell were not part of the consensus around the overall safety and advantages of nuclear power. But that mattered not one whit to the Greens of the day: those folks were trotted out on a regular basis to scream their heads off about the terrible dangers of nuclear power.

    That’s corruption.

    It worked too, at least up until recently. It’s funny to reflect that if the US nuclear program had been able to proceed as planned in the 1970’s the issue of US CO2 emissions would not even arise today. Thus do the utopians of the past blow themselves up in the future.

    Similarly, as explained by one scientist several years ago, getting government funding for a scientific study on squirrels will struggle – but a study of squirrels as affected by AGW? That’s cold, hard cash, just as with NASA’s SLS.

    That’s corruption too.

    Funny how you’re so keen on science now that you’ve found something that aligns with your ideological beliefs. Funnier still that you’d project that trait right back on to your opponents.

    Your’e not fooling anybody, you know.

    The opposition to what you want to do about AGW is playing from the rulebook you wrote. Diddums. Still, I’m glad to see you and the Greens are concerned with corruption: I’m sure you’ll be all over it – at least when laid at the feet of your ideological opponents.

    Good to see the principles on display.

  111. tom hunter says:

    STUFF DROPS OUT

    …. Ever read the comments of the scientist who was James Hensen’s boss? For all the crap about him being muzzled he had a ton of stuff put out in the media and what they (NASA) were actually pissed off about was that he was making statements that – as his PhD-equipped, climate scientist boss noted – could not be supported scientifically at the time.

  112. farmerbraun says:

    Contrary to your assertion Dave, I have never mentioned the Heartland Institute, and I know next to nothing about it.
    It seems that you are now reduced to conspiracy theorising, whereas I have only delineated the science position, which you seem unable to grasp.

  113. tom hunter says:

    My favorite conspiracy is the one claiming that fossil fuel companies have to lobby against the likes of the Greens – when their real support comes from the billions of consumers around the world who buy petrol, oil, gas and coal every single day.

    Now that’s a conspiracy that’s going to be tough to beat. Maybe the Greens can re-issue a paraphrased version of an old rap album from the 1990’s:

    It Takes A Planet of Billions to Hold Us Back

  114. TraceyS says:

    “Putting too much effort and time into outliers delays the useful work that may make more of a difference. Don’t put too much energy into supporting the illogical…”

    You’re saying that the research of the good scientists I previously cited is “illogical”?

    Goodness me you are on shaky ground. There is no way that you can categorise these studies as illogical whether they are “outliers” or not. Many a project which expands into new and unfamiliar territory might initially be considered as an outlier. How can it not be until it stands the test of time? This has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with expanding frontiers; which is exactly what science should do.

    I suspect that what you really mean when you say that they are illogical is that you don’t like them.

    For that I cannot help. You have your head stuck in a hole.

  115. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tom, you have successfully pointed out how politics can corrupt science and as you have clearly pointed out the scientists working within NASA have been subjected to heaps of politics over the years. The financial management of any Government Funded entity in the US is open to corruption and the worst probably occurred during the Iraq war and Cheney’s mates made a real financial killing with that one.

    You are right to point out my over enthusiastic support of NASA as though it was a perfectly functioning entity. It certainly isn’t. Even the Royal Society has it share of politics and worthy scientists have been treated badly by it in the past.

    You are also right to point out that scientists have been exploited by environmentalists too, I won’t attempt to argue with that either.

    What I will say, however, is that communities of scientists do tend to have ethical standards that do help keep the worst of human vices in check. The Climate change work of NASA, the Royal Society and even the IPCC is largely conducted in an ethical and honest way and peer reviewing is likely to be robust too. In the same way the Soviet Union was able to build aeroplanes and rockets that were largely safe and functional says much about the way that scientists and engineers operate within corrupt environments. I trust them before politicians any day.

    Anything that I have read about NASA’s reaction to Hansen’s statements in 2005 is actually about the organisation’s fear of Government reprisals than the truth of his words (they were politically concerning rather than scientifically concerning). Interestingly now that AGW is more widely supported what Hansen said is largely being repeated on their website.

