Can we do 40? Yes we can.

Today the Greens produced a report showing that significant emission reductions can be made by 2020 to meet the bulk of a 40% target. This involves 36.2 million tonnes of reductions that would meet a 20% domestic reduction, much of it at little or no cost and with significant employment and environmental benefits. A further 11.8Mt purchased from overseas would hit a 40% 2020 target.

graph1

The bottom line being that significant domestic reductions ARE feasible, and a responsible 30-40% target is possible, affordable and responsible. The government has not presented any evidence themselves on what reductions are possible domestically, instead relying on costing based soley on purchases – and their misuse of evidence has been exposed. Their bubble that a responsible target is too hard and too costly has been burst. Their lack of leadership in challenging advocates of responsible targets to say how it can be done has been shown up. The Greens have shown how it can be done; something the government has been too lazy to do. The full report and media release are here.

graph2

128 thoughts on “Can we do 40? Yes we can.

  1. Yeah great work!

    I told the Minister in Dunedin that he was elected last year to govern – it was encumbant on him, with all the resources of Treasury and the small army of advisors and researchers to do the homework on what the science says is necessary -40% and not Greenpeace. All Climate Minister Smith has focused on his the economic costs based on misguided anaylsis

    It is fantastic the Greens have done this research and I commend the team for a great job

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. What is the predicted effect on the climate of such national impoverishment, given that, for the two-and-a-half billion people in India and China at least, it will be business as usual?

    ‘Desertification, drought, and despair—that’s what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear.
    Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities….”Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.
    “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said.
    “The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.’
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. That second bar on the first graph says a lot. Nick Smith keeps rabbiting on about our gross emissions and how they have increased, (which is true), but our forests have grown a lot in that time also, so our net emissions are practically at 1990 levels right now. So the starting situation isn’t as scary as it’s being made out to be.

    Is Nick Smith duplicitous, or just incompetent?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. So much could be achieved for the environment in NZ if you guys would stop prattling on about emissions and do some tree planting or ANY THING ELSE.
    Is this going to be like the smacking bill?, you get your law change and the very thing you are trying to solve continues to get worse at an ever accelerating rate?.
    At the end of the day none of this is going to translate into the NZ environment, but if you get your 40% I guess you can sit back and feel proud that “we’ve done something” while our environment continues to rot away around us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. y’know shunda..

    often..you don’t make very much sense..

    this is another of those times..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. We’ve always said it’s not just about targets, but about getting a price on carbon and taking practical leadership on emission reduction and transition to a low-carbon high-opportunity economy. And our report released today says how that can be done in practical and cost-effective ways – including tree planting. In contrast, all the government has done is prattle on about costs and ‘it’s too hard’.

    And the pretty rainbow is a wedge graph showing the contributions reductions across each sector makes to reaching the target. See the report for more detail. [I'll find the missing key and refresh the graph so it makes more sense, so thanks for pointing out it needs more explanation.]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. Wat

    Aside from a morbid curiosity about how many wrong ideas you can fit into a single post, I actually have no reason to read your blather any more.

    Since the 40% mark is one that China has identified as important for it to regard the developed nations as actually serious enough about this to make its own effort you can’t discuss how they won’t do anything.

    Since the 40% goal is one that is taken in concert with other nations, you can’t identify our fraction and say that it is worthless, since the objective is for all the developed nations to take part and aside from the US, no single one of them is going to make a big difference by itself.

    This “greening of the Sahara” is occurring in the middle of a period of the lowest solar activity in how many years? A time when your idols (and you) have claimed there “is no warming” or worse, “it is cooling”. You can’t actually argue both sides and remain credible, but that hasn’t ever stopped you before now, has it.

    Finally the “greening of the Sahara” over a few years doesn’t signify much at all in the larger scheme of things. Let us stipulate for a argument’s sake, that the process leads to the Sahara becoming less arid. Just how much can be grown in/on that sea of sand EVEN if it rains? There may well be some climate beneficiaries of a warmer planet. The losers will outnumber them. The transition to the new climate regime will destroy the economies of nations. What happens in the rest of the world?

    You can’t make much less sense Wat. It will be interesting to see you attempt it though.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. The transport section doesn’t mention conversion of some of our petrol-powered fleet to using CNG (methane), which is both locally produced (saving on imported oil) and lower carbon. It can also be manufactured from biomass.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. So much could be achieved for the environment in NZ if you guys would stop prattling on about emissions and do some tree planting or ANY THING ELSE.

    Putting aside the gross stupidity of that statement, see this from the report:

    Planting new forests

    Forests planted since 1990 will capture and store enough carbon in 2012 to cover the rise in our emissions since 1990, but this will not last. New forest planting has almost ceased in the last ten years and harvesting of those 1990 forests will cause a spike in emissions from 2016 to 2030. An aggressive planting programme, which the forest industry says will occur at a carbon price of $25/tonne and policy certainty, could smooth out that spike. There are 1.8m ha of low producing steep hill country on sheep and beef farms where this could occur profitably. Planting 10,000 ha in 2010 and 30,000 ha/yr after that would store an additional 10.9 Mt tonnes of carbon in 2020. This would be a mix of pine, exotic hardwoods and softwoods as well as some new, permanent indigenous forest.

    Look Shunda, TREES! 30,000ha per year!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Pest control in DOC forests

    If NZ signs up to article 3.4 of the Kyoto protocol we have the opportunity to control possums, goats and deer on 219,000 ha of DoC land and capture an additional 8.75 Mt. It is recognised that pests eat leaves and leaves store significant amounts of carbon; a pest-free forest is therefore another way in which we can responsibly reduce our liabilities.

    We calculate a further 2 Mt is achievable on private land.

    Sounds good for the environment, Shunda?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Agriculture

    If we reduce the average dairy stocking rate from 2.83 cows/ha to 2.3 we save 2.2 Mt while farmers are more likely to enjoy medium-term profitability as well.

    Research shows that high dairy stocking rates are only profitable at milk prices over $5.50/kg where the return pays for the input costs of urea, feed, off farm grazing and animal health. The 2008/9 payout is expected to be the 10 year average of $5.20 and only $4.55 in 09/10. We have counted just the savings that come from fewer cows. There are additional savings from lower emissions per kg of milk at lower intensity.

    We note that if the average stocking rate reduced to 2.43 the dairy industry would pay nothing under the current version of the ETS as it would be within its free allocation. Further opportunities exist to breed from cows that produce 30% less methane on the same feed as others in the herd. We have not counted this. Meanwhile, proven management tools such as diet changes and better soil drainage can reduce nitrous oxide in sheep, beef and deer farms and save 0.5 Mt.

    Less intensive dairying with fewer chemicals means cleaner rivers Shunda!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. frog,

    – “And our report released today says how that can be done in practical and cost-effective ways -”

    On the contrary, there is virtually nothing about the costs of these fundamental changes to every aspect of our lives. Entire paragraphs of incredible wish-lists go by with no mention of cost whatsoever. And then suddenly, for some small item or other, we get highly-specific numbers in dollars and cents; as if for that you’ve managed to google something on the web and chuck it in to invest the document with the veneer of credibility.

    Private companies generate comprehensive studies of costs, risks and uncertainties to justify projects of only a few million dollars; yet, for some reason, you think all you need to radically alter the country from top to bottom is a glossy pamphlet written by a student.

    Look at that video I linked to above. That really is the level of your input into this debate.

    bjchip,

    You waffled a bit there about the 40% thing, didn’t you; without actually stating that, yes, if China and India don’t sign up then this whole thing is worse than pointless.

    – “This “greening of the Sahara” is occurring in the middle of a period of the lowest solar activity in how many years? A time when your idols (and you) have claimed there “is no warming” or worse, “it is cooling”. You can’t actually argue both sides and remain credible, but that hasn’t ever stopped you before now, has it.”

    Let’s see. The article states that “Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.”

    So, you are now going to provide us with a link showing that 1982 to 2002 was indeed “the middle of a period of the lowest solar activity in how many years?” as you claim?

    And you’ll be able to point me to a posting here where I said that there was cooling between 1982 and 2002?

    Or shall we both agree that you didn’t read the article properly, and say no more about it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. A large portion of the “savings” come from forestry. Forestry is only a carbon sink for as long as the trees are growing. At some point a forest’s potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will drop off, unless more land is converted to forest. Nevertheless, I guess it can buy time, which is important,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. “Forestry is only a carbon sink for as long as the trees are growing. At some point a forest’s potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will drop off,”

    But If you allow for the use of the timber it could change things, what better place to store carbon than in buildings?
    If the forest is replanted or sustainably managed it will be a continuous carbon sink.
    Perhaps using timber instead of steel (where appropriate) will be the way of the future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. Shunda,

    You want us to do things rather than talk, which is fair enough. The problem is that there are not that many things we can do. Planting trees would be good, but the government owns most of the suitable land, not us. Reducing the generation from Huntley would be good, but the government’s SOEs own both Huntley and the coal mines. Not building gas-fired power stations would be good, but the government owns Genesis.

    The best thing we can do is to change the government’s mind, or failing that to change the government, and to do either means convincing the voting public that there are good reasons to take steps to reduce our CO2 emissions, and that it isn’t as expensive as Key, Smith and co would have us believe. (It helps that this is actually true.)

    Well-costed plans and projects would be good. The government can fund the necessary studies. Individuals and the Green Party don’t have the same resources so we and they do what we can.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Fair enough Trevor.
    I guess with the work I am involved in I can see how easy it can be to change the environment relatively quickly, but politics seems to take forever.
    One of the big issues for the NZ environment is loss of habitat, I have been involved in some native revegetation work and it is amazing the results that can be achieved in a relatively short period of time.
    This is a great way to involve the local community and schools and projects are almost always covered in the local paper. In my opinion it is these sorts of things that will change attitudes towards the environment quicker than anything else, and it is positive. People will always see shutting power stations and factories as negative, even if it is necessary.
    Don’t you think ultimate change for the better could be achieved through a more hands on approach?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Wat

    You know, for someone who hangs around here as much as you do, you surely do not seem to remember much of what I say. Maybe that’s your problem.

    I have never advocated unilateral action of this sort by NZ, except perhaps in the role of cautious leading, which is to say, to do it for a little bit watching carefully that others follow. That applies to more than China, as we also have to have agreement with our agricultural competition. Since I’ve never made a secret of it and never changed my mind about it, calling it waffles just serves to remind me that it is time for breakfast.

    I pointed out that you have claimed it is cooling NOW, which, unless my own memory is failing, you have done. Not that I keep track of every false assertion by every person who visits.

    It is quite unnecessary to worry about the accuracy of a prediction about the Sahara. It is a region where the input data about previous conditions affects the way they are modeled.

    The study contradicts past research that suggested the region dried up within a few hundred years. That research was based on windblown Saharan dust found in Atlantic Ocean sediments.

    “This was a hypothesis used by most of the modelers and many of the scientific community who were not working themselves in the Sahara,” Kröpelin said.

    When new data regarding the region is integrated with the models I have no doubt that there will be adjustments. Every correction is welcome.

    However, the utility of the remaining sand and dust there as a base for agriculture is excruciatingly limited, no matter how much water is available. Desertification has permanent effects, it isn’t just about rain.

    Furthermore, if makes no difference if you have found a place where there is a limited and likely temporary positive to the process of warming. That has always been one of the expected results. Do you ever read ANY of the science before you regurgitate stuff over here? You have no evidence except that the Holocene optimum appears to have provided different conditions than previously thought. Since warming takes us several degrees past that, those conditions may not be permanent either. Whether they are or not, the specific winners and losers in terms of economics and availability of land, are not going to be known for certain until after the event is complete, some centuries from now.

    If you think I inferred you had claimed it to be cooling since the 80’s that may be so. I certainly did not mean to say that. It does not have a lot of significance to the process Wat.

    I could have simply said “…and your point is??” because I don’t think you’ve got a conclusion to draw from this. It is simply another straw for you to clutch. “Oh look! The theory isn’t perfect! It must be wrong! ?”

    What part of the methods that science uses do you fail to understand?

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. The study contradicts past research that suggested the region dried up within a few hundred years. That research was based on windblown Saharan dust found in Atlantic Ocean sediments.

    “This was a hypothesis used by most of the modelers and many of the scientific community who were not working themselves in the Sahara,” Kröpelin said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. Shunda – I’m totally in agreement with your last post.

    Hands on involvement is good. Some people are particularly good at it. My own strengths lie elsewhere.

    Closing factories is not only seen as negative – it is negative. However that is not what the Green Party or myself are after. I don’t see much need to close any factories, although no doubt some could be redeployed.

    Closing power stations is only negative if they are not replaced by something better. The New Plymouth power station that was closed due to asbestos may not be any great loss. Even so, converting them to run on a more environmentally friendly fuel or keeping them as a reserve against dry years or other emergencies may be a more sensible option. For example, Huntley might be able to run on charcoal, to help meet winter demand.

    Keep up the good work :)

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Hands on by all means and I believe there are many Green supporters who are involved daily in that work. Calling for the Green Party to be involved in tree planting and swamp restoration is ‘cute’ but let’s not forget, they are a ‘political’ party, not a LandCare group. Politics is their business.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. then of course..there is the really glum p.o.v..

    james lovelock..(i know..!..i know..!..the nuke-thing..!..but taiho..)

    ..he’s written a new book..

    ..and is decidedly unoptimistic about what we all face..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/james-lovelock-and-the-end-times/

    “..While generally supporting their work, he is critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-supported organization of 2,000 scientists who have been studying climate change since 1989.

    He is critical of them for underestimating the severity of climate change.

    One example he uses of this failing is the forecast by the IPCC of a range of possibilities as to how much sea level would rise up to 2007.

    The forecast for the most amount of rise was less than what actually occurred.

    Another major example is what has been happening to Arctic sea ice.

    Lovelock points out that “the discrepancy is huge” between what was predicted and what has actually happened; ..

    ..“if melting continues at this rate the summer Arctic Ocean will be almost ice-free within fifteen years.

    The IPCC prediction suggests that this is unlikely before 2050.” (2)

    I was glad to see Lovelock’s comparison of our situation today to that of the late ‘30s.

    “Most of us think that something unpleasant may soon happen, but we are as confused as we were in 1938 over what form it will take ..

    .. and what to do about it.

    Our response so far is just like that before the Second World War .. an attempt to appease.

    The Kyoto agreement was uncannily like that of Munich..

    .. with politicians out to show that they do respond but in reality playing for time [much like what just happened in the House of Representatives ]. . .

    .. Battle will soon be joined..

    .. and what we now face is far more deadly than any blitzkrieg.

    By changing the environment we have unknowingly declared war on Gaia.” (3)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. Well, in the last few years I have converted almost entirely to CFL and other low energy use lighting, changed cars to a relatively fuel efficient tiddler (which has put me into debt, something I dont like) and am now teleworking at least one and often more days a week, saving me a long commute, as well as trivia like swapoping the computer monitors for LCDs. I have significantly reduced my energy consumption and thus one must assume my greenhouse gas emissions. But I doubt I’m anywhere near 40% and I’ve made what many would consider to be big changes, and changes some consider unacceptable.

    From the standpoint of someone who is actually trying to be more environmentally compatible, 40% sounds a mighty tall wall to climb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. “..Calling for the Green Party to be involved in tree planting and swamp restoration is ‘cute’ but let’s not forget, they are a ‘political’ party, not a LandCare group. Politics is their business..”

    indeed fly..!

    why then..are they so silent..on so much..?

    (answer:..’cos many/most(?) of them..

    ..in/by their ‘lifestyles’..

    ..are part of the problem..

    ..and they just can’t seem to be able to see the changes they must first make in their personal/private lives..

    ..if they hope to see/fight for..

    ..any ‘real’ solutions..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. Yes Phil

    Lovelock is the only guy I know of who can exceed my pessimism overall, and I suspect that this has something to do with his limiting himself to the planet. We can stop short of catastrophe through extra-terrestrial means. Growing out of our dependence on mother earth might be a good idea, as the alternative view (Lovelock’s) is that we are clearly getting too big for our britches and due for a whuppin.

    :-)

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. “..We can stop short of catastrophe through extra-terrestrial means..”

    um..!..how..?..

    ..and..where..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. and then of course..there is the enormous cost of such enterprises..

    ..and the evaluation/judgment..is that money/energy/expertise..

    ..better used here..?

    ..to fix what is fixable..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Phil said:

    indeed fly..!

    why then..are they so silent..on so much..?

