by frog
Last nights Back Benchers TV show featured “young guns” from the youth wings of the political parties.
It covered a whole range of stuff including drinking, bread, provocation, student loans and using a brothel for the Olympics.
Zachary Dorner, our youth co-convenor did an excellent job of representing the Greens and telling it like it is.
“While John Key has been touring the Pacific. Environment Minister Nick Smith has been touring the country asking the public what target should be set for emissions reductions for 2020. At the meetings I’ve been to the overwhelming call has been for 40% below 1990 levels because that’s what’s based on the best science to make sure our climate is stable. Let’s hope Nick Smith listens to the public because it’s a completely achievable target and it’s exactly what we need to do.”
Truth to power. The future is Green.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, July 16th, 2009
Tags: climate change, drinking, folate, green party, new zealand, provocation, student loans
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Zack was awesome I’d love to see him in Parliament some day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is achievable in a world without politicians and bankers. I don’t reckon it is so easy in the real world.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Future is Green
Is that a pun?
“Zack was awesome I’d love to see him in Parliament some day”.
Is he in the Bradford camp or the green camp?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jh,
From memory he is passionate about both environmental and social issues. Hes not all greenwashed like so many that claim that though and is genuie in his concerns, and actions, for the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought he came across well, he’s got the Peter Dunne factor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big hair?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or maybe a pompous disposition?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>because that’s what’s based on the best science to make sure our climate is stable
No, it isn’t.
Same (fact free) songsheet, I see….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK BP… what is your prescription for the planet? I want to hear how you’re going to allocate effort around the task of getting the increase under control and hopefully keeping it below the threshold where the feedbacks kick in and we lose control entirely.
I already pointed out the science behind the 40%. Your complaint is empty unless you want to insist that everyone who posts includes all those same links to scientific papers and analysis.
It’d make this a dull and boring place.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aren’t all songsheets fact free?
Just lyrics and musical notes is how I remember them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bp’s prescription for the planet (adapted from the Three Musketeers)
All for one and one for one!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The IPCC say 25%-to 40%, so why charge straight to the top end, especially in a country that won’t make any difference? That is the talk of activists and ideologues banging away at a cause.
The IPCC are too political to be taken with anything but a grain of salt. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but their pronouncements aren’t purely about science. Too institutional.
Some people asked me who I would be prepared to listen to. I gave that some thought, and I’m prepared to listen to the scientists in Gareth Morgans book. Hand picked, and put through a scientific – as opposed to political – debate.
I think it’s a good idea to pollute less. I think the figures, like 40% and 2021, are politically motivated and arbitrary. I think we still have a lot of watching and learning to do. I think the world is warming, and we should put our efforts into adaption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
waiting….watching…hoping… Adaptation!!..that’s the call!!
How will you adapt Peter? (Real question) Will your efforts to adapt involve others? Your neighbours? Our neighbours in the Pacific (low lying, some of those islands!) How about the Australians, likely to dehydrate big-time, if the scientists are correct, will you make room for some of those refugees at your place? How about the plants in our alpine areas threatened by rising temperatures and all of the insects and birds that will fail, should the temperatures increase even slightly – will you be willing and able to assist them to adapt? Or is yours the ‘build a bunker and store provisions for yourself’ kind of adapt?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Depends on that temperature range.
Human beings have tolerated the average range, as predicted by the scientists I’m referring to. Some humans would move locations, just like we’ve always done. Some will die. Some will be better off. How on earth did we survive the medieval warm period? We’ve been around for a few hundred thousand years. We’re quite hardy.
If the temperature range is at the top end of the scale (6% plus), there is probably nothing we can do. We’re already toast. But I don’t think we are, from the conclusions I’ve seen.
No need to panic, or make Goldman Sachs any richer than they already are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
6 degrees plus…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Big hair?
Or maybe a pompous disposition?
………..
Or sure of his ground and a good delivery. I wonder what the worm would say about some $170,000 p.a MP’s?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
> How on earth did we survive the medieval warm period?
The same way people in Europe and eastern North America are coping at the moment. The Medieval Warm Period only affected those parts of the world, and the temperatures it led to in thoes areas were actually slightly cooler than they’re getting now. One of the advantages humans had in coping with that is that they were already evolved to cope with hotter temperatures in other parts of the world – an advantage people don’t have in response to warming in the tropics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or as Jeanette once said (paraphrasing), Peter speaks the common sense of people on $200k pa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The IPCC say 25%-to 40%, so why charge straight to the top end, especially in a country that won’t make any difference? That is the talk of activists and ideologues banging away at a cause.
We discussed this already. Are you making like RR or do you think I am going to forget.
First: that was 2 years ago.. since then we’ve been watching all the expectations of the IPCC as to trends being exceeded by the measurements.
Second: the sooner the better. Avoiding the feedbacks is probable if we kept temperature < 2 degrees… however, THAT is largely regarded as almost impossible. Now we are in the range of 2-3 degrees, the peak temperature we hit is reduced the sooner and harder we start. The danger is increased the higher we go, but the risk isn’t linearly increasing.
Third: I linked to Hansens paper in the long thread on targets. I’ll bring that link and another over here.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/07/02/0905232106.full.pdf+html
Fourth: I AM religious, but it isn’t a commonly recognized religion except among engineers. I worship the supreme God of all, the malevolent Murphy. Going for the minimum leaves you in negative slack as soon as something slips.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t support Peter Dunne he spoke up for the tobacco industry once which makes me suspicious of his funding sources; I was comparing Zachary Dorner’s ability to answer questions with Peter Dunne and his ability with the worm. As I commented the worm would need recalibrating for some of our list MP’s :sneer:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought Florence was much better, articulate and fun. For those of us who were there, Zack’s message got lost because of poor articulation. He might be clearer when you see it on TV as they use directional microphones to cut the noise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Or as Jeanette once said (paraphrasing), Peter speaks the common sense of people on $200k pa
Strange argument for any politician to make, given that all of them are on high wages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not interested in IPCC measurements, BJ. They are a politically-motivated organisation under the UN. I discount them in the same way you discount Bushs advisors, and for the same reason.
They might be right, but they’re outliers. I’m interested in the middle, which is where the truth may lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How on earth did we survive the medieval warm period? We’ve been around for a few hundred thousand years. We’re quite hardy.
.. and those folks in medieval times grew their own food pretty much within 40 KM of where it got eaten. They didn’t have big cities, fancy infrastructures and gadgets from the other side of the planet.
Their one-horsepower conveyances weren’t so common that everyone had one.
The changes up to now, like the changes during the MWP, simply are not all that bad. Changes like what are expected at plus 3 and up, those get nasty. Remember, at plus three there isn’t any polar sea ice in summer, and the ocean is about 25 meters deeper. Storms and rain patterns change a lot. Spain & Italy start to turn arid. They didn’t get close to that.
We will.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not convinced by anyone exhibiting certainty about this matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strange argument for any politician to make, given that all of them are on high wages.
I thought it would be obvious that Peter’s common sense wasn’t really so common as he thinks. Jeanette just attempted to fine a demographic for him. It also should be obvious that he speaks to a different demographic than Jeanette does, perhaps with the slightest of overlaps.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
> I’m not interested in IPCC measurements, BJ. They are a politically-motivated organisation under the UN. I discount them in the same way you discount Bushs advisors, and for the same reason.
No they’re not, they were established to bring together a wide range of scientists from a wide range of disciplines, and including both those who were concerned about climate chnage and those who were not. This was done because Margaret Thatcher was concerned about global warming and the other major world leaders were not, so they agreed to a cumbersome process for bringing together a broad range of scientists to investigate to see whether she was right or the others were. By 2002 it had become clear to the entire IPCC that global warming was real and serious, after which climate change denial groups started claiming that the IPCC membership had been chosen for their belief in climate chnage, which was never true.
Because the IPCC is made up of such a wide range of scientists, its ‘consensus’ statements are actually a compromise that is roughly midway between the most optimistic predictions and the most pessimistic predictions. As usual, the climate change deniers try to tell us otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said:
I’m not convinced by anyone exhibiting certainty about this matter.
You sound certain about that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps Peter, Jeanette was recognising that your commonsense is equivalent to that of many politicians – Hide, Garrett, Douglas, Dunne et al.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is BluePeter Peter Dunne? Because otherwise, I doubt Jeanette Fitzsimons was talking about him at all.
I must say, I had never considered the possibility that BluePeter was Peter Dunne.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, there is political manipulation too. It happens at the reporting stage and is always to tone down what the scientists really want to say. Countries like the US haven’t exactly been talking up the risks of climate change so far this century. For the Bush administration to sign off on an IPCC report must have involved some very interesting discussions indeed. The question becomes not how much to discount IPCC findings, but what the multiplier should be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>You sound certain about that.
Heh heh. I am certain there is too much certainty.
kahikatea,
I’m sure many of the scientists within the organisation are noble, but when lead authors are critising the level of political influence, you’ve got a credibility problem. For all the good intentions, I simply do not trust the UN or their recommendations.
This is a question of science.
So no one has read Gareth’s book, then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – sounds as though you’ve found a climate hero to cite and refer to. How about a precise? (leaving your own ideology at the door)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Human beings have tolerated the average range, as predicted by the scientists I’m referring to. Some humans would move locations, just like we’ve always done. Some will die. Some will be better off. How on earth did we survive the medieval warm period? We’ve been around for a few hundred thousand years. We’re quite hardy.”
I think you’re understating the disruptions that are going to take place due to climate change and their effects on humanity.
This is what happened due to the last great climatic fluctuations during the Middle Age Warm period that you talked about.
“Around 950 A.D. Tiwanaku disappeared. Furthermore, several other cultures flourished and mysteriously perished prior to the Incas. What happened?
The pre-Incan cultures were decimated by abrupt climate change.”
http://drreese.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/climate-change-decimated-pre-i ncan-civilizations-2/
http://drreese.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/lessons-from-the-medieval-warm -period/
Yes there has been periodic climate fluctuations in Earth’s history in fact it has been argued that the development of human civilization is the response of human societies seeking to adapt their social structures a changing environment, but the effects of past fluctuations will undoubtably pale in comparison to anthropogenic climate change.
“There is widespread evidence that climatic and environmental stress played a major role in the emergence of early civilizations, and that aridification in particular acted as a trigger for increased social complexity associated with urbanization and state formation,” says Brooks.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/culture_weather.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What’s a “precise”? A summary?
btw, it’s not Gareth pretending to be a scientist. What he has done is selected the top scientists on both sides of the debate, put them in a room together, and had them critique each others positions until the arguments dried up. He paid them out of his own pocket. Cost a few million in fees, so I’m told.
By doing it this way, he’s gets a lot of the funding issues and politcs out of the way.
The findings:
The climate is naturally changeable
Average sea and surface temperatures have been rising
It looks as though there is a link between c02 and temperature
significant warming would be a disaster
seawater is absorbing less c02
the rate and scale of warming looks fishy in recent time scales (rapid)
the pattern of warming looks fishy
the climate should actually be cooling, but it isn’t
c02 rise is not tightly co-related to temperature rise
temperature rise always preceeds c02 rise
it is possible to accept AGW and differ markedly with the IPCC
the debate isn’t over
because
clouds are really very interesting, and we don’t know much about them
the alarmists are closest to right, more so than skepdics
policy makers have huge responsibilities – don’t spend too much having no effect – that will cost lives
do not be held ransom by myopic activists
cost/benefit analysis is called for (which I’m always banging on about)
more science funding to reduce uncertainty (IPCC range too wide, models hopeless for predictive purposes)
It’s only $40.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter
I actually don’t buy many books except for the kids. I have to get them from the library on the rare occasions I can get THERE. No room in the house for more real books.
Have you considered that politicians have been ignoring AND SUPPRESSING the science in the USA for 16 fncking years while things have gotten worse? The scientists are scared, they are privately predicting that not enough will be done -for political reasons- and that the result can be billions of people dying because once it starts it really isn’t stoppable. Scientists stayed apolitical for years and liars triumphed in the halls of Congress. Valis made the point that the only way the Bush administration signed off on the IPCC report was by having things taken out of it. I heard about some of that, and it was not pretty.
Did you read the Monbiot link?
The certainty is that the risk is large. The unknowns seem mostly to be working against us, and like I said, I worship Murphy.
If you reckon the IPCC numbers were high… apparently due to politics, how do you reconcile this with the fact that the numbers they used have been low with respect to the actual research results that we have obtained since?
You object to the scientists getting political? What else are they supposed to do? THEY are quite certain… 90% or better… that we are scrooing the pooch big time. THEY know who is lying about the science and where. There STILL hasn’t been a return of Earth studies to the NASA mission statement… that was yanked by the Bushco. The “inflammatory” statements had to be pulled from the IPCC report. The POLITICAL administration censored their statements and rewrote their conclusions. You have no idea how p!ssed off they are. How p!ssed off I am.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I meant precis-e, an electronic summary, to be precise, or, to precis, I spelled it wrong
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
None so blind as those who will not see…
Who said that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Most here would agree with the conclusions of the book, I’m sure. If there’s a less biased, better researched source, then let’s hear it (no, not the flippin’ IPCC!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter says: “Some humans would move locations, just like we’ve always done. Some will die.” A supreme sort of waka jumping, perhaps? Not very generous to the parts of the biosphere or human sphere that have no freedom to leap out of the hotpot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps you should give all your money to a village in Africa? They’re dying without it, you know.
The point is that natural climate change kills some people, and benefits others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps you should give all your money to a village in Africa? They’re dying without it, you know.
Perhaps I do… it’s none of your concern. Certainly I’m entitled to highlight the callousness of the perspective you’ve provided. I’m sure many people are willing to accept the restrictions and diminished living standards required to contribute to the solutions. I also realise that the good luck of being a NZer doesn’t expunge our responsibilities for less fortunate others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>many people are willing to accept the restrictions and diminished living standards required to contribute to the solutions.
You’re assuming that self-sacrifice solves the problem.
>>callousness of the perspective you’ve provided
Mother Nature. She is cruel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The nature has its own way of getting back to the people. I believe that “Green” advocates should be supported to protect the environment and prolong mother nature’s life. – http://www.naturalhomerugs.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That was a precis –
Thanks.
The problem BP is that you are asserting that if everyone pulls together it will NOT solve the problem, and there is not evidence to support THAT view wither.
( I am guessing I WILL buy his book at this point. I looked for it a few days ago and didn’t see it. Wishart’s baloney was prominently featured but his was not. THAT is the problem we face and part of the reason that the scientists are starting to become “excitable”).
The problem is that if AGW is correct, then action must be taken and taken promptly. The sooner the better.
ACTION being taken is a political issue.
“You don’t use a hammer to crack a nut” – well if the nut probably (90% sure) contains an alien life form that can consume you and everyone you love – the biggest hammer you can find or a smallish nuclear device would be appropriate…. quickly before it cracks open by itself.
Scientists are excitable about the fact that action is NOT being taken. They see the risks and regard the cost-benefit analysis done so far as pretty much, complete bnllsh!t (The risks included are almost completely out of line with what they foresee as almost certainly happening).
temperature rise always preceeds c02 rise
I missed this. If he has accepted it as a rule then he is mistaken. If you said “preceeded” however, this sentence would be correct. Which did HE say?
clouds are really very interesting,
Yes, but the last time we had even THIS much CO2 the temperature was stable 3 degrees warmer and there was no summer sea-ice at either pole, and the oceans were 25 meters higher. That tells us that the use of H2O as a feedback in the models is, if not perfectly well understood, a good match to the reality ( Instead of Spencer’s theory that it magically turns from a positive feedback to a negative feedback now, when it has not been through the past mmm… 33 degrees of known greenhouse effect).
policy makers have huge responsibilities – don’t spend too much having no effect – that will cost lives do not be held ransom by myopic activist
Problem is that spending nothing is guaranteed to have no effect, and that has a 90% + chance of costing MANY lives. For many scientists the research results have taken on a distinct sense of inevitability.
We (Greens) have banged on about using a revenue neutral tax for ages. We got Cap & Betrayed instead. This has to do with politics as usual and Goldman-Sacks-the-Planet. It isn’t our first choice. When setting targets, we offered at Kyoto a gradual return to 1990 levels to start with, and even THAT was not done (for political reasons). HAD it be done we wouldn’t be looking at the far deeper cuts that are needed now.
All this inaction is politically motivated, most of the debate is politically and financially motivated ON THE DENIAL SIDE. Read Monbiot’s link. The science remains science but the scientists are human and many of them are scared sh!tle55 by what THEY are now even more certain is happening.
We are what we are because we’ve been pushed into opposition and activism by lies and inaction that have their sources in Exxon and the Tobacco industry, NOT in science. The trumpeting of Spencer’s work on clouds is their doing. Past climates do not agree with his theories.
The problems we have coming at us within the next century can be addressed by:
A. A massive global effort which may yet fail to even start.
B. CATS ( a tenth or less the price of choice A ) .
… and nobody has really been serious about CATS since Lockheed-Martin and others managed to kill it. Remember that in the USA, the big aerospace money goes to firms whose business models rely on expensive expendable launchers. NASA wants CATS but the corporations are not selling it.
Congress doesn’t want it because they’re wholly owned by the corporations and banks. The more money is wasted somehow the bigger cut they get.
Environmentalists don’t want it because it is another “techno-fix” and they DO tend to a certain myopia about such things.
The atmospheric scientists don’t consider it properly because it doesn’t address THEIR field.
It addresses the global and immediate problem.
——————————————
So I have made my suggestions and will make them to a few more places, as I am wont to do, and maybe CATS will get picked up.
However, when someone asks me about what TARGET to set for the conference I am quite clear that it has to be the most aggressive target possible, because option B is not on the table now, it is all about option A.
And solving this problem with nothing but changes to our emissions profiles is going to be damned hard.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s only $40.
For $40 I can buy enough seed to sow half an acre of ground in food crops. That’s a lot of eating and a great insurance against the kinds of events Mr Morgan is beginning to see on the horizon. I do appreciate your precis though Peter and am certainly more enarmoured of Morgan’s book than I am of the spurious ‘Air Con’ from that other snivelling fellow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter
bj said:
However, when someone asks me about what TARGET to set for the conference I am quite clear that it has to be the most aggressive target possible
It’s interesting to watch the debates unfold here on Frogblog, contrast beliefs, look for clarity of thought and play, ’spot the ideology’.
You say you are ideology-free. Often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I haven’t read AirCon, and have no intention of doing so. I’m not interested in polemics/ideology on this issue.
It really is a question of science. And a very complex one, at that.
>>You say you are ideology-free. Often.
Claiming no ideology is an ideology. Again, a problem of definitions. What I’m referring to is the clearly defined ideology of on warmist and denier.
I’m neither. I’m a layman trying to determine which part of the scientific debate I need to listen to. I still don’t know, but I’m getting closer.
That’s my ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – as you close in on the truth of the matter of climate change (as you are now), your political ideology is going to undergo a sea change. It’ll be exciting to watch!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Im certainly more enarmoured of Morgan’s book
I’m sure you’d like it.
It moves from my position, which is essentially “I really don’t understand this”, to “the warmists are more right than the skeptics”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Warmists’ is too gentle a term. It’s not warmth that’s coming,
by the pricking of my thumbs…
hubble, bubble, toil and trouble…
etc, etc…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The question of whether I should spend $40 to confirm what I already know arises though. I am not entirely a layman in this area.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because you know more about it that I, I suspect that you might be able to pinpoint any problems with the book, BJ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t want to spend your money for you bj, but I have to agree. Since Morgan’s book will likely play an important role in the education of NZers on this issue for a while, it seems essential for those like you who can really engage in this debate to understand what it says and how it says it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK… I’ll get a copy.
One day I’d like to go into a bookshop and come out with change from $100
I just have so LITTLE restraint when it comes to books.
“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library” – Jorge Luis Borges
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good on ya mate. My favourite line is from a friend who referred to “the tyranny of the unread book”. So true
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah… well, it was available at “TheNile” for $35.95 and since over $50 qualifies for free shipping you can guess what I did.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well books are an investment BJ; I’m assured we have a generation aboard that ‘doesn’t read books’ – I left @ 500 books behind in Oz cos the shipping costs were feral – regret it now…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s time to write one Mark.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice one. Will be interested to hear your analysis, BJ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hullo Fly: I will if you will – one completed hmmm…an oz version of John Steinbeck’s ‘Tortilla Flat’ will give you a good idea of where that’s at – many think the great NZ novel may be Graham Billing’s “The Chambered Nautilus”. I tend to agree, though Janet Frame and “Owls Do Cry” is possibly a fair contender.
Anyway – being in A&R for most of my professsional life I know what authors get paid in NZ and Oz, and since I don’t need chump change and don’t wanna be ‘known’ any more than already, it’s on the back-burner.
However – living in the country as you do, loans itself to the pursuit of Literary activity – give it some thought – I’d like to make movies though…..(who wouldn’t). Cheers, Regards m
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hullo Mark: I have so you must – mine are serialized and contemporary
I’m a long time ‘Owls’ admirer. ‘The Edge of the Alphabet’ too.
I’ve a movie also, in fact two! They’re short and professionally filmed and maybe you’ve seen them but I’ll keep their titles close to my chest for now.
I’m building material for my one great book – it will have limited appeal, but should be useful to the survivors
I’ve read Steinbeck (natch) but not ‘Totilla Flat’. I’ll get that out rather than Gareth Morgan’s.
You have a passion for the cryptic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So FireFly – me cryptic, no…generally not – in fact oft get accused of being too straightforward – which is a compliment (long as I’m not trampling on someone’s feelings).
Zounds, but you are creative –
Am going to clock off for the mo – as it’s Friday – and leaving my computer on-line gives my friends kids a chance to grab my address book and announce my death, arrest, marriage, impecunity etc etc (have to watch them critters)….one Great Book hey??…..!!!
I’ll ask Frog to forward my e-wire and we can swap notes if you like…..sounds fascinating!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
e-wire away Mark. Hope I haven’t over stated my case
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter said: “How on earth did we survive the medieval warm period”
This just shows BP’s “White” world view.
The effects of the medieval warm period killed millions, for example they wiped out most of the Mayan’s.
Mayan civilization fell apart during the warm period 850-1300 AD, why? rain.
A couple of years ago my wife and I spent 2 weeks travelling around in Belize and Guatemala visting different Mayan sites, one that stands out is Caracol in Belize, this city probably supported 100,000 people at its height. The water for this city came from rainwater captured in large cisterns, the archeologist use the cisterns when they are onsite digging to this day, there is no other freshwater sources, many of the mayan cities were built to only harness rainwater so changes in rain fall could leave the people very hungry and very thirsty.
The population density of that part of the world 1000 years latter is still lower than when the Mayans were at the height of their civilization.
Note the above is also why I personally have a negative view on global warming and its outcome for civilization, our current civilization is too complex to cope with the changes if the Mayans civilization couldn’t adapt to save its self why are we so arrogant to think we can.
After that vacation I became very interested in perma-culture and all things green. There is nothing more eye opening to all things green than walking over the site of a dead civilization.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 – the Mayan collapse is interesting in that the rain you mention resulted in… the wide spread and irreversible loss of topsoil. More rain can sound like a good thing, but if you have begun to exploit steep land (as we have surely done here in NZ) then increasing rainfall means goodbye topsoil and when that happens it’s game over. The only cultivated places that can survive are low lands. Happy days.
I found your ‘dead civilization’ comment is hugely significant. We have already done extensive damage to our little country, but all is not lost yet…
Many other places in the world are completely scr*wed. Once the soil is gone, civilization is history.
In France, (some farmers in the past) collected soil from the lowest point of their sloping farms and transported it back to the highest, every year. Now a days, we are to clever for that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and much of their land is now referred to as ‘the mosquito coast’….land that has been chemically fertilized repeatedly suffers a structural breakdown (ie from loam to hard-pack soil), drops a metre or so in height, and rainwater tends to run off without penetrating the soil (Australia’s big problem). Something that could easily happen here.
Fly – nothing about Great Expectations here – just you’ll keep your nom-de-plume, ideas etc safe, as i will – have asked frog to pass on my eddress and hope you find time to tell me a little more
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter,
You say two things above that I agree with.
“I’m not convinced by anyone exhibiting certainty about this matter.”
and
“If the temperature range is at the top end of the scale (6% plus), there is probably nothing we can do. We’re already toast. But I don’t think we are, from the conclusions I’ve seen.”
What I don’t see is how this can lead you to the conclusions you reach.
When it comes to disasters, uncertainty is not your friend. Risks suggest you should act to mitigate them, not that you should ignore them. You’re saying that there is a real issue, and that we don’t know how bad it will be, and concluding that our response should be at lower end of what may be necessary.
Of course cost-benefit analysis is required. But every time one’s been attempted, the skeptics slam it. Stern Report, anybody?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
“What I’m referring to is the clearly defined ideology of on warmist and denier.
I’m neither. I’m a layman trying to determine which part of the scientific debate I need to listen to. I still don’t know, but I’m getting closer.
That’s my ideology.”