    Despite what you have point out, this is still about the institutions and communities of scientists that we can have the most trust in. If we don’t accept the science as presented by NASA, and all the rest of the national scientific institutions in the world, who presents the other view? It is the Heartland Institute…it’s no choice really.

  116. TraceyS says:

    “Contrary to your assertion Dave, I have never mentioned the Heartland Institute, and I know next to nothing about it.”

    Neither have I farmerbraun at 4:00pm. Nor have I posted any link which originates from, or has any association, with it.

    But we are fair game because we don’t agree with all that Dave says.

  117. farmerbraun says:

    Albert Einstein was a very prominent outlier.
    The consensus was against him , but , as he observed, it would take only one person to prove him wrong.

  118. farmerbraun says:

    Dave there are thousands of scientists all over the world presenting the contrary evidence, and most of them are not paid by anybody.
    You badly need to get over this reverence that you display for anyone calling themselves a climate scientist.
    The discipline is known in scientific circles as climatology.
    The credibility of the Green Party depends in no small part on its disavowal of the AGW religion, and its subsequent embracing of the scientific method.
    You can believe me: I’ve been an organic farmer for nearly forty years 🙂

  119. Mr E says:

    “Cases of an ice free North Pole have already been discovered.[1]”

    Let us follow the link – we find this comment.

    “But other scientists are less sure. They say movements in polar ice regularly create gaps in the ice cap – including at the North Pole itself. ”

    We also find this “The ice was so thin that sunlight could penetrate it. When the ship reached the pole, water lapped at its bow.”

    So there was controversy as to whether the ice issue were abnormal.

    And this from another article. ‘It was totally unexpected’ said Dr James McCarthy, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and co-leader of a group working for the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    So a scientist for the IPCC didn’t expect ice to be thinner. Back in 2000?. Denier…..

    Even more fascinating is when you look at the monitoring of Artic Ice in Aug 2000 or even for the entire year, you see that the Artic ices was very close to the average – well within 2 Stdev. I think it would be hard to conclude that it was anything but average (1981-2010). And it is easy to conclude that during the period leading up to and including Aug, there was far less ice in 1995 and 1990. That’s according to NASA data. So who is telling the truth, I wonder? The IPCC scientist, or NASA?

    Follow the link and click on the 2000 year.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

  120. farmerbraun says:

    Dave says:-” this is still about the institutions and communities of scientists that we can have the most trust in.”

    O.K. now I understand. Your position is not one that I could ever adopt (in case you hadn’t noticed).

    I like to read both sides of the story and reach my own conclusions; when new evidence emerges I may change my position.
    But I almost never trust what the respective sides of the argument tells me is the truth. I don’t trust anyone and rely only on the data.
    So I guess we don’t need to talk about this any more [unless it is a political question 🙂 ]

  121. JC says:

    I’ve just seen the results of a recent Green party survey of it’s paid up members..

    The first question was to answer yes or no to..

    “Which NZ political party is most likely to save the country from an impending environmental tragedy?”

    30% of party members replied to the question and 95% of these voted the Green Party.

    In the second question respondents were asked..

    “Which other political parties could assist the Greens in this quest”?

    50% of respondents mentioned other parties.

    The survey designers were not too happy with this second response so they excluded all party members who were not Green MPs, party officials and those whose income wasn’t primarily derived from saving the planet.

    The final result showed a 97% consensus that only the Green party could save NZ from an impending environmental tragedy.

    (Coming soon, a similar survey on social issues).
    JC

  122. JC says:

    FB, yes, its what inspired my post.

    I had a good look at it yesterday and didn’t like some of the stuff I saw.

    For starters John Cook is involved which blights it very badly. Also, although the questions look fair enough the methodology and scoring system looks too contrived. The authors originally posted the survey last year and came to different conclusions then with some tweaking came up with differences this year.

    The conclusions reported by Breitbart above come from a different source (Fabius Maximus) so at this stage I’ll just watch the scene go by and see how it goes.

    But the big fault I see at the moment is really outlined in my post above.. its drawing from a narrow and shallow pool of scientists mostly dependent for its income from Government for what was considered an obscure part of the science world. Take climate out of their CV and you’re left with an embarrassingly small number of achievers, and regardless.. no statistical power.

    JC

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: