Taking drops from the ocean

A new report by the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) says oceans could rise by a metre this century if we don’t stop emitting huge amounts of carbon and methane.

Around 95% of New Zealand’s rivers flow into the sea.

If we had a considerable increase in water storage and irrigation would that make a difference or would that be so insignificant that it would just be taking drops from the ocean?

While we’re on the topic of climate change, (via Kiwiblog),  fracking is good for the environment:

. . . As a nation, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 2 percent from last year. Over the past 14 years, our carbon emissions are down more than 10 percent. On a per-unit-of-GDP basis, U.S. carbon emissions are down by closer to 20 percent.

Even more stunning: We’ve reduced our carbon emissions more than virtually any other nation in the world, including most of Europe.

How can this be? We never ratified the Kyoto Treaty. We never adopted a national cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax, as so many of the sanctimonious Europeans have done.

The answer isn’t that the EPA has regulated CO2 out of the economy. With strict emission standards, the EPA surely has started to strangle our domestic industries, such as coal, and our electric utilities. But that’s not the big story here.

The primary reason carbon emissions are falling is because of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking. . .

Yet those of a dark green persuasion are strongly opposed to fracking.

Fracking technology for shale oil and gas drilling is supposed to be evil. Some states have outlawed it. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have come out against it in recent weeks. Schoolchildren have been bombarded with green propaganda about all the catastrophic consequences of fracking.

They are mostly lies. Fracking is simply a new way to get at America’s vast storehouse of tens of trillions of dollars worth of shale oil and gas that lies beneath us, coast to coast — from California to upstate New York. Fracking produces massive amounts of natural gas, and, as a consequence, natural gas prices have fallen in the past decade from above $8 per million BTUs to closer to $2 this year — a 75 percent reduction — due to the spike in domestic supplies.

This free fall in prices means that America is using far more natural gas for heating and electricity and much less coal.

Here is how the International Energy Agency put it: “In the United States, (carbon) emissions declined by 2 percent, as a large switch from coal to natural gas use in electricity generation took place.” . . .

Science and technology have achieved far more than politics and emotion.

64 Responses to Taking drops from the ocean

  1. Andrei says:

    A new report by the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) says oceans could rise by a metre this century if we don’t stop emitting huge amounts of carbon and methane.

    Note the weasel word “could”

    While this conceivably “could” happen it is extremely unlikely

    Measuring the change is sea level is a far more difficult task than it seems and the estimates of the rate that it is rising are so imprecise as to lie withing the margin of error

    The oceans cover 2/3 of the planets surface Ele – do you have any concept of the volume of water it would take to raise the oceans by a meter? Approximately 360 million cubic Kilometers!

    The Antarctic continent is gaining ice not loosing it so where is all this water going to come from?

    And where is the energy required to change the state of water from its current solid (frozen) condition into its liquid form going to come from? And the energy required is not insignificant either – about 1000 years worth of the total of solar energy that reaches the Earths surface

    This claim is a nonsense

  2. JC says:

    Here is NZ’s 115 year record of sea level rise starting from 1900, its about 16cm per century or about 1.6mm per year.

    We are now being asked to believe that starting from sometime in the next 84 years the sea will rise at least five times the rate of the last 100 years and the temp increase will be nearly double the rate estimated by the IPCC mid range projections.

    A charitable explanation for these “expert” projections would be they are fools.

    JC

  3. Andrei says:

    Here is NZ’s 115 year record of sea level rise starting from 1900, its about 16cm per century or about 1.6mm per year.

    Even that number is very uncertain JC – not carved in stone

    See we measure the sea level against the “geoid” which is a hypothetical surface of constant gravitation and which is neither spherical nor aligned with the earths surface – did you know for example that sea level on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal is 20 cm higher than on the Atlantic side – if the Canal was “level” there would be a constant current through it from Pacific to Atlantic

    To make matters trickier some land is subsiding (Southern England is sinking for example) and of course as we know due to the tidal influences of the Moon and Sun the sea level changes on a bi daily basis and the amount of this change varies through the month (Spring and Neap Tides) and the pattern of tides never repeats because sometimes the moon is closer to the Earth and likewise the Sun and vice a versa – when the Sun is at perihelion and the moon at perigee and this coincides with a full moon we get a very high (spring) tide and if this also coincides with a storm surge we get big troubles along the coast

    That’s life on planet Earth though – Chaos Theory rules

  4. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, what you say about the Antarctic is largely correct but at the same time sea levels are still rising and ice melt from other areas is contributing to this. It also doesn’t mean that high levels of ice melt will not occur in Antarctica in the next decades as air and sea temperatures continue to rise.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-antarctica-losing-ice-or-gaining-it/

    Fracking can never be seen as a climate solution. It has made the US more energy independent and effectively lowered the cost of oil but it still adds considerably to climate change, especially when you consider the gas leakage from the process.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/natural-gas-leaks-methane-environment
    And an Industry view:
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/fracking-gas-leaks-no-worse-than-at-conventional-wells/

    I think that there is misinformation from both sides of the fracking argument, however even the most moderate, evidence based industry view acknowledges the climate effects of fracking.

    The issues around earthquakes and water contamination are real too, but the extent of that is debated from both sides.

    Ele, I’m sure there would be advantages of using or retaining more of our fresh water before it hits the sea but it also depends on the environmental value of fully functioning river systems and coastal marine environments that depend on a fresh/seawater mix.

  5. Bulaman says:

    Hi,
    I think this is based on the expansion of water with increased temperature rather than melt water.
    Increasing from 10 degrees to 15 degrees gives an expansion of .0004 times the volume of water 1* 10^24 litres expands the volume occupied by “a lot”!

  6. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, I would be interested in your scientific basis for calling sea level experts “fools”. Your personal background and expertise must provide some basis for that?

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

  7. Will says:

    I would be interested in a detailed explanation of how taxes are supposed to prevent the sea from rising.

  8. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, I guess it depends if you think reducing carbon emissions will make a difference or not. If you don’t believe in man made climate change then there is little we can do. If you agree that our emissions are accelerating because of our activities then a financial incentive to shift to clean renewables will make a difference (and slow the sea level rise).

    Where a carbon tax has been used it has found to actually provide a wider economic advantage:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/b-c-s-carbon-tax-shift-works

  9. Will says:

    British Columbia again? This is where your contribution to saving the planet is a tax cut at my expense right?

    My hero. But to pay for it I have to find a way to increase production. It would be more effective to just ban farming. How about I just shout you a case of plonk and we call it quits.

    “And Noah he often said to his wife,
    when he sat down to dine.
    I don’t care where the water goes,
    If it doesn’t get into the wine.”

  10. JC says:

    I omitted the source of my historic sea level rise..

    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/preparing-coastal-change-guide-local-government-new-zealand/part-one

    It will be relatively easy to see if we get a meter rise in the next 84 years to the end of the century, ie, the rise has to increase from the current level of 1.6mm per year to 11.9mm per year every year.. a seven fold increase.. any year less than that simply increases the annual target.

    JC

  11. Andrei says:

    Andrei, what you say about the Antarctic is largely correct but at the same time sea levels are still rising and ice melt from other areas is contributing to this.

    Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Glacial a mere 12,000 years ago Dave Kennedy

    12,000 years is a mere blip in geological time but an immense length of time on the time scale of a human life

    And here is the thing that scientific illiterates such as yourself cannot grasp changes in climate and sea level and stuff that happen over the course of multiple human generations are not fucking problems because we have ample time to adapt as a species to the new realities – Duh

    And I have nothing but contempt for people such as yourself who squander our time and money and energy on this crap while ignoring the real world problems that assail mankind today and go unaddressed

    And while our politicians are only too happy to run with this issue because it increases their power while the fruits of their “policies” will not be revealed to be hopelessly useless until long after our Grand Children are long dead and buried

    There a children in this world living in conditions that a New Zealand Farmer would be prosecuted for if he kept his pigs in that state and yet you witter on and on about a sea level rise that is barely fucking detectable – as if it mattered

    You are beyond help mate – and the political party you support are a bunch of disgraceful troughers living comfortably off the New Zealand taxpayer’s back and contributing nothing, absolutely nothing to the welfare of humanity

    Disgraceful

  12. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, many countries use carbon taxes:
    http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf

    One would hope if the tax changes behaviour as in BC (there are numerous reviews of its success, which is why i link to it) and we will all benefit from its existence. The amount of money involved would actually be less than dairy price fluctuations.

    JC, sea level rise is already having an impact on low lying areas around NZ. I guess time will provide the real evidence of stupidity😉
    http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/whats-on/2gp/natural-hazards-phase/climate-change/climate-change-adaptation-harbourside-and-south-city

    Andrei, in reference to past times you forget that the impacts will be different this time round (it involves people’s lives as well) and the speed of current climate change is widely accepted as the fault of humanity.

    Sea level rise and climate change is already having an impact on the poorest communities in the world.
    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/03/03/climate-change-affects-poorest-developing-countries

  13. Dave Kennedy says:

    JC, you also need to talk to the “fools” in our Royal Society who have recently published research on rising sea levels in NZ.

  14. Andrei says:

    Andrei, in reference to past times you forget that the impacts will be different this time round (it involves people’s lives as well) and the speed of current climate change is widely accepted as the fault of humanity.

    You stupid brainwashed dolt Dave Kennedy – the climate is always changing.

    The amount by which it has changed over the course of the last 100 years is actually very difficult measure because it is so minute, so tiny

    But that does not stop political charlatans from selling foolish sheep such as yourself a bill of goods

    You are being scammed friend – the climate is changing and there is not a politician alive and can do a fucking thing to stop it happening and even if they could it would probably not be a good idea to do so – the cure might be worse than the disease, as they say

    There are a few hundred dead in Ecuador tonight and no politician or scientist predicted that event.

    And do you know what would have ameliorated that catastrophe?

    Good buildings designed to cope with large seismic events.

    And do you know what it takes to erect such buildings?

    Steel (the making of which releases the dreaded CO₂) , concrete (the making of which releases the dreaded CO₂) and large machinery powered by fossil fuels ( which release the dreaded CO₂)

    And if you want to feed the people and provide them with clean water so they don’t get water born diseases you need to build irrigation systems and water supplies and sewerage systems all of which which require Steel (the making of which releases the dreaded CO₂) , concrete (the making of which releases the dreaded CO₂) and large machinery powered by fossil fuels ( which release the dreaded CO₂)

    There is much work to be done Dave Kennedy – climate change politics is a diversion from this and an impediment to getting it done

  15. Andrei says:

    You know Dave Kennedy tonight on the State owned propaganda channel’s “news” program they had the story about this sea level rise thing – replete with film of storm surges and houses teetering on the edge of eroded cliff tops – One New is worse than Pravda in the glory days of the Soviet Union and that’s a fact

    Our coasts are formed by erosion – the rock formations are visible evidence that it has been going on for far longer than there have been people let alone fossil fuel use

    As the following parable illustrates there is nothing new about the issues facing humanity today from the weather

    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

    26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

    27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

  16. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andre, there will always be events that have natural causes and beyond our control, and then there are others where we do have some control.

    Your bible quotes describe what happens when people build their future on other than solid ground. This applies also to climate change too. Those who do not accept the science and who build their future based on flimsy perceptions and false science will clearly suffer. As you will also know from the bible, if too many ignore the truth then many will suffer.

    If you call me a brainwashed dolt then you will have to declare most Governments, the United Nations, the World Bank, the world’s science institutions, the Pope, over 90% of the world’s scientists, our Government and the IPCC all brainwashed dolts.

    http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/09/25/pope-francis-pleads-with-nations-to-act-now-on-climate-change/

    http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_what_ipcc.pdf

    You will then have to try and explain why all these institutions and highly educated individuals would all conspire to commit a massive joint fraud on the world? Some say it is a marxist plot, some say it is for financial gain (those scientists must be rolling in it), or perhaps Al Gore is the mastermind behind it all?

    You would logically then look at the institutions and individuals arguing against the majority of climate science and you will get a number of people and sites that all appear to be connected to oil companies and the Heartland Institute. In public the Oil Companies also accept that man made climate change is real:
    http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
    …but behind the scenes the biggest richest companies in the world (currently earning $500 billion a year in subsidies) are fighting for their survival.

    Don’t fall for the propaganda, Andrei, releasing millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, at a rate higher than ever before, is shifting our climate into a new reality (and faster than those other times in history that you describe) that won’t be pleasant for the following generations.

    We are currently destroying our children’s future to support our current lifestyles when we should be building a sustainable low carbon future. And you are right we will have to change how we build and power stuff.

  17. Bulaman says:

    Good idea to watch this!!

  18. Mr E says:

    ” highly educated individuals would all conspire to commit a massive joint fraud on the world?”

    Why is it that when people agree, they are conspiring? Do you think individuals can’t and don’t form their opinions independently?

    I guess that would explain the promotion of some Green policies.

    But lets call that remark for what it is – Stupid.

    I dont think that remarks like that help anyone promote climate change.

    Here is a question. What will the positive implications of climate change be?

    Anyone?

  19. Dave Kennedy says:

    “Why is it that when people agree, they are conspiring?”

    That is my point exactly Mr E! There is no conspiracy (you must have misinterpreted me), just a growing realisation that climate change is a real threat to human survival and we have the power to do something about it.

    We are just seeing a repeat of past events when the likes of the tobacco industry fought to block the dissemination of the science that would severely impact on its profits. The same scientists and organisations are fight climate science now.

    Bulaman, to ensure balance here is another video. I will leave readers here to judge which is the most convincing. It is also important to acknowledge that the scientists featured in yours represents only 3% (or less) of climate scientists, the pictorial images used for the two groups of scientists creates an illusion that the numbers are similar.

  20. Andrei says:

    That is my point exactly Mr E! There is no conspiracy (you must have misinterpreted me), just a growing realisation that climate change is a real threat to human survival and we have the power to do something about it.

    You are out of your tree Dave Kennedy – from your NASA link

    Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

    This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. – notice how this is presented as a fact without a shred of evidence or any reference

    Then the numbers themselves take the biggest figure presented 0.12 inches per year increase in sea level about 3mm

    Port Taranaki has one of the highest tidal ranges in NZ approx 4 meters between high and low tide – now what is 3mm in 4M – SFA

    In a hundred years this would be 30cm And you seriously believe this is the biggest threat facing humanity?

    You are living proof of how abysmally stupid modern Western people have become

    The sea level has been rising steadily for 12,000 years and during this time humanity has grown ever more prosperous

    One day it all will end and I promise you it will not be climate change that closes the curtain on human civilization

    The most likely candidate for that catastrophe is nuclear war and it will be politicians who have fucked up if that happens – the same politicians that you trust to stop the sea level rise

  21. Bulaman says:

    Dave, You like many lazy politicians refuse to drill down into the headlines.
    Wall Street Journal 2014

    “Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. ”

    “The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make. ”

    So 77 out of 3146 is good enough for you… Not for Me Dave,

  22. Dave Kennedy says:

    Andrei, even that supposedly small rise is hugely threatening to those living in coastal regions and with high water tables. Add spring tides and more frequent storms to that and you have 100 year disasters much more often. It is already happening. Many of the poorest people live in low lying coastal areas and the numbers of climate refugees will grow.
    eguardian.com/cities/2015/dec/01/dhaka-city-climate-refugees-reality

    Bulaman, your information is wrong, there have been numerous academic assessments of the levels of consensus to establish this figure, I would be interested to know the source of that claim.

    Here are my sources:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”

  23. Will says:

    You do like to twist things around Dave, Andrei did not claim the climate is not changing, or that erosion does not occur, nor did he suggest sea levels do not rise and fall. His point was there is not a “fucking thing” anyone can do to prevent it. Damaging our economy will not help, off-shoring industry to China is pointless and the whole climate industry does nothing but divert resources from real problems.

  24. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    What are the positive outcomes of climate change?

  25. Dave Kennedy says:

    “You do like to twist things around Dave, Andrei did not claim the climate is not changing”

    Will, I never questioned that element of his argument, however Andre claims that we are not able to do anything about it and says there are more important human tragedies to address. However climate change is already causing massive human tragedies and we can do something about it.

    And as i have shown with the British Columbia example, addressing carbon emissions won’t damage the economy and may even strengthen it. We would be in a far stronger economic position now if we had spent the last 10 years on becoming more energy efficient and less reliant on imported fuel.

    There is an article in the latest issue to show how the Government is also committing climate fraud.

    Our emissions have increased by 13% since 2008 and junk carbon credits from Eastern Europe were allowed to infest our ETS scheme so that our polluters could profit from the subsidised credits they were getting from the Government. We have now imported enough cheap credits to cover our future emissions without having to to reduce them. In Europe they have dumped the junk credits so that the market is more realsitic and the incentives exist to change behaviours. At Paris we committed to one of the lowest reductions and, even though our emissions are still increasing, we are going to cover them through a process that is clearly dishonest and not in good faith. Embarrassing😛

    “Dave, what are the positive outcomes of climate change?”

    Mr E, lots of people would probably say that warmer weather would be nice and for those who were further from the sea may like to be closer. One day we may even be able to grow tropical fruit in Southland.

    The extra warm temperatures will come at a cost and for Southland it will mean stronger winds and more intense storms. the shelter belts many dairy farmers removed may need to be grown again.

    While some climate refugees may be rich (I hear there are some shifting from other countries as they see NZ as a refuge), we will probably have to accept 1,000s of islanders who have lost their homes.

    If not enough is done we will need to enjoy the positives of climate change and anyway, it isn’t us who will really bear the brunt, it will be our children and grandchildren.

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

  26. Will says:

    Given that imported energy is pretty cheap right now, your claim seems a bit wild. I read the Stuff article, there is no evidence of fraud as no laws have been broken. I read an article recently which shows the BC economy is taking damage due to its daft carbon tax. How could it not, taxing the productive and rewarding the rest?

  27. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, read the Listener article too and I would have hoped that morality may also feature in your thinking as well as just legal, it sounds too much like the Joyce quote “we think it’s pretty legal”😉

    You do realize that there is low carbon production too and that there are trillion dollar markets for green technology and low carbon products? Please find a link to this article and see if it counters these:

    The carbon tax in BC has created a more divers economy and made it the strongest performer in Canada:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-and-the-low-loonie-1.3405933

    Green jobs are the fastest growing areas of employment in BC
    http://pwp.vpl.ca/siic/career-advice/fastest-growing-industries-green-economy/
    And again if you missed it before:
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/b-c-s-carbon-tax-shift-works

  28. Will says:

    Why don’t you just let it run for a bit? Socialist market meddling usually appears to work well at first. But slowly and surely you enter the morass. We see it again and again but some never learn. Always willing to give it one more try.

  29. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, sometimes a little “socialist meddling” in destructive markets is a necessary fact of life.😉

    Many businesses do not have a social conscience and without some controls will happily profit from something that results in ill-health or environmental destruction.

    Using your logic we wouldn’t have stopped the use of CFC’s that were destroying the ozone layer or put a tax on tobacco that was effectively killing people and costing us billions in health care. We have the same problem with our high sugar consumption that is costing us billions in dealing with obesity, type 2 diabetes and losing us productive working hours.

    The New Zealand Initiative (representing the food industry) claims that the consumption of sugar should just be personal choice and then saturates the food market with cheap, attractive high sugar foods. The majority of a dairy’s stocks are high sugar processed food and a litre of coke is cheaper than the same quantity of milk.

    A sugar tax makes perfect sense because we would then raise some money from the production and consumption of a problematic food to cover the costs of treating the health consequences. If we end up with a healthier population because of it then it is a win win. Don’t tell me that with no intervention that the market will look at restricting the sales of profitable products.

    We could try to educate kids by slipping the odd health lesson on food between maths, english, science and technology lessons (National’s solution)…but then kids will walk out off school with their pocket money and straight into the local dairy to buy the attractive energy drink that is being heavily advertised on TV. A half hour lesson every month (at the most) will not counter heavy advertising budgets, vending machines, and well stocked shops that are busy ‘dealing’ in sugar.

    If you believe that releasing too much carbon in the atmosphere is having a serious effect on our climate (obviously many of you here don’t) then, like CFCs and tobacco, we need to limit the demand and slow the production of products that release GHG.

    The fact that you use “American Thinker” as a source reveals a lot, Will. This ultra conservative site also publishes material from Fred Singer and Lord Monckton and is connected with the Heartland Institute:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

    American Thinker supports extreme views and supports white supremacist Jared Taylor.

    I am a moderate and prefer to use the likes of the Financial Post or the Economist as useful sources of economic commentary. I do think where one gets one’s information from is telling. I do not believe in conspiracy theories and rely on organisations such as the Royal Society and Nasa (I don’t believe they have been infiltrated by marxists who are out to destroy the western economy) and the most used source here as regards climate change has been a Fox News weatherman’s blog.

  30. Name Withheld says:

    sometimes a little “socialist meddling” in destructive markets is a necessary fact of life
    A sugar tax makes perfect sense
    I am a moderate

    Too funny….

  31. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, I guess if you are an avid reader of American Thinker, and such like, anything I write would appear funny. You can imagine what i think of your own contributions. I guess we provide mutual entertainment 😉

    I do note that you actively say what you don’t agree with but are rarely brave enough to share what you do support. Are you a climate skeptic and do you think that Donald Trump would make a great president? Are you happy with us allowing overseas companies profiting hugely by tapping into a New Zealand resource for free?

    (I’m not expecting replies because your contributions rarely extend beyond the above shallow hit and run comments).

  32. Will says:

    Attacking the messenger Dave? Because you don’t like what he has to say? He lives there, he knows what he is talking about, and he has data to prove his point.

    Socialist meddling is NEVER justified or effective. All these sin taxes are just another plank in the rent-seeking economy and a nail in the productive sector. Rent seeking and ticket clipping have become endemic, you have people complaining they can’t afford to eat and farmers going broke. Too much money is already being siphoned off.

    I do not read American Thinker, just tripped over the article somewhere. Although I don’t see why it should matter.

  33. Mr E says:

    I do not believe that the Greens even see how stupid their remarks can be.

    eg

    “I do not believe in conspiracy theories”

    “I don’t believe they have been infiltrated by marxists who are out to destroy the western economy”

  34. Mr E says:

    Will,
    “Although I don’t see why it should matter.”

    There is a conspiracy. Some media outlets have been infiltrated by marxists who are out to destroy the western economy.

    Why? They are marxist’s. It is what they do for giggles. Can’t you see it?

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    “I do not read American Thinker, just tripped over the article somewhere. Although I don’t see why it should matter.”

    Because context is everything, Will. If you do a Google search for a particular viewpoint then that is where those who share that view obviously come from. As you know it is easy to slant an article and manipulate data to support a an argument. As a Young Farmers debater many years ago we often had to argue views we didn’t support and we could generally construct something, with some evidence, to make a good case.

    I could easily come up with sources to support my views that come from my own party or some other similar thinking group. As much as possible i choose sources such as the Economist, Forbes, NASA or a national newspaper that has some credibility.

    I admit that I am not an economist nor a scientist (and other than Mr E-who appears to have a degree or diploma in everything) I don’t think you are either. Someone with more knowledge of the subject than me could easily present something convincing, but wrong, and I could not personally judge the veracity of it. Choosing a source that has little political influence or obvious agenda is important.

    Mr E, how about you putting your cards on the table too?😉

    Interestingly the Neo-liberal economy that has become dominant over the last 30 years is destroying itself without Marxist infiltration (although there is a conspiracy theory that communists caused the GFC). Greed and corruption and the trillions stashed away in tax havens and will destroy the global economy much faster than some little cell of Marxists somewhere.

    I think another ‘Good Grief’ is appropriate😉

  36. Name Withheld says:

    I’m not expecting replies because your contributions rarely extend beyond the above shallow hit and run comments

    Yours of course extend to exaggeration or just plain lies as I have called you on before and sent you scurrying away. So much for a “shallow hit and run”.

    Lets take one of your latest efforts eh?
    JC, sea level rise is already having an impact on low lying areas around NZ. I guess time will provide the real evidence of stupidity

    However on reading your rather breathless link we see no “impact” as you call it, but The Dunedin City Council has commissioned a report. A report!

    By the time the mean sea level has risen 0.3m above 1990 levels…
    By the time the mean sea level has risen 0.8m above 1990 levels…
    A significant amount of further work will need to be done before the Council, in conjunction with the community, will be in a position to make decisions on whether to invest in protection measures, and if so, what measures should be undertaken and who should pay for them. These decisions are unlikely to be required in the short to medium-term….
    No significant decisions are expected to be needed in the short term…
    The models and maps are based on ground level data obtained using the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technique which is assumed to have an accuracy of approximately +/- 50mm. Note, that the models and maps are indicative only. No on-ground surveying has been undertaken.

    Assumptions not “impact”. You should try and understand the difference.
    And I know comprehension is not easy for you, but take note of the assumed accuracy of the models and compare that to the levels quoted in the report.

    The real “impact” of the June flooding in Dunedin is of course not sea level rise but something much simpler.

    Dunedin flood drain tanks blocked.

    You are really not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

  37. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, The DCC may very well have decided to delay action based on their own research (they have severe budget constraints) and they can’t even ensure the systems they have got are operating properly.

    I believe our Royal Society is the authority we should be listening to and they say even a modest rise will have serious implications. I’m sure they based their recommendations on more than assumptions.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301826/sea-level-rise-threat-to-nz-coasts

    My knives are actually pretty sharp, NW, I suggest you trot away and sharpen yours😉

  38. Name Withheld says:

    My knives are actually pretty sharp, NW, I suggest you trot away and sharpen yours

    No need from where I am coming from. I’ve thrashed you regularly, as have others, without much effort.

    The DCC may very well have decided to delay action based on their own research (they have severe budget constraints) and they can’t even ensure the systems they have got are operating properly.

    So why would you post the link then?

    they have severe budget constraints
    No they don’t.

    Significant projects over the next 30 years Stormwater Projects.
    No mention of ” severe budget constraints”
    Just stop making stuff up.

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, the thrashing is from your perspective that the points you make are actually hits. Your knives aren’t getting any cut through at all😉

    South Dunedin is one of the lowest lying urban areas in the country. Currently the council has failed to even manage their sea wall let alone deal with the sort of infrastructure that will properly manage the rising sea levels described in the Royal Society report. $1.5 million is a drop in the bucket and hardly major spending in the big scheme of things (it’s just the annual salary for a 2nd level Fonterra manager).

    Also the long term plan you refer to was developed before the Royal Society research.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/363846/rising-sea-levels-thousands-homes-risk

  40. Name Withheld says:

    $1.5 million is a drop in the bucket

    What?

    A total capital expenditure of $95 million is anticipated

    You’re not very skilled at reading joined up writing, are you?

    Still no mention of “severe budget constraints”, or have you conveniently filed that in your bullshit file? To be forgotten and the subject changed to “the council has failed to even manage their sea wall”
    The “managing of the sea wall” in 2013, by the way, and its associated erosion>/b> has nothing to do with budget constraints but everything to do with incompetence in design and management.

    Warnings at the time the wall’s design was ”incompetent” had been ignored, and the project had ended up costing ratepayers $6 million, Cr Vandervis said.
    ”Every single aspect of this project has been compromised and we should have had a much harder look at responsibility way before now,” he said.

    Do try harder if your only tactic is to veer away from the subject while retaining any semblance of credibility.

  41. JC says:

    I can’t understand why the oyal Society’s predictions are accepted by DK and the Greens.. its a proven incompetent or lying organisation as has recently been exposed by the worlds greatest expert of climate change.. a man whom DK has met and given the strongest level of approval and credibility.. Prof Jim Hansen.

    Hansen and other eminent scientists recently predicted a 3 metre increase in sea levels for NZ before the end of this century…

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/simulation-shows-unavoidable-3m-auckland-sea-level-rise-q02974

    This destroys the credibility of the Royal Society and we can expect that annual sea level rise for the NZ 2016 year to be at least 35.7 mm and continue at that (minimum) level for the next 84 years.

    JC

  42. Dave Kennedy says:

    “A total capital expenditure of $95 million is anticipated

    You’re not very skilled at reading joined up writing, are you?”

    Ah, but I am NW, replacing storm water drains is just ongoing capital expenditure needed to support the existing system and maintaining the status quo. Rising sea levels and water table is under “flooding” and it only has a budget of a Fonterra Manager.

    I can lend you a proper knife sharpener, yours is obviously deficient😉

    And by the way joined up writing (cursive) disappeared with fountain pens.

    JC, what nonsense, Jim Hansen hasn’t exposed the RS as lying at all, NW can pass on my knife sharpener when he’s finished with it.

    “A study led by arguably the world’s best-known authority on climate change says a sea level rise of three metres in the next century is likely”

    Not by the end of this century IN THE NEXT CENTURY…that then spans 184 years!

    You have earned one of my Good Griefs😉

  43. Name Withheld says:

    $1.4 million has been allocated in the capital budget to enable works and design for the creation of a second stormwater trunk main for the Mason St catchment from Queens Gardens to a new proposed outfall at Cross Wharf.

    What part of that don’t you understand, Mr Kennedy? Not too many long words in it for you I hope.
    It is designed of course to “mitigate flooding”, why else would you have a stormwater trunk main? A careful reading will reveal there is no mention of “Rising sea levels and water table under flooding”, and in case you missed it again the “budget of a Fonterra Manager” refers to the capital works of one project.
    I hope that is not too hard for you to grasp.

    they have severe budget constraints
    No follow up on this bullshit statement then?
    I repeat, you should stop making stuff up, you are the only one fooled.

  44. JC says:

    “Not by the end of this century IN THE NEXT CENTURY…that then spans 184 years!”

    Actually he predicts this rise to occur within 50 to 150 years..

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

    See the abstract.

    “and (5) non-linearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years”

    JC

  45. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, You obviously don’t know Dunedin. The area that needs the most support is South Dunedin, how is a new storm water system from near the Octagon to the Wharf going to help? Stop digging.

    JC, good research, that sounds about right and isn’t too far away from the Royal Society’s predictions. Many scientists feel it is possible that the sea level rise will be over a metre by the end of this century. Even if it is half of that it will be catastrophic if we aren’t prepared.

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

  46. Name Withheld says:

    NW, You obviously don’t know Dunedin.

    I don’t have to know Dunedin.
    Nor is the argument about “how is a new storm water system from near the Octagon to the Wharf going to help”
    It is all about your bullshit statements and your slithering away from them by trying to change the subject when confronted.
    You have just done it again with your pathetic diversion on “support for south Dunedin”.

    they have severe budget constraints

    No follow up on this bullshit statement then?

    Game, set and match, I think.
    Thank you linesmen.
    Thank you ball boys.

  47. Dave Kennedy says:

    NW, attempts to pretend that you know what you are talking about keep crashing around your ears. The severe budget restraints come from the huge debt from building the Forsyth Barr Stadium and this has hampered the council as they try to get the debt levels down to something more manageable. Their improved rating from Standard and Poors is based on a commitment to heavy debt repayment over the 10 years or so which limits what they can spend on new projects.

    “The council’s new financial officer Grant McKenzie said today that councillors would consider savings from severe council belt-tightening over the past year for repaying debt accrued by Forsyth Barr Stadium’s management company Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10029151/Stadium-could-cost-Dunedin-ratepayers-millions

    My use of the word “severe” was actually a direct quote from numerous reports.

    I think you are going to have to apologise to the ball boys and linesmen for blowing the whistle too early😉

  48. Name Withheld says:

    You are the perfect example why one should not attempt arguing with a leftie.

    I called you on this statement…

    JC, sea level rise is already having an “impact” on low lying areas around NZ. I guess time will provide the real evidence of stupidity

    Simple one would think, when you provided a link that had absolutely nothing to do with “impact”.

    Where did you go then?
    Lets see…..
    Delayed action because of budget constraints.
    South Dunedin and its sea wall.
    The Forsyth Barr Stadium.

    Pathetic, just pathetic, Mr Kennedy.
    Just like a rat when cornered.

  49. TraceyS says:

    “As a Young Farmers debater many years ago we often had to argue views we didn’t support and we could generally construct something, with some evidence, to make a good case.”

    So here’s a challenge for my fellow moderate:

    To construct a case which argues against rapid, catastrophic, and anthropogenically induced climate change. You can choose whether it makes a stronger case to argue for zero human influence vs moderate (non-catastrophic) human influence – or somewhere on that continuum.

    There is plenty of solid, peer reviewed, research available in the academic literature written by experts credible in their fields. So I don’t imagine this to be a difficult exercise. No need to rely on political or media/magazine type reports.

    If you do a convincing job then I will take up your inevitable counter-challenge to argue the opposite.

    Will you accept my challenge, Dave?

  50. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oh dear, NW, those blunt knives are really busy. If it is now “impact” you want…

    “As council workers mop up on Wellington’s South Coast after yesterday’s storm, Wellington mayor Celia Wade-Brown warns it could be the new normal for parts of the capital.”

    “Ms Wade-Brown said despite efforts to improve sea walls, planting and strengthening dunes, some stretches of road were already being undercut.”

    “She said it was a matter of how long such coastal roads lasted when similar storm surges were likely to become more frequent and preventative measures could be taken.”

    I have even ensured that there are pictures to help you in this link:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/276281/storm-surges-new-normal,-says-mayor

  51. TraceyS says:

    NW – what it has to do with “impact” is that it is a response to the impact of about 150mm sea level rise since 1900. While some areas of the coast might not be sensitive to this, others are. When I am at St Clair Esplanade – which is quite often – I do try and imagine how far the sea would naturally come in if it were not for the sea wall. My daughter loves standing at the railing with the spray in her face. But this also indicates how much of a hard time the sea wall gets. It is difficult to see how this is going to improve. I believe that any increase in sea level is only going to assist the sea in taking back its natural territory.

  52. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, I will accept your challenge to the extent that i am happy to explain how I would do it:

    if was to argue the other side I would have to resort to the same as others have here. There are a small handful of scientist skeptics to use, a few with current research, but most are retired and elderly. As you would know, winning a debate is more around tactics and presenting something that sounds good to dupe the judges and audience into believing you are right. Bending the truth is a big part of it too if you have the less credible side to argue.

    In actual fact there are very few examples of peer reviewed science that counters the dominant view regarding climate science. My earlier link showed the the number of research papers published that support a similar conclusion is overwhelming. This means that only around 3% of research takes a different view. I’m sure you could find some and there may even be hundreds of such papers that don’t support man made climate change, but that must be seen in relation to hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed work that says otherwise.

    “The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”

    The point of your challenge was to establish that there are opposing views to mainstream climate theory, of course there are. However if a Government was trying to establish a climate plan or strategy (our Government actually doesn’t have one yet-unless you can find a link to it) then you would assess all the research and see where the bulk of it sits. The 97% consensus should be compelling.

  53. TraceyS says:

    “…I will accept your challenge to the extent that i am happy to explain how I would do it…”

    That’s a different challenge – not the one I posed.

    If you do not accept the challenge then the thing to do is to say “I do not accept the challenge”. I am reminded of one of those annoying people who, in meetings, tries to trump a motion put by another before it’s even had the chance to be voted in or out. Very poor form.

    “As you would know, winning a debate is more around tactics and presenting something that sounds good to dupe the judges and audience into believing you are right. Bending the truth is a big part of it too if you have the less credible side to argue.”

    Dave, I bet you didn’t win many debates where you went in with the mindset that your audience and judges were completely dense!