That’s really funny. As far as I can tell you refuse to listen to any organisation that’s already looked at the science and realised what’s going on, and were only willing to trust Gareth’s book because he started ignorant. Anyone else is “warmist”.
If someone had shown up on this blog 2 years ago posting the things you now about global warming then you, BP, would have called that someone a “warmist” and refused to believe them.
For year’s we’ve been telling you that it’s not just the IPCC claiming global warming is real. Here in NZ, try New Zealand’s academy of science, the Royal Society of New Zealand. Or our govt body devoted to the study of climate, NIWA.
Refusing to listen to anyone who has actually chosen a side in the debate isn’t being “objective” – it’s being absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark – excellent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’d like to make movies though…..(who wouldn’t)”
I thought that too, until I become involved in a production company.
Imagine an art-form in which you must organise and schedule dozens (if not hundreds) of other people, almost all of whom are essential at their critical point, and very expensive hired equipment, following an extremely tight schedule, using very large sums of money, in a very short period, in order to create your artwork which then you must sell via complex and rapacious distribution system of many middle-men in order for your art to ever be seen. I can’t now see why anyone in their right mind becomes a movie director. I’ll stick to my garret and my word-processor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter – both bjchip and icehawk have turned their all-seeing eyes on you now. I suggest you capitulate. Your resistance is futile and painful to watch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
icehawk
Is your garret dusty and dank? Is its floor littered with crushed aspirations and broken dreams? Do you sleep curled on a lumpy kapoc mattress jammed into the corner and does a streetlight shine through a grimy pane and fall gently on your balding pate, like the kiss of a muse?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I remember when I was in mid teens in the mid 90s and the global warming issue first became common knowledge there was four ways it could go:
1). We do nothing and climate change happens – disaster and rich till it happens.
2). We do something and climate change happens – disaster averted and slightly poorer.
3). We do nothing and climate change doesn’t happen – no disaster and rich.
4). We do something and climate change doesn’t happen – opps no disaster and poorer.
We know it is option 1, happening faster than we thought and with the spectre of feedbacks your typical nightmare and the argument is lets do nothing anyway and enjoy the wealth on the way down..? Or my favourite the new libertarian line, severe GW is good because think of how much our economies will benefit as we adapt…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>both bjchip and icehawk have turned their all-seeing eyes on you now
Am I supposed to be intimidated by this?
>>That’s really funny. As far as I can tell you refuse to listen to any organisation that’s already looked at the science and realised what’s going on, and were only willing to trust Gareth’s book because he started ignorant. Anyone else is “warmist”.
As you’ll see, I’m keen to see what BJ thinks of the book. I think what you mean is that I take YOUR sources with a grain of salt. I’ve explained why I’m suspicious of the IPCC. Between their politics and their failed predictive models, they have demonstrated that they’re unreliable. I don’t discount them, I’m wary of them.
For this is a question of science. I realise for Greens it’s almost entirely a question of politics.
Global warming is real.
As for catastrophic AGW, the jury is still out. That is the truth, but your politics doesn’t allow you to accept it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS: As I’ve explained, Gareth’s book isn’t Gareth’s opinion of AGW. The book is the result of hiring highly reputable scientists from *both* sides of the debate, putting them in a room together, and having them argue until they stop making sense.
If you’ve got a more balanced source, then produce it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
icehawk Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
> That’s really funny. As far as I can tell you refuse to listen to any organisation that’s already looked at the science and realised what’s going on, and were only willing to trust Gareth’s book because he started ignorant. Anyone else is “warmist”.
Of course, the IPCC started out uncertain too, though obviously not completely ignorant as it was made up of leading scientists from a range of disciplines. It’s just that they’ve had more time and person-power to gather information and work out what’s going on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter
Intimidated? No, but given pause for sober reflection…
It’s encouraging that you have found someone that you feel you can rely on, in Gareth Morgan, who has gathered together good information and opinion. Many of us found people like him long ago and have benefited from their wisdom, in the same way that you are from his.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I made a decision this morning to read Gareth’s book before reading these posts. It occurred to me that here was someone prepared to invest a large amount of his own money in the pursuit of answers to this huge question of global warming and that in itself is unusual.
The reality may be that the very best “brains” in the world are snapped up by those that can afford to put the top graduates into research programs where they may work for months or even years on middle to high salaries. Who can afford to do this and what are their interests …the saving of the planet or do they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)