    Phil, I think that’s because there is so much!
    My experience is that ‘greenies’ are the ones who do make noise about a lot of things and they do get out and do things. I suspect too, that most of the vegans and vegetarians that I have met are ‘greenies’ and Green Party voters. Is that not your experience too?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. ok..why then is there such silence from the greens on (without re-litigating)..

    ..so much..?

    y’know..the ‘master-plan’ tackles 7% of agricultural pollution/effects..?

    w.t.f..!

    ..and absolutely no mention of maybe stopping eating animals..

    ..would have an enormous healing-impact..

    i mean..!..i return to the core of the problem..

    ..most green mp’s eat flesh/fat/blood..wear the skins of..

    ..our main problem..

    ..as i said..

    “..w.t.f..!..”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. Phil – Why the silence?

    Fear of attracting your attention and a down-pour of well-intentioned ‘berate’ perhaps? (No offence intended).

    a decade or so of osmosis/consciousness-raising….

    ..clearly has not worked..

    Clearly. Where to from here? Wanna discuss strategy (under dry skies)?

    I’m off now, to collect scions from the emperiled orchards of our region, it’ll take all day to cover 1/4 of them, but hope to read your response when I get back Phil.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. really..such are my ‘powers’..i have ‘stilled’ the green party..from activism..

    (yeah right..!’..as they say..)

    and what to do..?

    i have a quick/short answer to that..

    ..i dunno..!

    ..they aren’t stupid/dumb..

    ..they know the ‘facts’..

    ..but are just in such a total state of denial over their flesh/fat/blood addictions..

    ..that they are frozen there/immobile/impotent..

    ..’cos of that..

    ..how to change that..?

    as i said..i dunno..!

    i have no magic wand to wave away their willfull ignorances..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. Phil

    We could have Cheap Access To Space (if we started now) by about 2014-2015. The prototypes killed by Congress and Lockheed-Martin and others were ready for assembly (parts constructed, ready for assembly) or flying. 95% complete before being stopped.

    If you have CATS you have the ability to put up whatever sort of parasol you like to limit or enhance the insolation of the planet. Which has a direct effect on the temperature, exceeding the effect of CO2.

    It is a matter of doing the engineering we are GOOD at rather than getting the international cooperation we snck so hard at.

    It would cost (comparably) next to nothing. The downside is that people WOULD burn more coal as long as it stayed cheaper than SSPS. Coal is barely cheaper than solar now? Could it stay that way? I don’t think so. Not if the cost of going to space was reduced to fairly simple functions of the energy needed to launch. The other things you get from CATS cancel most of the other environmental problems the planet has.

    There may not be a real choice in this. I don’t see us getting agreements to do as much as is necessary. Which is where I agree with Lovelock wholeheartedly. The difference is that I see a possible escape clause.

    The question is whether we will grab the brass ring.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. y’know..the ‘master-plan’ tackles 7% of agricultural pollution/effects..?
    w.t.f..!
    ..and absolutely no mention of maybe stopping eating animals..

    Well in this particular case, I’m sure it has a lot to do with wanting to actually influence the debate around our 2020 target rather than looking completely impractical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. and you’re a ‘green’..are you valis..?

    and a carnivore..?..i can presume..?

    are you aware methane from cows is 70% more toxic than exhaust fumes..

    ..but only stay in the environment for 20 years..

    ..how could there be a ‘quicker’-fix..?

    ..take the meat out of yr eye..eh..?

    your addictions are distorting your vision..

    ..blinding/blinkering you..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. Valis

    The party could suggest a program around McCartney’s “Meatless Monday” idea, strictly voluntary. I have suggested this in several places.

    It has little to do with the target chosen however, but influences a number of things around how we meet the target (avoiding the worse pun). I can imagine that there is an element of timing involved. If we bring it up right now it will look as though we’re doing exactly what everyone on the far right expects of us, trying to force people to become tree-hugging vegetarians.

    The move is a good one in its own right, but the current political environment (S59 referendum, the actual targets debate etc) is really quite hostile to such ideas from us right now. Once these have settled we might make some headway with this as a grassroots and voluntary movement. The potential impact is real enough.

    After we do Monday we can try for Thursday and then Saturday…. etc… AND it would give me some leverage with my Mother-In-Law and my Wife.
    ;-)

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. I cant see how this manifesto justifies a 40% emissions target, as it shows a purchase of 11Mt of emission credits. Surely you could use a similar manifesto with a 100% reduction target, where 85.1Mt of emissions credits are brought?

    It rather shows a cut to 22% below 1990 levels is possible.

    Don’t get me wrong though, I am backing a significant and respectable emissions reduction target for NZ.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Then my eyes hit the next part:

    along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.

    Can anyone spell hypocrisy?

    And in case you think NZPA got it wrong, the Greens own website says:
    ………
    GE are the Greens becoming pragmatists?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Fantastic work. It’s a shame the government isn’t doing this kind of thing, instead relying on rubbish like the NZIER report to argue for doing FA.

    MJA, Even if the plan relies on buying some credits, that is not a bad thing. If we want poor countries to adopt strategies to reduce emissions (or protect sinks) we need some wealth transfer from rich countries like ours as part of a global transition plan.

    But the key thing is working out how much we can do with minimal cost, as a basis to develop a more far reaching commitment. I hope this information can be spread far and wide.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. mjanderson Says:
    August 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    > I cant see how this manifesto justifies a 40% emissions target, as it shows a purchase of 11Mt of emission credits.

    It doesn’t – the 40% target comes from a scientific estimate of how much reduction is needed to avoid runaway climate change.

    What this document does is show that it is feasible, and demonstrate how it could be done.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. jh Says:
    August 5th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    > Then my eyes hit the next part:

    > along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.

    ‘genetic improvement’ does not necessarily mean germ-line genetic engineering, or the risks that come with that. Genetic imporvement of livestock has been going on through selective breeding for thousands of years before germ-line genetic engineering was invented.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. When did genetically improving become genetically engineering?

    Just asking JH. DPF has a right to opinionated ignorance. He doesn’t visit here often enough to know anything. You on the other hand, hang out here enough to know that there is a difference.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. Phil, bj, I am mostly vegetarian and do not eat beef at all. I have no problem advocating for the positions you suggest.

    It has little to do with the target chosen however, but influences a number of things around how we meet the target (avoiding the worse pun). I can imagine that there is an element of timing involved. If we bring it up right now it will look as though we’re doing exactly what everyone on the far right expects of us, trying to force people to become tree-hugging vegetarians.

    Exactly. Phil can ignore it if he wants to, but the best way to torpedo a decent target is to look extreme in one’s suggested reduction measures. We’re getting accused of this right now, despite suggesting nothing outlandish or unachievable – as even Phil has noticed from DPF, but doesn’t seem to understand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. GE are the Greens becoming pragmatists?

    Not regarding GE. DPF just doesn’t have a clue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. so valis..just ‘say nothing’..eh..?

    that is your recommended action..?

    ..not even present those..(to me) startling facts..

    ..that in twenty years..

    ..the cow-pollution cd be gone..?

    um..!..what does ‘mostly vegetarian’..mean..

    ..is it like ‘mostly virginal’..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. y’know..!..’meatless mondays’ do not a vegetarian make..eh..?

    if you eat bits of dead animals..you are a flesh/blood/fat addict/carnivore..

    how can you not be..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. We know you are pure Phil and we are not. In our impure state, we support the Green Party’s attempt with this emission reduction analysis to have an effect on a government decision being made in the next week. In our impurity, we are able to focus on that goal, regardless of the wider merits of veganism. In your purity, you would have us forgo any hope of progress on a decent emissions target for the sake of your larger goal. We’re as happy with our choice as you are with yours.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. “if you eat bits of dead animals..you are a flesh/blood/fat addict/carnivore..”

    What crap Phil, perhaps you have just become a food bigot.
    I don’t know how anyone can argue that eating Fish, sheep, whatever, is morally wrong.
    Perhaps you should read a couple of nature books Phil, and see what the real world looks like.
    Hey, why don’t you go one step further and advocate the destruction of all carnivorous animals on the planet as a CO2 reduction measure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. no valis..

    ..my complaint is that the benificial effects of de-stocking/stopping eating them..

    ..are not even aired..

    ..the elephant in the room on this issue..

    and no..i am not ‘pure’..(well i am literally..but not really..)

    ..and hey..it really isn’t so ‘weird’..to not eat animals..eh..?

    and if arguing not to kill/eat animals makes me a ‘food bigot’..?

    ..so be it..

    ..and ‘excellent’..eh bj..?

    you really do have the meat in yr eyes on this one..eh..?

    your protestations of ‘my family wont let me stop eating animals’..

    ..are a crock really..

    ..eh..?

    your ‘manufactured consent’ fr yr addictions..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Phil,
    As I said in the other thread; its politics.
    It is the same the anti-smacking bill; if the cost to our goals is greater than the benefit it offers then we have no reason to promote it.
    It may be nice to stop everyone from eating meat but ultimatly that would have no effect if the trading scheme is even fractionally decent as the emmisions would be offset and equivlent to as if they never happened save the extra cost of meat. So no benefit.
    If we aired the meat issue then it would allow our opponents to make us look even more wacky than we already appear to be and that would cost us big in the political arena and thus in our ability to promote policy. So massive cost.
    No benefit at massive cost. Who in their right mind would pursue such ends?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. When it comes to going green, people want smaller gains now, not bigger gains later
    People weigh environmental options the same way they do money

    WASHINGTON — People make environmental choices the same way they manage money, preferring smaller gains right away to bigger gains later, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

    This behavior reflects “delay discounting,” a mental filter used to make decisions about current versus future gains and losses, David Hardisty, M.Phil., and Elke Weber, Ph.D., of Columbia University, report in the August Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Just how much people downplay what would happen in the future is called the discount rate.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/apa-wic072809.php

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. Actually JH, we want bigger gains now to ease the pressure when something doesn’t quite work out. Sooner reduced the less we have to reduce, which is why the time wasted by people trying to deny the requirement is so damned costly and why people like me are so pessimistic. When people finally get it through their heads that scientists aren’t in league with the devil and certain other people ARE (owing to loss of beaches, loss of money, loss of foodstocks.. etc) they’re going to be too late. It is not even likely that the people responsible for the problems will still be alive.

    How can my children (and theirs) punish them for the “age of stupid”.
    http://www.ageofstupid.net/

    I see the Mana Greens are going to show this at the Pauhatanui theater.

    ciao
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. bjchip,

    – “I pointed out that you have claimed it is cooling NOW, which, unless my own memory is failing, you have done. Not that I keep track of every false assertion by every person who visits.”

    No, what you actually said was that ‘This “greening of the Sahara” is occurring in the middle of a period of the lowest solar activity in how many years? A time when your idols (and you) have claimed there “is no warming” or worse, “it is cooling”. You can’t actually argue both sides and remain credible, but that hasn’t ever stopped you before now, has it.’

    Of course, you’re mistakenly referring to just the last few years, because you failed to spot the sentence in the article about it actually referring to the period 1982 to 2002, and so made your patronising dismissal, including the final flourish “You can’t make much less sense Wat. It will be interesting to see you attempt it though.”

    And rather than admitting the blunder, or at least keeping quiet about it, you dig yourself in deeper by now claiming you were talking about something completely different.

    What does this tell us about your integrity?

    And by the way, who exactly are my “idols”?

    And now you tell us that “Desertification has permanent effects, it isn’t just about rain”, yet the article clearly says that ‘”The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years…They have never seen so much grazing land. Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass…Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back…The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”‘

    Still, I’m sure you’re right bj. You’re the expert after all.

    It’s probably just a mirage.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. ‘even sorts of amphibians’

    In the Sahara Desert?

    It’s a miracle wat! A miracle!

    may I brush the hem of your gown with my lips?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. greenfly,

    I’m inferring that you don’t know about desert-dwelling amphibians then.

    Now, what’s this?..

    ‘More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

    The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

    The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

    “More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

    “The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

    “Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

    “The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

    “Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.’

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. wat – I’ve been a fancier of amphibians (relax Frog, it’s a platonic thing!) since I was a young boy. I know about the Holy Cross Toad and his ilk and their adaptations etc. however, I became very excited at your news that there were significant, measurable and surprising changes occuring to our climate and thereby our ecosystems around the world. Who’d have predicted that!! Odd changes under way! Deserts receiving unprecidented rains! Tundra melting! It seems that something is afoot. Wonder what it is????

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. greenfly,

    It’s called natural climate variation.

    And don’t forget that although anthropogenic CO2 will always be too insignificant to affect climate to any significant degree, it is a plant fertiliser. It is a positive externality from burning fossil fuels.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. wat

    it isn’t the CO2 that is the natural plant fertilizer around here…

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. Wat

    Lets clear something up.

    Is the planet warming or not? Simple question. Yes or No. Not asking about causation, not arguing about religions here. Is it getting warmer?

    ++++

    And rather than admitting the blunder, or at least keeping quiet about it, you dig yourself in deeper by now claiming you were talking about something completely different.

    If you think I inferred you had claimed it to be cooling since the 80’s that may be so. I certainly did not mean to say that.

    What DO you expect Wat? You think it is important somehow that I had to correct myself? I don’t take you seriously enough to worry about everything you misinterpret Wat. I do correct myself and I accept that.

    You don’t seem to recognize when you have made an error.

    Shall I point it out again? Your far more important error? The error in thinking that the Sahara Greening is SIGNIFICANT.

    The Sahara can get all the rain it used to get and what does THAT mean to AGW? A changed boundary condition for the models. Models that already predict such conditions and changes?

    http://www.scidev.net/en/news/decades-of-drought-predicted-for-southern-africa.html

    (… and yes that link also discusses increased rainfall in the Sahara. )

    It doesn’t mean that there will be a lot of farming there very soon though.

    “Strong reductions in tropical trees and then Sahelian grassland cover allowed large-scale dust mobilization from 4300 calendar years before the present (cal yr B.P.). ”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5877/765

    The most productive part of the land has been blowing in the wind for a bit over 4000 years according to the author of the study which is behind that story.

    This possible “good thing” isn’t quite THAT good. It will take hundreds, maybe a thousand years to get that soil back to where we can really use it and people will starve to death andl abuse it before that process can complete. Instead of deserts we can expect some sort of grassland, but it would be rather ambitions to expect forests anytime soon without importing nutrients.

    The last time there was enough heat to bring monsoonal flows into the desert was the Holocene optimum, to which we are apparently returning.

    That is two degrees or so warmer than we have gotten used to. It certainly puts an end to the insanity of those folks who argue “it isn’t getting warmer”.

    The effective surface albedo can be reduced by 10% over a region where the sun shines brightest. It will release additional water vapor.
    It is a positive feedback. It will absorb additional CO2. It is a negative feedback. Which is stronger?

    It comes at a cost of reduced rainfall in southern Africa.

    http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/presse/pressemitteilungen/bluehende-landschaften-in-der-wueste.html

    It also comes at a likely cost of increased drought events in the great plains of the US.

    http://tinyurl.com/lefgwb

    ….and in the Ukraine and in Australia. Those are all expected results in terms of the 2 degrees scenario.. the return to the holocene optimum (which is IN ITSELF an unusual pattern for an interglacial).

    Unfortunately we aren’t going to stop at 2 degrees and 390 ppm not if you have anything to say about it.

    We stick with our current levels of CO2 and we have to go back almost 3 million years to find anything comparable.

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aos.princeton.edu%2FWWWPUBLIC%2Fgphlder%2Fpliopar.pdf&ei=bX55StzFLIjasQOFvcnxBA&usg=AFQjCNHqZO5nFVRtGy5F9LscmYF-SGuCRA&sig2=83nPrCOFwxKok26PrF09Ig

    http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Feducation.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Fnycri%2Fresearch%2Ffiles%2F08-GISS3.ppt&ei=bX55StzFLIjasQOFvcnxBA&usg=AFQjCNH0vXbuPvHZif–tafbOXcansd4vw&sig2=mXA17dd4fDRqbjvkKeWW2Q

    Since the ocean THEN is about 20+ meters deeper this is a pretty extreme case. Yet this is only the full effect of the 380 we have NOW, not the 450 or more that you feel you have the right to threaten our children with.
    We have gotten to this point without even using up a single tipping-point, which will (when we trip them) come ON TOP of what we have already done.

    Your favored laissez-fair policies are changing OUR planet. We didn’t agree to it, we do NOT agree to it. Your unwillingness to stem emissions constitutes a physical assault on our children. I don’t think that requiring a change of those policies to maintain the planet in something like the condition we got it, is extreme at all. When did conservative become the same as spendthrift?

    No Wat… I am not apologizing to you. I have done more work to correct your sorry understanding of the world than you deserve and you don’t hear a word but instead carp about some minor detail. Your attitude has earned you every scrap of scorn that slips through my personal filters.

    I am going to get some sleep now. I don’t get that much.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Response in moderation – too many links no doubt.

    I don’t care how many scientists line up to swear they don’t believe in religion.

    Unless and until they produce science that provides a good alternative explanation (a different theory that explains all the facts) or a falsification of this theory, they don’t have anything but an opinion. A well educated opinion, but still nothing more than an opinion.

    Which is interesting but it doesn’t influence science.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. The fact that the atmosphere column is filled with CO2 that is basically “saturated” in terms of its absorption bands (it is capable of absorbing 100% of the re0radiation from the planet) doesn’t account for the depth of the atmosphere properly, as the radiation in that band now is absorbed lower in the column… so the troposphere is warmer and the stratosphere cooler, which is what we see.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  60. One needs to notice that the closer to the earth the more the alternative modes (convection and conduction) of heat transfer and release are effective. Pure radiation analysis fails to account for everything at that lower level.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. How, in the name of Gaia, can BUYING CREDITS be seen as reducing domestic output!

    Methinks the occasional glass of somthing a little alcoholic has turned into a veritable deluge!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. That was not the point Strings. The point was that we were told it was impossible to get to 40%, too expensive because the price was set by the ideal of buying compensating credits for ALL our emissions, and just too fncking hard.

    This shows that we could do it at a price we can afford….

    …if everyone else goes along with us on this express down elevator.

    What happens if everyone decides that they aren’t going to cooperate remains to be seen. I don’t see any particular target of ours being useful once that die has been cast.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  63. Not the target perhaps, but it would still be very silly not to pursue the energy efficiency aspects, like vehicle fuel efficiency standards. Apart from fewer emissions, we need the economy to become less dependent on imported energy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  64. Valis

    Most of the measures to reduce emissions will also reduce our dependence on imported energy.

    Planting extra forests won’t decrease emissions but it will reduce our net CO2 balance and therefore our Kyoto obligations. This may mean we pay less or it may mean that other countries will end up paying us. Depending on where the target is set, the price on CO2 emissions may be much higher than currently forecast and this will make additional forestry plantings economically attractive.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  65. bjchip,

    – “Is the planet warming or not?”

    Clearly, for about a decade, it hasn’t warmed. Which is really strange, considering what we were promised.

    When it happened to be warming, we were assured (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) that this was proof of an enormous anthropogenic influence.

    But then the warming stopped dead.

    And the response of the alarmists has been very revealing.

    – “Shall I point it out again? Your far more important error? The error in thinking that the Sahara Greening is SIGNIFICANT.”

    Really? Where did I comment on its significance?

    It’s just interesting, really. In fact, I’m not at all sure why you are making such a big deal of it.

    Its relevence, though, is that an essential part of the AGW gospel is that the effects of any warming will inevitably be negative (and usually disastrous), when in fact there are good reasons to suppose that they will be mixed, and quite possibly positive on balance. But isn’t it interesting the way you rush to dismiss anything which might be construed as less than catastrophic. Clearly, only alarmist hyperbole is to be admitted here.

    – “You think it is important somehow that I had to correct myself? I don’t take you seriously enough to worry about everything you misinterpret Wat. I do correct myself and I accept that.”

    Please: you lied to cover up your embarrassment after you blundered, and you’re still doing it. I didn’t “misinterpret” anything, as you would euphemistically have it. Yet still you act the hurt and outraged innocent.

    “…Those are all expected results in terms of the 2 degrees scenario…”

    Jesus. They’re just some things you found via google, then cherry-picked and listed here. Nothing more.

    – “Your favored laissez-fair policies are changing OUR planet. We didn’t agree to it, we do NOT agree to it. Your unwillingness to stem emissions constitutes a physical assault on our children.”

    Won’t someone think of the children!

    You want to have children; another guy wants to own a 4×4. The difference between these two lifestyle choices is that your children will generate infinately more CO2 than the Landcruiser. Yet we’re not supposed to count the CO2 that results from your entirely selfish decision?

    – “I don’t care how many scientists line up to swear they don’t believe in religion. Unless and until they produce science that provides a good alternative explanation (a different theory that explains all the facts) or a falsification of this theory, they don’t have anything but an opinion. A well educated opinion, but still nothing more than an opinion.”

    Perhaps you should try your tactic of labelling them as child abusers? That should do it.

    Despite everything we know about the constantly changing climate – the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in the last few hundred years alone – your null hypothesis is that recent changes are anthropogenic unless proved otherwise. That’s not science. That’s paranoia.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  66. wat said:
    an essential part of the AGW gospel is that the effects of any warming will inevitably be negative (and usually disastrous)

    Classic wat strawman.

    AGW is human-caused global warming, i.e. on average global temperatures will increase. This will cause climate change. The effects will not be uniform. Some areas will have decreased rainfall while others will have increased rainfall. Some areas will experience decreasing temperatures but most will experience increasing temperatures. Some areas will benefit from the changes. Other areas will be harmed by the changes. On balance however the effects will be negative. Even where the changes make an area more hospitable will not necessarily benefit from the changes as the fauna and flora in those areas have adapted to the existing climate and therefore are likely to be negatively impacted by any change. However we may see pests moving into areas where they lack a natural predator, causing more problems.

    The greening of the Sahara may be only temporary and does nothing to show that AGW is not happening or that AGW is beneficial.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  67. Trevor29,

    You are being disingenuous: the nuanced case you are provoked into presenting here is decidedly different to the apocalyptic nonsense which constitutes typical alarmist propaganda.

    – “on balance however the effects will be negative.”

    An entirely unsupported assertion. The climate has always been constantly changing, but it is reasonable to believe, based on known history, that cooling is significantly the more harmful threat. The trivial and rapidly-diminishing influence of CO2 has never been anything to be concerned about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  68. Wat, now you are calling me a liar. I am SO glad your insults are getting more open. It helps expose your sophistry and dispose of your arguments.

    You are the person who brought this up. You would have us believe brought it up because it was somehow trivial?

    It is true that we SHOULD be simply ignoring everything you say. Perhaps that reminder is appropriate.

    “an essential part of the AGW gospel is that the effects of any warming will inevitably be negative (and usually disastrous)”

    Yet another strawman. I looked for a place where anyone has ever said that it would be “inevitably negative” applying that to every place on the planet. I have been through the IPCC summary and several other documents and sites. I have yet to discover it. Perhaps you would like to identify the source?

    I would have to guess that the IPCC report is “the gospel” you refer to –

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
    (Table SPM3 is fairly representative. )

    ….and while it would be fair to say that this report does not focus on anything “good” coming of it, it provides a range of results in each considered area.

    “Aggregate Impacts. Compared to the TAR, initial net market-based benefits from climate change are projected to peak at a lower magnitude of warming, while damages would be higher for larger magnitudes of warming. The net costs of impacts of increased warming are projected to increase over time.”

    What appears to have persuaded you is that we are not FOCUSING on the few places where something good might come of AGW. However, it is not the “gospel” and your version is not a statement I would support.

    I note though that the Nat. Geographic article itself “responded” to something that was not said in another Nat Geographic article it referred to and I do wonder why. That isn’t to do with you, but with the quality of the Nat. Geographic work.

    On the other hand, perhaps I am giving you too much credit.

    is decidedly different to the apocalyptic nonsense which constitutes typical alarmist propaganda.

    Since it is “typical” I am sure you have MANY examples. Please provide one of ours. I am perfectly happy to argue.

    Jesus. They’re just some things you found via google, then cherry-picked and listed here. Nothing more.

    Most humans rarely manage to get so much distance between themselves and reality without actually failing to function in society. You dismiss what you cannot answer. You want it to be nonsense and you want it to be inconsequential rather than “apocalyptic” but you cannot show me any evidence that this isn’t exactly where things are going. You may not LIKE that but reality is like that.

    If we assume that it warms by 2 degrees, what are the effects on our civilization Wat? Ask the same for 4 degrees. Suppose YOU make a list and support it with any references you can find.

    “The trivial and rapidly-diminishing influence of CO2 has never been anything to be concerned about.”

    I pointed out earlier that the greater the saturation the more of the radiation gets trapped in the troposphere, where it is subject to energy transfer by conduction and convection in addition to radiation. Any analysis of the effects of saturating the absorption bands has to deal with additional forms of heat transfer.

    I apparently didn’t sufficiently firmly make the point that the effects of the CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere have not yet been realized, and won’t be for more than a century. The last time we see 380 ppm in the paleoclimate, it was three degrees warmer, and the ocean was 25 meters higher.

    What do YOU think will happen with this level of CO2? With CO2 at 450?

    Support your assertions with some evidence that you have done more than consult your navel.

    Unlike you, I am perfectly happy if you use google. I don’t understand your problem with the information available there and I am not actually interested in your opinion.

    Should I just assert the truth as I see it without providing evidence?

    I want to read data and research papers by the people who are doing the work, so google or yahoo or whatever away.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  69. Is this another Oregon petition that wat has found?

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims

    I can only find two signatures even after following the obvious links. (I may have overlooked some links as I don’t read German.) Where are the signatures of the other 58+ scientists who supposedly have signed this letter?

    What I do see are a lot of references to articles written by the person who wrote the article linked above – Marc Morano. However there are also links to articles by Climatologist Dr Spencer and MIT Climate Scientist Lindzen. All three names (and also those of Bob Carter and Chris DeFreitas) appear here:
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists or
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Individuals
    and are linked to organisations that receive funding from ExxonMobil and that promote the “the science isn’t settled” propoganda.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  70. - “now you are calling me a liar. I am SO glad your insults are getting more open. It helps expose your sophistry and dispose of your arguments.now you are calling me a liar. I am SO glad your insults are getting more open. It helps expose your sophistry and dispose of your arguments.”

    It’s not an insult. It’s a simple statement of fact. You know it, I know it, and anyone who reads the above posts knows it. So please stop with the faux outrage; you just demean yourself further and it’s getting very boring.

    – “looked for a place where anyone has ever said that it would be “inevitably negative” applying that to every place on the planet. I have been through the IPCC summary and several other documents and sites. I have yet to discover it. Perhaps you would like to identify the source?”

    And please stop trying to be cute. Everyone is fully aware of the warmist “litany.” (or perhaps you could point us at some of the positive warming stories that have been posted on this very blog; which we would expect to see if it was presenting an objective view of the issue rather than just self-serving propaganda.)

    – “If we assume that it warms by 2 degrees, what are the effects on our civilization Wat? Ask the same for 4 degrees.”

    Or for that matter, what are the effects on our civilization of any other natural event you care to mention? The Medieval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age, for example.

    You’re like those Christians indulging in gruesome speculation about the terrible fate of those “left behind”, totally oblivious to the fact that it’s all complete cobblers.

    – “I pointed out earlier that the greater the saturation the more of the radiation gets trapped in the troposphere, where it is subject to energy transfer by conduction and convection in addition to radiation. Any analysis of the effects of saturating the absorption bands has to deal with additional forms of heat transfer.”

    You know, when you start speculating about some influence at the margin to try to salvage the theory, it’s probably time to let it go. What you’re describing is such a diminished version of the original doomsday scenario that, really, it’s all over bar the shouting.

    – “I apparently didn’t sufficiently firmly make the point that the effects of the CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere have not yet been realized, and won’t be for more than a century.”

    Catch him, someone; he’s flailing badly.

    – “What do YOU think will happen with this level of CO2? With CO2 at 450? ”

    Well, since CO2 is but a trivial contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, and its greatest impact has already been felt (because of the saturation issue), and since, based on previous warming events, we can expect negative feedbacks to prevail, I’d say that the only thing that will happen is that plants will grow a bit better because of the free fertiliser.

    – “I want to read data and research papers by the people who are doing the work, so google or yahoo or whatever away. ”

    You seem to be forgetting that you are the one pushing this theory. It is not up to me to prove that invisible pixies are not driving the climate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. Trevor,
    If I follow that link and scroll down to the bottom there is a list of the 61 signatories, plus six others plus reference to 189 concerned active citizens etc.
    By the way, I am included on these lists of people who have received funding from ExxonMobil and I never have. I can only presume that all Harkness Fellows are on the list, because the Harkness Foundation was set up by the Harkness family of Standard Oil which later morphed into Mobil. Harkness fund the New York ballet, an annual exhibition of Harkness artists at the Tate Gallery and the Fullbrights now so there are a lot of us.
    Such stupid allegations become tiresome after a while.

    In case only Macs can read the full list of signatories list here it is:

    Respectfully yours,
    Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
    Diplom-Geologe
    Universität. – GH – Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
    #
    Dr. Holger Thuß
    EIKE President
    European Institute for Climate and Energy
    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
    Signed by
    Scientists
    1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
    2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
    3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
    4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH – Environmental Services
    5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
    6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
    7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
    8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
    9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
    10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
    11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
    12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
    13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
    14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
    15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
    16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
    17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
    18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
    19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
    20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
    21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
    22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
    23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
    24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
    25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
    26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
    27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
    28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
    29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
    30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
    31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
    32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
    33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
    34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
    35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin
    36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
    37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
    38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
    Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
    39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert
    40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist
    41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter
    42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for
    Standards and Norms i.R.
    43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg
    44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH
    45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist
    46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist
    47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor
    48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist
    49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
    50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
    51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
    52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor
    53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist
    54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy
    Leipzig
    55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS
    56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
    57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
    58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
    59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
    60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
    61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  72. Trevor29,

    If you are tracking down sceptical scientists, you might want to check this out…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/

    ‘An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

    The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views…
    The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

    On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position…
    The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

    In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views…

    A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”…

    In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears…’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  73. BJ said: – “I apparently didn’t sufficiently firmly make the point that the effects of the CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere have not yet been realized, and won’t be for more than a century.”

    Wat responded: “Catch him, someone; he’s flailing badly.”

    he’s not flailing at all. It’s a well-established fact that the full warming effect of CO2 already in the atmosphere will take a while to kick in, because of the feedback loop involving water vapour.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  74. It’s a well-established fact that the full warming effect of CO2 already in the atmosphere will take a while to kick in, because of the feedback loop involving water vapour.

    The huge thermal mass which needs to respond to any changes in radiation gain also has a lot to do with the reaction time. This thermal mass includes the atmosphere, the soil, buildings, trees, etc and the upper layers of the oceans. This gives a time constant of the order of decades.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  75. Owen

    The Oregon petition was supposedly supported by a large number of scientists. However many of the scientists named disputed that they had agreed to the petition, or on the interpretation of their research results. Hence I am asking for the signatures of the scientists, not just their names.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  76. Are you running out of straws to clutch?
    Do you really think that the two writers of the letter would add those prestigious names without their consent?
    Are you not aware that the Oregon petition was freely distributed and a number of alarmists put their names to it so they could later claim they had not?
    It’s an old trick.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  77. Owen McShane Says:
    August 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    > Are you not aware that the Oregon petition was freely distributed and a number of alarmists put their names to it so they could later claim they had not?

    do you have any evidence for that claim?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  78. Wat

    I don’t really think your problem is treatable.

    Everyone is fully aware of the warmist “litany. (or perhaps you could point us at some of the positive warming stories that have been posted on this very blog; which we would expect to see if it was presenting an objective view of the issue rather than just self-serving propaganda.)”

    Bnllsh!t Wat. You said gospel, and the only thing I know of that you have ever referred to in terms of warming and gospel is the IPCC report, so I pointed at the report which DOES contain some limited “good” things and an overwhelming about of “bad” things.

    The problem is that we ARE objective. There is just damned little that is good about warming in the medium term and even less that is good about it in the long term. You would have to be certifiably insane to think that we need to meet your standard of posting “positive warming stories”. This is a blog for the Green party… and we express OUR opinions here… and we allow guests. Are you a member of the party? Are you a polite guest?

    - “If we assume that it warms by 2 degrees, what are the effects on our civilization Wat? Ask the same for 4 degrees.”

    Or for that matter, what are the effects on our civilization of any other natural event you care to mention? The Medieval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age, for example.

    You’re like those Christians indulging in gruesome speculation about the terrible fate of those “left behind”, totally oblivious to the fact that it’s all complete cobblers.

    So you don’t have an answer. I didn’t think you would.

    I do have answers about the two you specified, for our civilization as it currently stands.

    My “speculation” comes from a climate science 101 textbook. I don’t imagine you’ve ever seen one of those.

    Well, since CO2 is but a trivial contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, and its greatest impact has already been felt (because of the saturation issue), and since, based on previous warming events, we can expect negative feedbacks to prevail, I’d say that the only thing that will happen is that plants will grow a bit better because of the free fertiliser.

    That you really believe this stupidity I have no doubt. The responses you provided that precede this gem show that you have NO appreciation of the interlocking forcings, feedbacks and lags in the climate system.

    What was the paleoclimate like when we are sure we last had those levels of CO2 Wat? Do you remember? I did point you at one of those at least.

    “I want to read data and research papers by the people who are doing the work, so google or yahoo or whatever away. ”

    You seem to be forgetting that you are the one pushing this theory. It is not up to me to prove that invisible pixies are not driving the

    In other words, you haven’t got anything. Not a thing.

    All you have is your bald ASSERTION that this massive uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry and physics should continue. No control planet. No ability to even stop the experiment.

    Even though:

    We have NO way to stop it, and

    We have no other planet to go to if the experiment turns out badly.

    The scientists who actually study this regard it as likely to turn out badly.

    The experiment is very likely to deprive future generations of any chance to decide for themselves what sort of planet they will live on… and may well constitute an act of inter-generational war.

    You are asserting that some people have the right to take control of the environment of the planet and do whatever they like to it, no matter what the consequences.

    You have the nerve to tell me it is MY job to prove that the consequences MUST be bad, in violation of the conservative principle that holds whenever consequences to other people are in the balance.

    There is plenty of evidence it will indeed be bad and you can’t or won’t answer the questions.

    People with your grasp of reality are a danger to themselves and others.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  79. Owen said:
    …those presitgious names…

    And had previously posted a list, with at #5…

    Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

    … whereupon I fall about laughing.

    The letter the “German great and good” signed includes the phrase“…so-called greenhouse gas CO2… which is a very good indication that the GG&G are talking out of their posterior orifices.

    If that’s the company you wish to keep Owen, then good luck to your vanishing credibility.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  80. I don’t have much to say about the sh!tstorm of names here. What has possessed you people?

    I knew about the ACS editorial and the letters I read there didn’t actually say much at all about the science. Actually they said NOTHING at all about the science. Nor were they uniformly negative. If the ACS decides to change its policy statement that would be something else, but that isn’t what happened.

    The APS appears to be looking at their statement every year. Whether petitioned or not. They set the stage in 2007 reaffirmed in 2008. I don’t know what they will say this year until they say it, but I rather doubt that this represents any increased skepticism on their part.

    The “Oregon Petition” is one of the less reasonable attempts to do science by democracy out there. It is ignorant and ignorable. I leave it to others, though the names there probably represent a complete count of the people with any doubt about AGW and holding a degree, in the entire english speaking world.

    Science isn’t a democratic process. Skepticism isn’t “growing” but the denialists are in full cry because something MIGHT start to get done and they might actually have to start PAYING for their use of the climate commons. This does happen every time there is a threat of action actually being taken.

    What a shame. They might have to pay for what they consume. It is SO unfair to burden them with this so suddenly. Stealing from the future is so much more lucrative.

    My contempt for them is unlimited.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  81. I’m wondering whether wat is suffering under the yoke of religious fundamentalism and a too, too intense study of biblical texts.
    Leading me to this belief is his claim that ‘those left behind’ will be the cobblers!’
    While I feel terrible for the shoe-makers, I’m more worried for wat.
    There’ll be tares before this debate is exhausted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  82. Owen

    At this point I am not sure what to believe about how far some people will go. However I haven’t come across your name on any lists or that of the Harkness Foundation.

    Some of the organisations opposing action on climate change probably will sponsor arts groups and other charities to give themselves a veneer of respectability. I have no reason to suppose that the Harkness Foundation is such a group.

    What I do know is that action on climate change could cost the oil and coal companies billions of dollars, so there is plenty of incentive for these companies to oppose such actions by fair means or foul. It would appear that ExxonMobil in particular is not above using some pretty dubious tactics.

    With respect to the German letter, I have no idea how trustworthy the two writers are, but I would expect that they would have some basis for including the names of the scientists that they did include. Whether these scientists actually signed the letter fully knowing what they were signing is the big question. The authors could have included names of scientists that had indicated in some way support for some of the ideas in the letter without necessarily agreeing to the whole letter, and the authors could have taken this as full agreement. The easiest way to clear this up would be to see published the actual signatures of these scientists if they did sign the letter as stated.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  83. There are several things about the letter-signing, petition-signing and esteemed scientists business. It isn’t likely that there are no “real” scientists on those lists. The example of the radiative physics is a good one though. Climate science involves many interrelated fields, and the radiative physics, while important, does NOT provide the entirety of the climate statement.

    The risk however, is that a physicist might focus on that aspect and say “no it can’t do that” because he doesn’t notice that heat absorbed in the first 100 meters of the air column can (through turbulent mixing) be pulled right back into the ocean. The specialization needed to get the PhD can hinder a broader understanding.

    Science isn’t about democracy. It is about science. As Einstein said when a hundred scientists wrote a letter against him “If I had been wrong one would have been sufficient”. Which is how it really needs to work.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  84. Trevor 29
    The Harkness line is something of irony. The Harkness family founded Yale university. I don’t think they did it to gain credits about global alarmism.
    The story is quite a nice one. Like Les Harvey, Mr and Mrs H used to dress down and adopt a down home style when meeting important people to see how they got treated. They went to the President of Princeton (I think it was) and expressed interest in founding a Chair in one of the sciences. The President treated them like muck explaining that a Chair at Princeton cost more than they could dream of. After they were ushered out of the great one’s room they went home and decided to found Yale.
    Nice one. Les Harvey layed all the paving bricks around his Parnell Village. When people applied to rent one of the shops he would make an appointment to meet them in the office round the back and then positioned himself so they would have to walk past him and most asked were the office was – many of them treated him like dirt and got quite a shock when once they were seated in the office found the grubby bricklayer came in to explain why they were not suitable tenants.

    Philu accuses me of getting cheques from Exxon virtually every second post.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  85. bjchip
    Your points are fairly made and it is why I tend to take notice of lists which are short rather than long.
    Any public petition which collects say 20,000 signatures will have a percentage of spoilers – some are harmless like Mickey Mouse, Albert Einstein, and the Seven Dwarfs.
    Others are malicious like a few that signed the Oregon petition. They used stolen identities. I am surprised you chose radiative physics as your example because the debates about the radiative behaviour of atmospheric gases lies at the very core f much of the climate debate. It is probably one of the most hotly debated topics WITHIN the skeptical camp.
    No single science provides the entirety of the climate debate – a point nicely made by Freeman Dyson many times. That is why I prefer to say “The Sciences are not settled”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  86. Owen, I listen to you as well.

    I chose that particular example, because I have known a few physicists. They did tend to be rather more “focused” than the other people I worked with… the idea that there is more than radiation at work probably occurs to a fair number of them, but where it does not they will be awfully certain of their objections, all the more because they are likely to be correct within the scope of their analysis. Dummies do not generally succeed in getting doctorates in physics. but people with such degrees are still able to make fools of themselves, being human is a hell of a handicap.

    :-)

    The science is never “settled” sufficiently to be sure that spending a zillion bux is the best course of action. Science isn’t about that.

    To decide what to actually DO in the face of the likely risk attached to doing nothing at all, involves politics and economics as well as science, and it isn’t easy at all. It is made less easy by people who for political ideological reasons, decide that the science is no good. That this happens is demonstrable (wishing I had a link to this, I heard it described on the radio).

    Liberals and conservatives (measured through a standard questionaire) were offered up some synthesized research papers purporting to descibe a problem similar to AGW. The papers drew one of two conclusions. The problem is serious and the solution is coordinated government restrictions on emissions…. or the problem is serious and the solution is reduced restriction on the private sector’s construction of nuclear power plants.

    The liberals and conservatives were then asked to rate the accuracy of the science in the paper and its importance. The results were mostly predictable and quite disappointing in terms of any hope that we are going to get past the ideological obstacles.

    That is as best I recall the radio show. I should try finding it on NPR.

    ++++++++++=

    It is for this reason that I think we humans have a better shot at getting Cheap Access To Space and building mirrors, than of governing ourselves to the point of being able to agree to act in a coordinated global attempt to reduce emissions. We are very clever “smartmonkeys” when it comes to the engineering and building of stuff, and horrible at treating other groups of our peers in a civilized manner. Civilization is thin. Curiousity runs deep.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. So the US security establishment is taking AGW very seriously. I wonder how those in the its-all-a-UN-plot camp will explain that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  88. So suddenly the US Military Intelligence is the best informed in the world?

    I though among most Greens US “Military Intelligence” was the great oxymoron.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  89. It’s not so sudden Owen. The US security apparatus has been looking at this for a decade, even when it was unpopular to do so under the denier ‘Dubya’. He, like your unscientific coalition, will soon be a forgotten relic. Pity the costs of your delays and obfuscations will be so high.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  90. Bucolic folk
    “The so called Greenhouse Gas CO2″.

    We all have our pet hates. I cringe every time someone says “Cervayacal Cancer”
    rather than cervical cancer. As in genital cancer.
    Some climate scientists and atmospheric physicists hate the term Greenhouse gas for gases such as water vapour, CO2, and methane etc because it creates the impression that these gases have an effect similar to that of a greenhouse whereas they are poles apart. So when a skeptic OR an alarmist says “so called greenhouse gas” they are not denying these gases have a warming effect compared to the temperature would be in their absence – they are just protesting about the name. Just as I might write “so-called Smart Growth” which is actually dense thinking. Or so-called ‘climate change’ when someone is actually referring to AGW. Or so called ‘intrinsic values’ given that this is an oxymoron. Or ‘so called’ organic vegetables when all vegetables are organic. After all ‘organic’ simply means based on a carbon molecular structure.
    For most of us “greenhouse gases” is a lost cause but some remain irritated to distraction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  91. No Owen, the Bush administration version of it was that, but I happen to know for a fact that these people are NOT dumb, and they didn’t for the most part, trust Cheney’s sock puppet CIA.

    I have a small advantage in this. The current Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff was once CO of the USS Noxubee (AOG-56). I served on that ship myself.

    He knew his job and was damned good at it, but I haven’t seen him in about 33 years. I don’t have any concerns about his abilities or motivations.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  92. So suddenly the US Military Intelligence is the best informed in the world?

    I’ve no reason to think they are not very well informed. We know that the most celebrated failures of recent times were not in fact intelligence failures at all, but political manipulation.

    I though among most Greens US “Military Intelligence” was the great oxymoron.

    I rather agree with Chomsky, who said that a good insight into what the establishment takes seriously can be had from the defense dept and the pages of the WSJ.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  93. Owen – if you have a problem with ‘climate change’, talk to the Reagan administration. It was their PR campaign that moved the debate from global warming to climate change, because they thought the term was less threatening so they could ignore it longer. There is the famous White House memo to that effect – I’ll see if I can dig it up…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  94. I was totally wrong Owen. It was Frank Luntz’s advice to Newt Gingrich in ’94 – way past Reagan’s bedtime.

    Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  95. Owen sez: So when a skeptic OR an alarmist says “so called greenhouse gas” they are not denying these gases have a warming effect compared to the temperature would be in their absence – they are just protesting about the name

    In this case they are not. because they go on to say… (from Morano’s site)

    “More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

    Which is complete and utter nonsense, on just about every conceivable level.

    You give a good impression of wiggling on the hook…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. No conflict here.
    The authors of the letter say:
    You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2.

    And later say as you point out:
    “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations”
    You say this is nonsense but it is the standard science of Carbon Dioxide. IT has its major impact when raised from zero to say 50ppm and then goes into a phase of diminishing returns.. Hence the standard analogy of multiple coats of paint on a sheet of glass. The effect is not linear. The modeled scenarios of catastrophic global warming all depend on subsequent feedback loops as warming temperatures trigger other events. I do not know of any serious atmospheric scientist who says that doubling CO2 concentrations from say 200 ppm to 400 ppm doubles the previous impact of doubling from say 50 ppm to 100 ppm.
    CO2 on its own has run out of puff.
    Germans are very precise in their language I am not surprised that these two authors reject the “greenhouse” analogy when talking about these gases.
    They possibly have a German word running to about fifty letters which is more technically accurate. As I say, I am happy to stick with greenhouse – but I know many who dislike it as much as I hate cervayackal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  97. I do not know much about the advise to Gingrich but I do know that the UN Framework convention in 1992 decided to change the term “Global Warming” to climate change. I do not know why but some say it was so any change in the weather could be described as climate change and by implication caused by AGW.

    Here is the definition from the 1992 Convention:
    “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
    The Labour government adopted this in its amendment to the RMA and I don’t think would have taken any notice of advice to Gingrich.
    Here is a typical reference in the Labour Amendment Bill:

    (2) Section 7 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following
    paragraphs:

    “(i) the effects of climate change:

    “(j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable
    energy.”

    So I believe we have simply followed the UN definition, unless you believe the Labour Government was in the pocket of Frank Luntz.

    You might like to get familiar with the RMA and its precursor to the 2202 Amendment, The Climate Change Response Act of 2202.

    New Zealand has its own history.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. Which is to say, we are going to come out of Copenhagen with a 15-18% target and as a result we will have a HELL of a time persuading the Chinese to help at all.

    Which means that we are going to hit 450 and we aren’t going to get to 80% reduction overall by 2050. The odds of hitting a tipping point – IMHO are closer to 7-3 in favor of completely losing control of the process as opposed to being maybe 4-1 in our favor with the higher target.

    Cue Andrew Lloyd Webber…

    (Somebody needs to be building CATS)

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  99. Owen: CO2 on its own has run out of puff.

    Nonsense. You need to do some serious reading outside the make-believe world of climate cranks. The radiative behaviour of CO2 and other GHGs is understood down to the quantum level. To use your term, there’s plenty of “puff” left in the old gas yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  100. Bluepeter; Do you say we should go to Copenhagen and say,

    “Our offer is… zero”?

    How do you think that would affect our trade opportunities?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  101. Still in denial about our small bit of responsibility, eh BP? How do you sleep at night, knowing that you are conflicting with your core ideological beliefs about personal responsibility? No one is talking about taking responsibility for other’s emissions. Just our own. But you won’t own it, will you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. Sir Henry
    Quote your sources.
    And please do NOT quote Al Gore and other celebretariats.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. Owen, you would do well to start with Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming – a 250,000 word history of our understanding of climate (free download from that link). It is not especially technical, but does provide an excellent perspective on the science. In particular, Weart explains how the “CO2 runs out of puff” idea was prevalent at the beginning of the last century, but later shown to be erroneous when better instrumentation allowed more accurate measurements to be made.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  104. One suggestion that hasn’t been mentioned here is CO2 re-sequestration in our old gas fields. Kapuni gas has a high CO2 content, much of which is separated out at Kapuni and vented. If this CO2 was reinjected back into the gas field using existing technology, we could reduce CO2 emissions significantly – perhaps 0.8Mtonnes/year.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. Hi Wat Dabney,

    I tend to agree with you. It is paranoia!
    The recent climate variations are due to natural processes that result in the variation of solar radiation being absorbed to the earths surface.
    Events like La Nino and El Nino (the Southern Oscillation) are being renamed as global warming.

    This forums members have already made up their mind that global warming is occuring and working out how much “MONEY” they will be making out of the shonky Emissions Trading scheme.

    Is this “Green Ethics” or “GREED Ethics”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  106. That you are happy to make up bullshit about our intentions regarding carbon trading probably explains the other bullshit you believe too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. la nina , not la nino and the idea that we’re going to make money out of it is asinine.

    Pay attention to reality for a change. I reckon the shock to your system might kill you, but here is a truth.

    If you do not put a price on the commons, it WILL be destroyed.

    The atmosphere and hydrosphere of this planet are our commons. A ton of gas emitted in China is equal to a ton emitted in NZ. The fish in the sea disappear for everyone, not just the guy who caught the last one.

    Greens don’t want government to have “extra” money out of any part of this, our proposals promote revenue neutrality…. and putting a price on the consumption of the commons. An economic signal that the market has to respect.

    Which you would know if you read anything of ours. Clearly your expertise doesn’t include actual research… because you clearly have done none at all.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>