    “The point of your challenge was to establish that there are opposing views to mainstream climate theory…”

    I don’t recall stating my point. However, that doesn’t give you the license to invent one.

    My point was to broaden minds. Both of the debaters and of the audience.

    I am sorry that you have such a dismal view of debate and indeed, perhaps, human nature. It must be as painful for you as it is illuminating for the rest of us.

  54. Paranormal says:

    For some reality rather than DK’s once over lightly, dismiss the opposition to his religion as deniers and only a small minority, approach. Here’s what science actually says: https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1054440531265469/

  55. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, you are being disingenuous, your intentions were clear and my response was more than reasonable. I also find it highly objectionable when you miss-quote me. I never implied that the judges and audience were dense. When you are arguing something that needs research, or is highly technical, then there is no way that the audience can know the veracity of your claims. This is what Lord Monckton relies on all the time. He sounds very credible and uses known research to support his arguments and only scientist working in the field can easily see the flaws. Which they do extremely easily:
    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

    If I was wrong in my assumption regarding your intention, please explain why you made the challenge in the first place😉

    Paranormal, you are so gullible. Just because a random You Tube video claims it is what “the scientists” are saying it doesn’t mean it reflects the reality. I dealt with this earlier in the thread. Here is one of the comments beneath the video that exposes the truth:

    “To be fair, that man has been working for the oil lobby for a while now. Lindzen has been saying since 2009, at least publicly, that the reason his peers believe in climate change is because they want more attention and more funding. Meanwhile, we know from Harpers that, in 1995, he charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services,” his trip to testify before Senate in 1991 was paid for by Western Fuels, and his speech “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus”was co-written by OPEC. ”

    That particular scientist has 0 credibility and huge conflicts of interest.

    Good grief!😉

  56. Will says:

    Professor Lindzen’s expertise is sought precisely because he has so much credibility, would he be able to charge fees like that without it?

    AGW is merely a hypothesis, you need evidence to call it a theory.

    So bored with this stupid topic.

  57. Dave Kennedy says:

    Will, Professor Lindzen is sought because he is one of the few scientists who will speak in favour of the oil industry. I’m sure they will spend bucketsful to get any scientist to that. Fred Singer was snapped up and paid handsomely despite the fact he is now elderly and does little research:
    http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_s_fred_singer

    The thousands of research papers that I have have been referenced in past links make up a huge body of evidence. AGW was a hypothesis over one hundred years ago, it has been a theory for over 60 years and has received more than 75% consensus since the 1980s.

    “So bored with this stupid topic.”

    I think that is the very reaction that the fossil fuel industry wish to achieve.😉

  58. TraceyS says:

    Oh dear, Dave, a simple little challenge that you can’t (or won’t) participate in has gotten you all bothered.

    “…your intentions were clear…”

    Please do feel free to quote where, from your perspective, I made clear my intentions.

    “I never implied that the judges and audience were dense.”

    I wrote: “Dave, I bet you didn’t win many debates where you went in with the mindset that your audience and judges were completely dense!”

    All you needed to say was that you never went into a debate where you “duped” the judges and audience (if you never did that is).

    Being influenced is not being duped. But I figure that for some people it goes like this: when I agree with the judgment, the judges were convinced and when I don’t, they were duped.

    “my response was more than reasonable”

    I never commented on it’s reasonability or otherwise. I only judged your response on its alignment with the challenge put to you.

    “If I was wrong in my assumption regarding your intention, please explain why you made the challenge in the first place.”

    I already did but here it is again for you:

    “My point was to broaden minds. Both of the debaters and of the audience.”

    You know what, Dave? Just forget it. It’s too hard to get you in the room let alone progress any further.

    Shame though. I think it could have been fun and a bit different. Perhaps one of your colleagues, someone willing to step outside their comfort zone, could substitute for you?

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey…

    I am consistently putting a case for the importance of recognizing and acting on mainstream climate science and now you want me to argue the other side too?

    That can only mean that you respect my ability to present strong arguments and because those defending the handful of climate skeptics are struggling you obviously believe I could put a stronger case for the other side by employing my debating skills.

    It would be entertaining to see me debating myself but as the evidence and arguments are now so clearly favouring one side it is quite likely that this will never actually be chosen as a serious debating topic in the future. It would be a little like arguing for and a against the idea that the Earth is a sphere rather than flat, you could only do it for laughs.

    And I’m still chuckling about Paranormal believing his video represented scientists.

    Despite the comedy this is actually a fair representation of the reality, enjoy😉

  60. Paranormal says:

    Typical DK, attack the messenger because you can’t address the message.

    Lets deal with some more facts then. The climate record shows that CO2 has followed warming in the past. We have had CO2 increase over a third in the past 20 years and yet the global temperature has flatlined. Boom, hypothesis blown.

    Carry on if you will but the public have moved on. Thankfully the more you carry on the more you alienate people from Green politics. Please be my guest to continue here and elsewhere.

  61. Mr E says:

    “As you would know, winning a debate is more around tactics and presenting something that sounds good to dupe the judges and audience into believing you are right. Bending the truth is a big part of it too if you have the less credible side to argue.”

    That explains
    A
    LOT!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: