George Orwell would be impressed with ETS minions

In a classic case of doublethink, the minions at the Ministry for the Environment have withheld all the contents of an ETS cabinet document clearly labelled “Approved for Release”.

No doubt the ‘Director, Climate and Risk’ , recently transferred along with others from MED,  (‘restructuring’ people who care for the environment with those who care more for Big Brother, perhaps?), thought it too risky to release anything other than the title. The current political climate is simply too risky for the truth about our government’s subsidy shenanigans to be known!

Moderated NZ ETS: Detail on industrial sector free allocation parameters proposed for inclusion in draft legislation

The result is a blank two page document!

Maybe we should change the ‘Director, Climate and Risk’ persons name to Winston Smith?

Other documents released by Nick Smith on Friday afternoon have other interesting items withheld. We’ll never really know what was going through the mind of our beloved Minister.

While some are crying for Smith to be fired and Labour’s bullduck is trying to cast aspersions on his fitness, I reckon he knows exactly what he is doing.

More is the pity. George Orwell would be very impressed….

1984-movie-bb

66 thoughts on “George Orwell would be impressed with ETS minions

  1. I really enjoy George Orwells books. I havent read them in awhile but I think I’ll have to pull out 1984 and read it soon!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  2. It is definitely time to scrap the ETS totally. NZ needs to show a strong face to the rest of the world. An ETS will wreck our economy and cause rampant inflation over the next 15 years.

    Our lifestyles will be detroyed.

    Our “minions” keep believing that we need to ride on the coat-tails of the rest of the world and believe that “if we don’t have an ETS no-one will trade with us”.

    This is complete b*ll*cks.

    The more NZ has an independent view, the more the rest of the world will value us.

    The environmental change (if any) that is already upon us can not be substantially modified by any form of ETS unless it leads to the destruction of the human race.

    Is that what we want???

    The future is about survival, not about sucking up to the pseudo-intellectuals who feed off making us feel guilty for keeping warm and using our mp3 players.

    Instead of trying to collapse society to a caveman mindset we need to encourage entrepreneurial approaches to saving energy and setting NZ free from international interests.

    Global treaties be damned.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 (-7)

  3. Why are we even debating a carbon trading scheme. There is no relationship between temp and co2?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 (-5)

  4. I think there is definitely a relationship – it’s just not the sort of causal link that some people think.

    CO2 is a byproduct of an ecosystem – not solely humans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 (+2)

  5. Greengeek, Sweetdisorder

    I see you claiming to know something without evidence. Your religious viewpoints are noted.

    CO2 is a byproduct of an ecosystem – not solely humans
    Greengeek, the isotope ratios give the lie to this.

    As for being members of the global community, your willingness to avoid taking responsibility is clear.

    The environmental change (if any) that is already upon us can not be substantially modified by any form of ETS unless it leads to the destruction of the human race.

    Can you justify that statement or are you simply making sh!t up? I don’t know of a mechanism whereby an economic measure that puts a price on the commons causes the destruction of the human race.

    Please inform us of the details of this new theory.

    instead of trying to collapse society to a caveman mindset

    You base this accusation on which policy of the Green party? Where is this part of our plans OR our policies? Did you check our policies and what we stand for or are you listening to some other person’s claims about those things?

    Ignorance is bliss. I am afraid that Greengeek and Sweetdisorder are WAY too happy.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 (+3)

  6. ummm, bjchip on your shoulder, global temp isn’t doing what it should with reference to co2, according to your precious models.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 (-2)

  7. Sweetdisorder – it is doing what it should do according to a scientific interpretation of what the models tell us. It may not be what your neo-con blogosphere interpretations think it should do but understanding that does require that you actually get out of their peculiar world and into the real one.

    Assuming you are referring to Pielke Sr., though AGAIN you don’t present any specifics of your argument. Maybe this?

    http://climatesci.org/2008/05/01/comments-on-the-new-york-times-article-decade-break-in-global-warming-may-01-2008/

    …which is NOT a correct understanding of the models…

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

    or this

    http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

    which is even less scientifically acceptable since this is what the models predict and statistically where the temperatures are…

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/material/globaltemperatures.pdf

    …noting that in the latter the actual temperature trend remains in the upper band of the variability of what the models predicted.

    In other words, as usual, reality is something different from what the neo-con blogosphere reports it to be.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

    Which is something you really ought to consider before bringing their claims here without even a referent to the fool(s) who originally made them.

    Now you may have another fool in mind altogether, but I have absolutely no way of knowing what mistake needs to be addressed since you didn’t even bother to refer to it, you simply made the bald, inaccurate and unsupported claim.

    That’s not a good look.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  8. BJ says: Can you justify that statement or are you simply making sh!t up? I don’t know of a mechanism whereby an economic measure that puts a price on the commons causes the destruction of the human race.

    If the CO2 problem is as catastrophic as you say then the enforced lifestyle changes required to resolve the problem are so great that the commoners throughout the world would bring about the collapse of the governments enforcing them.

    Think Russian revolution.
    Think French revolution.

    Imagine a Chinese and Indian revolution.

    The only way to effectively cap human CO2 release would be at the barrel of a gun.

    Take a look at NZ. We can’t even afford our ACC and pension schemes anymore. Or are you so wealthy BJ that you don’t care what happens to the ordinary guy anymore???

    How long do you think Joe average will put up with paying extra taxes to fund an ETS when their primary aim is to put food on the tables of their families.

    You only have to look at the environmental destruction wrought in areas where every tree gets consumed for the fireplace, leaving deserts behind, to know that humans do not live according to wisdom when their immediate survival (economic or literal) depends upon it.

    The ETS is doomed, and you will definitely see the slow destruction of the NZ way of life if it ever gets off the ground the way you want to see it done.

    The ETS is a vehicle for the manipulators to get extremely rich. It won’t save the planet.

    By continuing to believe in its value you throw away any chance of getting the guy in the street to listen to your cause.

    Trouble is, you just wont realise it for another 5 years or so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  9. Greengeek

    You said the human race, but what you describe has to do with government stability, not the extinction of the species. I think maybe it was a slip of the pen rather than intentional?

    Lets go on the basis that you really meant “the end of civilization as we know it”. Which is not the same as the human race, and isn’t necessarily going to be universally visited on every country on the planet to the same degree. OK?

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  10. The ETS is doomed, and you will definitely see the slow destruction of the NZ way of life if it ever gets off the ground the way you want to see it done.

    To a certain extent I have to agree with this the first part of your statement. National has grabbed the ETS and turned it into a giant suction pump to transfer money from the taxpayer to the businessmen with no actual reductions required or expectable. You may have a look at my submission relating to THIS ETS elsewhere on this site.

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/10/07/one-week-left-to-submit-on-flawed-ets/

    My opinion of what is on offer would leave a smoking crater where the environmental minister (or his predecessor) once stood.

    However. I don’t agree that it can’t be done or that the NZ way of life will be destroyed.

    It WILL be altered, one way or the other. The objective is to alter it enough and adapt soon enough that human civilization IN NZ survives the next 2 centuries… and to give the rest of the world a chance to do their part with some confidence that a fair distribution of effort has been made.

    Which doesn’t mean they WILL do their part, and you can see elsewhere in the older posts, some discussion of the likelihood that they will not do enough ( 40% by 2020 is actually pretty nearly what is required ), and what our responsibilities actually are in the event of failure. Emphasis on renewable energy, infrastructure relocation and hardening, and self-sufficiency or at worst self-sufficiency that assumes survival of some civilization in Australia as well… not a guaranteed option.

    NZ cannot unilaterally save the planet, nor is it reasonable to try. We know that… and yet we have an obligation to do our SHARE of changing and help others to feel their obligations more fully. Your doomsday scenario, while it MAY apply to places like the USA, UK, EU, India and China, is not nearly as necessary in NZ which has a wealth of renewables and a lot fewer humans per hectare.

    The reductions needed, at the rates needed now (because of so little action being taken earlier) do indeed reach the threshold of what is likely to cause revolutions. Might not have done so without the economic collapse, but I think you will see revolutions. The US has turned into an Oligarchy, and when the taxes start coming due from the massive theft (far larger than any changes that the climate problem required) that took place there, I don’t doubt that the French Revolution will be taken as a model of restraint.

    However, the choices are to change or to BE changed by the planet’s own corrections. There is no “lets keep doing what we’ve always done” option. Nature has a way of stomping quite hard on the hubris of people who forget their place within it.

    By continuing to believe in its value you throw away any chance of getting the guy in the street to listen to your cause.

    This one puzzles me. The ONLY option on the table is the ETS. We wanted a straight carbon tax and that got shot down. Politics being the art of the possible, this is the vehicle we get to work with. Just what is it you THINK is “our cause”? The entire point of the exercise is to put a realistic price on the destruction of the commons. THAT is what is fair. How do YOU expect to get anything like that accomplished?

    We can lose a lot and retain the social organization… and I think that you’ll find that the information, as the warming becomes more apparent and less deniable, will start to take its toll on the denialsphere. People won’t like taxes, or costs but they will adjust their lifestyles a lot more than you seem to expect, and they will tear apart industries and industrialists and bankers who put them in this position.

    Maybe we aren’t as far apart as I thought. But you have some explaining to do.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  11. BJ…very fair assessment.

    But here is where I disagree with you:

    There is no “lets keep doing what we’ve always done” option. Nature has a way of stomping quite hard on the hubris of people who forget their place within it.

    You acknowledged that NZ is not in the same position as the rest of the globe. Thats true. And that is exactly why New Zealand SHOULD do exactly as we have always done.

    At least for now.

    We need to “un-yoke” ourselves from the path the rest of the world is taking.

    We need to put the survival of our people AND our cultures AND our civilisation ahead of our international loyalties.

    If we don’t, and if we go down the ETS/Kyoto route, I predict the following:

    Our precious forests will end up owned by dirty Chinese industrial conglomerates for the sole purposes of “balancing” their polluting ways.

    Our farmers (increasingly cash strapped as they are…) will become so far in debt their lands will become locked up in phoney trading schemes and they will be forced to stop their polluting ways…which will lead to:

    Huge increases in food prices and lower production due to a drop off in agricultural intensity.

    Homeowners and landowners will progressively lose their right to chop down trees (which they may even have planted themselves…) for warmth, profit, beauty or energy purposes. (CO2 is not bad when it comes from a tree you replanted yourself!!)

    ..and thereby an unnecessarily restricted and debt-ridden society.

    It looks to me like a punitive regime that makes the new “energy police” (probably based in Wall Street) wealthy and fails to generate any real longterm energy efficiency benefits.

    And with regard to the response of nature to mans’ hubris – I believe that we will face the same depth of climatic extremes seen many times over the previous millions of years. Humans may become the next dinosaurs.

    Whether or not man has triggered it is in my opinion completely immaterial. The only question is how we will choose to survive it, and whether or not we will consider it acceptable that we only permit the wealthy and the manipulative to get through it.

    New Orleans has so much to teach us about how much faith we can put in governments and their schemes.

    In the end we will be on our own and my personal preference would be for my family to have every cent we earn available for us to purchase photovoltaics and water tanks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  12. What i don’t understand is what trees, farming etc have to do with carbon trading. Aren’t all these things completely carbon neutral in the medium term?
    To reduce carbon in the long term isn’t the only problem the carbon dug out of the ground and released into the atmosphere?
    So a straight tax on oil, gas and coal, would be the most direct signal?
    Unless, I grow trees and inject the resultant logs deep underground, how are trees helping, except in a minor way?
    Am I missing something here?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  13. The way I understand it is this – if you grow a tree, it is consuming CO2. Someone else lays claim to your tree (eg Waitakere City Council “tallies” that tree as a nett CO2 consumer under their jurisdiction) then “locks up” that tree so you have to pay a penalty if you chop it down (as firewood for example).

    I use Waitakere as an example because they have already demonstrated a penchant for considering private property as being there for the public good (eg the prohibition on landowners in the Waitakere foothills developing or cutting trees on their land)

    The whole purpose of the ETS is to allow dirty Chinese (and other countries…) companies to “buy” the CO2 consumption of YOUR trees to offset THEIR pollution output.

    You think your trees are your own?? It might seem that way now but lets look back in a couple of years. The “Waitakere” disease will spread throughout the whole country.

    It is also a way of locking up the Taonga of our forests in defacto foreign hands.

    If Maori understood what the ETS really meant they’d be up in arms.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 (-1)

  14. greengeek – thats drivel, if you’re going to call yourself green, and a geek, you’d better make sure you know what you’re talking about or else someone might start calling you green-git.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 (+3)

  15. “New Orleans has so much to teach us about how much faith we can put in governments and their schemes.”

    what happened in New Orleans shows how much faith we can put in those governments that teach that ‘government is the problem, not the solution’, and govern in a way that is designed to make this come true.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  16. This is the real tipping point.You never used to see any sceptical articles in newspapers. Now they’re everywhere. People have discovered they’ve been lied to by self-interested charlatans all these years, and they’re not happy.

    “Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT’s Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University’s William Gray.

    For a long time, that approach worked. But after 11 years without record temperatures that had the seas spilling over the Statue of Liberty’s toes, they are going to have to change tactics.

    They’re going to have to rely on real data, not failed models and scare stories, and the Big Lie that everyone who counts agrees with them.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/13/ED7O1A4IQU.DTL

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  17. McTap says:
    greengeek – thats drivel, if you’re going to call yourself green, and a geek, you’d better make sure you know what you’re talking about or else someone might start calling you green-git.

    Call me what you like. Which part is drivel??

    Support your argument or else it’s you who is the git :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  18. kahikatea says: what happened in New Orleans shows how much faith we can put in those governments that teach that ‘government is the problem, not the solution’, and govern in a way that is designed to make this come true.

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I felt the government response was rather pathetic. It seemed like they took taxes and gave very little in return when the ordinary Joe most needed them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  19. samiam – farming is neutral with respect to CO2. Unfortunately CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas. CO2 which is captured by plants and turned into biomass which is then eaten by cows and turned into methane becomes a much more potent greenhouse gas until eventually it is oxidised back to CO2. Nitrogen which is converted to urea and other fertilizers, spread on the farm and converted to N2O and/or NO2 becomes a significant greenhouse gas. Forestry which is clearfelled for farmland releases CO2.

    There are countermeasures, such as selective breeding of cows for low methane production, nitrogen inhibitors, etc. Farming should be involved.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  20. greengeek, china and other developing countries won’t be buying any carbon credits anytime soon.

    While I am sceptical about the viability of any ETS (trustworthyness of carbon credit sellers, rorts by big business, just another vehicle for financial speculators, etc etc etc), politically there doesn’t seem to be any other options.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  21. rimu: “china and other developing countries won’t be buying any carbon credits anytime soon.”

    I’m interested why you say that? As far as I am concerned they have already begun to do so by locking up large tracts of our central plateau forests. More to follow.

    Check out the increase of Chinese activity across the Pacific, and the completion of the free-trade deal and surely you would agree that the Chinese are very keen to be part of this area and trade in general.

    China has a huge amount to gain from the ETS and what they don’t gain from buying the CO2 sink capability of forests they will seek to amend by way of replacing coal fired stations with American nuclear.

    Hows that for a win for the ETS ????#$%!!! It encourages China to go nuclear. Ha! Just flippin great !

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  22. kahikatea says: “what happened in New Orleans shows how much faith we can put in those governments that teach that ‘government is the problem, not the solution’, and govern in a way that is designed to make this come true.”

    Greengeek replies: “I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I felt the government response was rather pathetic. It seemed like they took taxes and gave very little in return when the ordinary Joe most needed them.”

    Absolutely true. But not all government responses to disasters are anything like that. I believe the US government under George W Bush failed in dealing with Hurrican Katrina because they were motivated by the belief that ‘government is not the solution – government is the problem’, and therefore didn’t really want to do a good job of disaster relief, because that would undermine their ideology.

    If the problem were due to governments in general being hopeless at this sort of thing, then all governments would stuff up their hurricane relief attempts, not just the ones that want people to believe that governments aren’t good at that sort of thing.

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

  23. Thats true. And that is exactly why New Zealand SHOULD do exactly as we have always done.

    No gg, that’s wrong. The first rule we have to make is that the commons has to have a price. That’s how we got into this trouble in the first place and if we do not fix that problem we will inevitably screw up again… and again… and again.

    That much is as clear as crystal.

    The second part of the argument has only limited merit. We are part of a global community which is attempting to solve the problem on a planetary scale. We are obligated as a nation and as individuals to participate in this effort.

    That’s a moral obligation that holds until the collective effort collapses or has clearly failed. Both are possible outcomes. Both aspects must be carefully watched, as nobody can be fully trusted in the accounting departments and particularly in the USA, Goldman Sachs is angling for a big piece of the trade.

    So so so…

    Our precious forests will end up owned by dirty Chinese industrial conglomerates for the sole purposes of “balancing” their polluting ways.

    Our farmers (increasingly cash strapped as they are…) will become so far in debt their lands will become locked up in phoney trading schemes and they will be forced to stop their polluting ways…which will lead to:

    Huge increases in food prices and lower production due to a drop off in agricultural intensity.

    Since I don’t hold with foreign ownership of NZ property and a lot of people I know do not, I have to reckon that the first won’t happen. Whatever the ETS does. We can sell “Credits” which means we have to grow trees.

    Doesn’t mean we’re selling trees OR land.

    As for the farmers and the debt… I can’t see how that follows. We’re screwing up by the numbers as far as banking and finance are concerned, but I don’t think this is going to “lock up” the farmland. Don’t see how it could.

    Someone has been feeding you some scary stuff. It isn’t supported by any evidence I can see. Some of our land intensity needs to drop, the destruction of the watersheds and the rest is a clear indication of that, but doesn’t mean we’d starve. We fed ourselves and a fair lot of other people long before the “intensification” started.

    As for China “going nuclear” they already did. A long time ago. They also are working on pebble-beds and other more advanced reactors. In the context of preventing warming, I accept that this is necessary. Not a bad thing at all.

    It isn’t going to lead to them having nuclear weapons because they already HAVE nuclear weapons. Separate issue. Don’t drag it into this.

    That they should not be allowed to buy NZ property is quite clear to me. Only New Zealanders should have that right. I have no great faith in our government’s ability to manage things, particularly in THIS government’s abilities, and the version of the ETS they provide is an abortion, but your case is weak.

    We have to be part of the solution… at least until it becomes clear that there is no solution at all.

    We can concentrate on energy independence measures… rail electrification.. and wind farms gather us carbon credits as well.. but we have to participate in the solution or the world has no humanly possible chance of reaching for that solution.

    You’ve gone over the edge a bit. The Green Party isn’t about handing the country over to the Chinese or collapsing the economy. I think that of all the parties in Parliament we are the least likely to do those things, because we look harder at the future than the others and see the risks the others ignore.

    Which doesn’t make THIS ETS any better… and the release of data by this government seems to indicate that they have plenty to be ashamed of in the making of it. One does wonder what the Maori party were thinking when they agreed to it.

    I thought they were supposed to care about the land.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  24. tevor29, Yes I realise there are other gasses involved, but ruminants have been part of the earths ecological equation for a VERY long time. Its digging up oil,coal & gas and spewing it into the air that hasn’t. Keep it simple, tax those three items, the rest should sort itself out. On an international scale I mean.

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

  25. BJ, you are missing my point that once the CO2 sink capacity is sold to the Chinese, they effectively own the forest.

    Your post further up criticised me as being “way too happy”. Personally I think you have a rather too rosy view of the future effects of this ETS.

    It’s not me who has his head in the sand.

    No matter – as previously mentioned, my prediction is for rampant inflation in NZ over the next 15 years. Shouldn’t be hard to verify.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  26. Oh, and the farmland being locked up – that will be because it will be progressively more expensive for farmers to farm as they have been doing – their profitability will drop, they will have to resort to less productive “ETS safe” methods, plant extra trees, and sell off the CO2 sinking capacity of those trees just to make ends meet.

    Once the trees and crops are locked in as carbon credits their will be no easy way to get that land back into productivity.

    Thats what I mean by “locked up”

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

  27. Land in trees isn’t locked up, greengeek, if you’ve a skerric of creativity in your body. Multiple uses can be found for tree crops and the returns potentially excellent. The whole tree-farm can be operated in a sustainable, profitable manner that enhances the environment and the community it supports.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  28. samiam – I’ve a question (genuine) re ruminants. Have you any idea of the numbers/scale/spread of ruminants in past times compared to now? Certainly NZ wasn’t dripping with them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  29. greengeek

    Rampant inflation in the next 15 years? Check. With or without an ETS. We aren’t fixing the banking system or the currency. The inflation is guaranteed.

    Try something harder.

    The Chinese can’t own the forest. They own the carbon credits we can sell them on a yearly basis while WE own the forest. It isn’t the same as buying the forest.

    When I made that criticism you were sounding just like sweetdisorder so I lumped you together. However, you have a different issue. A bit more reasoned but I still disagree. Besides, we won’t have credits to sell to the Chinese the way the knuckleheads who are in the drivers seat are hauling on the wheel. We’ll be buying credits from them. Make believe credits generated by some Goldman-Sachs graduate, but we won’t have anything real to sell anyone.

    Wonder what they’ll be worth.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  30. A big chill on global warming

    “Something important is happening when even the BBC is compelled to ask, as it did this week, “What happened on global warming?” The British news organization has heretofore insisted that the scientific consensus was cemented long ago that global warming is real and is mainly caused by human use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Put simply, what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998, recent peer-reviewed research has uncovered the decisive influence of hot and cold cycles in the oceans on land temperatures, and growing numbers of scientists with unquestioned credentials are stepping forward to question the conventional wisdom.

    But reaching a new consensus will be exceedingly difficult because the raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed. The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit acknowledged in August that it discarded data that, in addition to the IPCC report, has been cited by other international studies as the main justification for severe restrictions on carbon emissions worldwide…Every schoolchild knows that the last step in the scientific method is independent reproduction of results. But lost climate data cannot be reproduced, which is a huge problem for everybody. “Every time CRU massaged the temperature data, they were getting more warming from the same numbers. It’s incumbent upon scientists to find out why, but you can’t find out if you don’t have the data,” Dr. Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, told The Examiner. “The data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.””

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/A-big-chill-on-global-warming-8393618-64452337.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  31. Wat said: “Put simply, what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998,”

    that’s a remarkable claim, particularly as the actual statistics available show a completely different pattern.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  32. not really remarkable, just cherry picking.

    This article has a graph of global temperatures. The overall trend is clear.

    1998 was a very unusually warm year, so of course subsequent years were not as warm. More on this at http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

    “Now, this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs. But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It’s hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate — seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists. Bob Carter is just such a voice, and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of skeptic websites.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  33. Rimu said:

    “not really remarkable, just cherry picking.

    Here is a graph of global temperatures.”

    I can’t access your link, Rimu, but if it’s consistent with what most calculations of global average teperature show, it will show a generally upward trend both before and after 1998, but with 1998 anomalously high, and it will show the majority of years since 1998 being warmer than the preceding one.

    A standard cherry-picking approach would be to comment that a lot of those years were colder than 1998, which is true, but deceptive for the reasons outlined in the article you linked to.

    Instead, Wat is claiming that every year since 1998 has been colder than the previous one. It is indeed remarkable that he would make a claim that is quite so blatantly contrary to what the measurements show.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  34. Kahikatea,

    I’m not making that claim. I posted that link as another example of the fact the mainstream media is no longer an endless diet of absurd alarmism. It is becoming acceptable to print balanced articles.

    However it is a fact that, in contradiction to the alarmism, for the best part of a decade there has been no warming, and quite possibly slight cooling. Even the alarmists have been forced to admit this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  35. greenfly says: “Land in trees isn’t locked up, greengeek, if you’ve a skerric of creativity in your body. Multiple uses can be found for tree crops and the returns potentially excellent”

    I believe many farmers and forestry-dependent-towns will suffer at the hands of the ETS. How will farmers afford the extra taxes??

    How will places like Tokoroa survive if they can’t cut down trees??

    Some farmers will be forced to sell. Some will be forced to reduce the number of (polluting) stock they hold. Others will be forced to plant pines (for example) so as to reap input tax to balance their output tax.

    Can they then afford to chop down those trees? No. The tax benefit they derive from those trees becomes vital to their business. Sure, they can do a little tree cropping, but I think you are going to see vast acreages of forest and regenerating farmland definitely being “locked up” in perpetuity.

    It’s definitely going to mean higher prices for food and housing timber, among many other items.

    Forestry workers will have to retrain as emissions accountants and brokers.

    People who bought 10 acre blocks in the foothills of the Waitakeres will have to slowly starve as they watch the council-enforced-regrowth choke their properties.

    All in the name of that evil CO2.

    There was a time where Antarctica was a tropical paradise. That time will come again, ETS or not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  36. Greengeek wrote: “There was a time where Antarctica was a tropical paradise. That time will come again, ETS or not.”

    indeed. an ETS cannot stop tectonic plate shiftage.

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

  37. Greemgeek

    It isn’t all THAT wise to pursue the goal of forcing the planet into the conditions of 3000000 years ago or 2000000000 years ago, when our civilization evolved in the conditions of the last 10000. We have some understanding of the conditions then vs the conditions now. Not as much as we’d like but if the alteration was not forced by us, it would almost certainly not be happening.

    Nor is there any reason to believe that the climate is going to change slowly enough to give us a chance to adapt without suffering grievously.

    This

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png

    …is a step function increase. You can accomplish a climate step function by slamming a meteor into the planet, having a nuclear war or having a volcanic event (thinking of the Deccan traps) . We have no real understanding from experience or measurement of what actually transpires in those instances, only that they tend to involve a lot of dying.

    A step function is hitting a bell with a hammer. A lightning bold next to an electrical system. It causes ringing in the system. We ARE the hammer hitting the bell.

    Probably a good thing to avoid if we can. To pull the blow.

    Trying to avoid it we have the Greens. Trying to deny it or make the case that it is not as important as “growth” we have NACT. Labour is fuzzy on the concept but apt to accept our concerns.

    Then we have you. I reckon that you want us to give up and do everything we can to adapt to conditions that will obtain after the warming becomes a real and undeniable effect. Seems to me you’ve said something like that.

    Unfortunately, this comes in a poor second to actually keeping the planet the way it was when we were kids. The preferred solution.

    It may not be likely we’ll succeed but it has to be attempted, and for the attempt to be made at all, we have to ALL participate. The bleating and whining “but Timmy doesn’t have to do X ” that you hear on any playground in the world, is no more becoming when it comes from our leaders, pointing at some other countries. However, that is how nations commonly behave. Regard nations as spoiled children and you have a reasonably accurate way to model their likely behaviour. That is a GENERAL rule.. it has nothing to do with climate.

    Which makes me pessimistic about the outcome and cautious about what approaches to use to the CO2 reductions, but which does not permit any slacking on our part. Someone has to play the part of “grown up”.

    “Somebody has to start somewhere – We’re here”

    I do acknowledge your concerns… that we should do all we can to preserve ourselves (though your choice of building photovoltaics is a poor one, wind farms are far more cost-effective here). The issues are timing and culture. If the world is to have a chance it has to try deal with its addiction immediately, we may fail but we must try. If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last 10000 years the notion that the commons is not free for the taking has to become embedded in our culture.

    We are not however, trusting that the effort to preserve the climate as it was, is going to work.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  38. GG

    Long before your scenario comes to pass, the economic collapse pursuant to the climate shifting will drive the CO2 trade bankrupt. Haven’t you considered that the countries PAYING for this stuff to be “locked up” will be unable to do so?

    That’s only ONE sign that the system has failed to work.

    You’re not being realistic in your scenarios…

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  39. BJ, as usual your analysis is very good.

    I’m just extremely uncomfortable with the idea of forcing compliance with this scheme upon thousands (millions?) of people who, if given a choice, would not agree with your own preferred response, which is to attempt to “actually keep.. the planet the way it was when we were kids.”

    Not everyone sees that as even remotely possible.

    I know my point of view is heresy to many, but I think I am being realistic in believing that dreams and schemes like the ETS will shatter into a million pieces in the face of the groundswell of survival pragmatism that will engulf the next generation.

    If I could sense any political committment to plough the profits from any ETS directly and permanently back into a scheme to make clean alternative transport a reality (and get us out of the diesel burning tincan mentality) – then I’d see a positive outcome.

    We know thats not going to happen so why impose the pain on the many who will directly or indirectly have to pay for this ETS.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  40. greengeek – are you suggesting that New Zealand attempts to pull out of the Kyoto agreement? That could cost new Zealand dearly. If we don’t pull out of Kyoto, then we need to meet the agreement that we made some time ago – either reduce our emissions or pay someone else to reduce theirs. (I would prefer to see us reduce our emissions.) Either way, the country ends up paying, so it is largely a question of who IN NEW ZEALAND does the paying. To me it makes sense that whatever measures are taken, they encourage people, companies and organisations (such as governments and councils) to reduce their emissions. The NACT ETS does not do this, so the tax payer will do the paying.

    Labour’s tentative steps (e.g. the ban on new coal and gas-fired baseload power stations) were a start, which NACT promptly scrapped. Crazy!

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  41. Trevor, yes, I believe New Zealand is in no position to meet the obligations Kyoto imposes.

    We are a long way behind the “green” eightball compared to other countries, particularly Europe.

    Many NZers don’t realise how “ungreen” we actually are (especially our farming and vehicles). This means that playing catchup will be very destructive for us.

    We are only a small country.

    We should have already learnt from “rogernomics” that change needs to be driven at a pace that is sustainable and doesn’t tear apart the fabric of Joe Averages life.

    Apart from this – we have a pretty good location down here in the Pacific and have a small population so have less to fear from GW (real or not is immaterial) than other countries.

    We need to find our own way forward, at our own pace, and not put our economy in the hands of the manipulators and “Goldman Sachs” traders mentioned above by BJ.

    We are fortunate (in my view) at present to have John Key at the helm – he has enough international trading experience to understand where NZ fits in the bigger picture, and enough awareness of the avaricious nature of the traders and manipulators to ensure he doesn’t overcommit NZ.

    However, he will only be with us for 6 or 9 years and the ETS and Kyoto responsibilities will be with us for much longer.

    Now is the time to stop the nonsense and put New Zealand interests at the forefront of our choices. We must not follow others and simply hop on their treadmill.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  42. greengeek said:
    “we have a pretty good location down here in the Pacific and have a small population so have less to fear from GW (real or not is immaterial) than other countries.”

    …and may be right. But “less to fear” is not “nothing to fear”. Consider what GW can do to New Zealand. Our economy is based on farming. What will climate change do to that, as rainfall increases in some areas and decreases in others? What will the effects of tropical pests be as they move south into warming areas? Then consider just how much of our population and infrastructure is going to be affected by sea level rises. All our ports. Besides the ports are our oil-handling infrastructure, including storage tanks, a refinery, pumping gear, etc, all handling diesel, petrol, LPG, aviation fuel, etc. Many of our national links run close to the sea including the major routes north out of Wellingto and Christchurch. Much of our population live close to the sea such as half of Christchurch. And then we risk damage from increased storm intensity including higher storm surges.

    On the other side of the coin, we have very good energy resources. If we want to, we can cut back our CO2 emissions dramatically and increase our absorbtion (through planting new forests and taking better care of our existing forests and bush). Then New Zealand will be paid by those countries that have a harder task to reduce their emissions.

    But this ETS being pushed by John Key assumes a business as usual approach that does nothing to encourage reductions of CO2 emissions or increase forestry planting.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  43. Trevor29,

    And then we risk damage from increased storm intensity including higher storm surges.

    Not necessarily. The Northern European low countries have for over 50 years (since the 1953 disaster) barricaded themselves successfully against storm surges. Huge schemes of dykes and storm barriers including warning systems are in place.

    The question is how much money will you throw at protecting the foreshore? The technology is certainly available but the resources?

    Then is the vexed question of the RMA. Can we actually build it?

    And to add further barriers (pun intended) we have the foreshore an seabed legislation. Can Maori get their head around destroying some foreshore and seabed to enable civic projects for the greater good of all?

    No problem is so large as not to be conquerable. The only thing lacking is will power and desire.

    We can wring our hands in worry or build the infastructure to protect our foreshores.

    Now of course you need to be 100% certain that sea levels are rising, that the land is not falling, or a third scenario that increased sea level rises will push the earths crust down in the oceans but up in the existing land areas such as New Zealand.

    Have a read of this and view what the low countries (notably Holland) is doing

    http://www.euranet.eu/eng/content/view/full/11506

    from the article

    Han Vrijling has a point; even the KNMI, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute agrees that until now no extra rising has been recorded.

    and

    If you add the melting of Greenland’s ice cap and the freshwater glaciers to this, the Meterological Institute is absolutely certain that within a century the level of the sea will increase by 35 to 85 centimetres.

    It would seem that those who have most to loose are forecasting a sea level rise of 850mm this century.

    Well short of the 21 metres forecast by one Al Gore.

    Now I know who I believe is more accurate. Those whose lives are at stake or one who’s pocket is being lined with alarmist talk.

    So in New Zealand we should certainly be mindful of (at the extreme) a 1 metre sea level rise and build accordingly.

    One metre in ports will not have a devastating effect. Sure we need to take some pre-emptive decisions and build protective infastructure, but lets not get to far over the top.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  44. Gerrit

    I do absolutely take issue with your characterization of Gore’s presentation as predicting 21 meters by the end of the century. He pointed out what would happen when the WAIS and Greenland Ice all falls into the sea. Didn’t say when they would do so… just that on current form they very clearly will… and that is quite clearly true in the paleoclimate records. Don’t do this for rhetorical effect. We all know it isn’t true.

    The question of what we can do about the coastline in the face of rising seas is an interesting one. I personally would not, ABSOLUTELY not, ever choose to live in land which is below sea level, where the sea is held back by dikes. Not unless my house was also capable of floating. Consider Wellington, where it is at least a feasible thing to consider walling the Sea off from the harbor and building locks to let the ships down into it, and then consider the fault lines running beneath the city. .

    The problem is pretty much what Trevor says it is. We don’t have any way to protect most of NZ from the rising sea, or from the other consequences. Whether the Dutch have it right remains to be seen. I’ve seen their estimates. Good conservative Dutch estimates but still not certain to be correct. You can find scientific estimates that quite reasonably go up to 2 meters by then… and they all go over a meter shortly after the turn of the next century.

    5 meters in 300, 1 meter in 100…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE58S4L420090930

    Up to 2 meters in the next 100 as an upper bound…
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/

    I happen to think that we’ll see between 1.7 and 2 meters. We’re not being real smart so far. I also think there are ways to STOP that from happening, but we aren’t doing any of those either.

    So let us assume the 1 meter + scenario with another 3-5 meters in the succeeding century. Where does this leave the Dutch? Where does it leave US? I have long advocated the building of the transmission-gully route out of Wellington. There are other possible tracks (some more suitable for trains) but something through the higher ground is required. I’ve also long advocated building no new infrastructure anywhere less than 15 meters above MHW.

    In 100 years this policy will shift some of our infrastructure dependencies out of trouble. Doesn’t solve the problem, but it helps. Actually relocating essential things is more problematical. Mountainous country means we’ve built roads practically on the beaches. A lot of stuff is going to need to be moved.

    We’ll not see any real acceleration until it is too late.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  45. BJ,

    Unfortunately for Al Gore that 21 metres is the one fact he quoted that a lot of reporting is based on. Now it would seem incorrect, so it is up to Al Gore to correct it.

    Does it look like he is going to? No.

    So lets the stigma stick to him. He has the power of correction.

    Are you saying that irrespective of carbon emmision reduction this is going to happen anyway?

    If so blow paying the ETS, there is no point.

    So let us assume the 1 meter + scenario with another 3-5 meters in the succeeding century. Where does this leave the Dutch? Where does it leave US?

    I think you need to address the issue on a more personal level. What will happen to the people?

    The Dutch have made overtures to Germany, but that is problamatic because no one can predict where the Rhine and Maas rivers will flow. The Dutch are worried about flooding from the sea but more so from the Rhine and Maas rivers. The flood plains have been ringed with dykes and the water can only flow down a narrow channel to a rising sea. So Germany, through the Rhine valley could also be under water.

    Same in the USA with the flood plans of the Mississipi (sp?) and Missouri also not available to store flood water due to human intervention.

    Long term – 200 years, if your scenario pans out, the earth population will have been decimated due to flooding and territorial warfare to a more mangageable 1 billion people (that is what wars are good for).

    Maybe we should build an Ark with the savings made by not paying the ETS?

    But then will there be a “friendly” mountian to tie up to?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  46. Greengeek wrote: “Many NZers don’t realise how “ungreen” we actually are (especially our farming and vehicles). This means that playing catchup will be very destructive for us.”

    on the contrary. It means there are huge improvements we can make without doing anything particularly radical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  47. Gerrit wrote: “Not necessarily. The Northern European low countries have for over 50 years (since the 1953 disaster) barricaded themselves successfully against storm surges. Huge schemes of dykes and storm barriers including warning systems are in place.”

    huge by their standards, maybe, but their coastlines are actually really short in comparison with New Zealand. We wouldn’t have to do all our coastline, but what we would have to do would probably still be longer than the entire Dutch coastline, because a lot of our low, arable land is in narrow coastal strips.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  48. Gerrit

    If someone misquotes you, is it your fault or theirs? Perhaps Gore needs to correct it still, but I think he is correct to leave it be. Responding to people who are INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting his work is a losing game. Labeling them as libelous liars, even though they are IMHO, descends rapidly into the muck.

    As for the question of what we should do here in my worst-case scenario… We should arrange things to pay the ETS to ourselves… not act like there’s nothing wrong and not trying to buy credits from somewhere else.. and not insulating the industries responsible with taxpayer money…. then we can INDEED use the money to prepare ourselves and change our behaviour to prepare ourselves.

    The National-ACT-Easily-Used alliance however, has worked hard to give us the worst of all possible worlds.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  49. BJ,

    So who is right, the Dutch that factored in Greenland Ice cap melting PLUS glaciers melting and came up with 850mm, or Al Gore?

    The only variation is the Western Antartic Ice Shelf. So 20 odd meters of water is in the WAIS?

    Still know who I believe.

    I remember when in Sydney last there was a report in the SMH by some reporter that there would be 21 metres of water over the Opera House steps. If Al Gore is happy that he is misquoted like that then that is cool.

    It is his reputation after all, not mine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  50. Gerrit

    Can’t you see that based on what Gore actually SAID both can be right?

    The rate of melt and ice falling into the ocean is the question. The WAIS only has to add about the same as Greenland to bring it to 1.5+, and there is plenty of Ice in the WAIS to make that happen. The warming to take place also comes into it. What assumptions went into that equation?

    If I were the Dutch I would be preparing for a minimum of 2 meters by 2120, and preparing foundations for handling 3x more than that. The pressure at the base goes up as the depth and 5 meters of additional depth is a lot more push on the base of the Dikes. Means more mass needs to be added to the top, not just more height, and the base needs to be broadened.

    If the reporter in the SMH didn’t attach a date to that, but simply said when GIS and WAIS melt/slide into the ocean, then it is a correct statement. The problem is that the press (among other things) wants to alarm us because that sells papers and doing that means that they often mis-state or over-state things. When I hear stuff like that I wince, and often as not I try to correct the misconceptions.

    There’s a LOT of wrong ideas out there. Your responsibility is to look for the truth… not to simply accept what people tell you. I know you take that responsibility seriously.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  51. bjchip says: As for the question of what we should do here in my worst-case scenario… We should arrange things to pay the ETS to ourselves… not act like there’s nothing wrong and not trying to buy credits from somewhere else..

    I agree 100%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  52. BJ,

    There’s a LOT of wrong ideas out there. Your responsibility is to look for the truth… not to simply accept what people tell you. I know you take that responsibility seriously.

    Trouble is that there are so many conflicting reports that the “truth” is hard to fathom.

    Take this quote

    Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

    Souce is here

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

    So he overstates alarming views just to get the message across. Now if that is seeking the truth BJ, count me out.

    Have a look at some of the other quotes on that page

    Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

    x

    Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

    You think people like that will tell the “truth”.

    A couple more quotes that expose agendas beyond climate change and how climate change has been hijacked for socialist outcomes.

    Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

    x

    Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    Perhaps the only “truth” is in this quote

    Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: ‘Global warming’ will kill most of us, and turn the rest of us into cannibals.”

    I’m remain such a confirmed skeptic, not on climate change but more the motivation of the Al Gores on why they preach catastrohic outcomes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  53. Gerrit

    If you think the scientists are lying about the science you’re wrong. Some scientists may get some PART of the science wrong (Mann is a good candidate for that), but they’re sure enough of what they see to be scared to death of what the numbers tell them is coming. I have never heard of Monica Kopacz… who is the only person you quote who is supposed to be a scientist.

    Damn it Gerrit. I know some of these people and I know they won’t lie about the science. I also know they are scared to death, and they aren’t scared of Al Gore’s message.

    I KNOW there are a whole raft of people trying to turn it into something OTHER than what is necessary just to save the planet. You don’t have to tell me about it and you might add Goldman-Sachs to the list (though you won’t find a quote from them), as they are working to lock up the Carbon Trading market in the US when it is finally formed. Good Capitalists that they are.

    It doesn’t matter what the Goldman Sachses or the Al Gores or the the Christina Stewarts say (One wonders about the context of that astonishing idiocy of hers). The science remains. Did you understand Hansen’s quote on that same page? He is ANGRY because people are lying. Not because scientists are lying but because a lot of OTHER people are lying and spending money to publicize the opinions of flakes and nitwits… as though that somehow makes the science invalid.

    …and you are falling for it.

    I reckon you smarter than that Gerrit.

    The scientists do NOT care about capitalism, communism or the rest of the crap being injected into the debate… it isn’t science. Separate the two. They ARE separate.

    The person who collected the quotations said THIS (It is right there for you to read along with the rest)

    “The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others.”

    Well isn’t THAT an agenda just as blatant as David Suzuki’s or Hansen’s or Gore’s?

    Except whoever this jerk-off is, HE isn’t discussing science at all. He’s telling us he’s more scared of having to cooperate with other people to avoid catastrophe than actually having a catastrophe. That somehow, that makes the science and the likelihood of the catastrophe less real.

    Did you read my link to Weitzman’s paper?

    Pay attention to the motivations. Gore, of a certainty, does not need more money. Hansen, does not care about the money. The people involved in the science almost invariably are paid the same no matter if the planet is warming or not.

    Who keeps making money if nothing is done for as long as possible? The Saudis, the oil companies, the bankers and the businessmen. The people who currently have power and money. Hmmm… and they are paying the freight for 90% of the contrarian literature too? There’s a conspiracy alright. It’s just not where you’re looking.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  54. I reckon you misunderstood Gore’s quote anyway, Gerrit.

    Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

    An “over-representation of factual presentations” does not mean he “overstates alarming views”. He’s just saying you have to repeat things to get people’s attention even when they are true. Note he talks about “factual representations”, while overstating alarming views means exaggerating to me. Very different.

    Not surprising there’s such confusion if a quote like that can be so easily mistaken.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  55. After Muldoon as PM and Minister of Finance back 75-84 we said never again, I wonder if having the same person Minister of the Environment and Minister for ACC, we will soon be saying the same?

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

  56. The way Gore speaks it IS easy to drift off into a deep deep sleep. I’ve seen him in person and it was almost unbearable. Even if you … agree… with … (*snore*)…

    (*snore*)…

    :-)
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  57. Actually, on reflection, the point of his quotation remains true. The problem is that the people “imposing their will” on the rest of us are the owners of the USA. The bankers and the oil barons and the uber-rich. It isn’t like this experiment with the atmospheric chemistry of the planet is “doing nothing”. In terms of the change to the atmosphere it is already (as far as science is concerned) and impulse of CO2 that has no known precedent since the planet was formed.

    The planet isn’t impressed by their money even though the people can still be bought. When THAT changes the people will “impose their will” on their owners and that is what this guy is afraid of?

    Basically I think I was right the first time. He’s jerking us off.

    BJ

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

  58. “The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others.”

    Good quote BJ. Although obviously you castigate him for finding an excuse for laziness. However his feelings are perfectly natural for a human being.

    It is inherent for most humans to have a fatalistic sense of acceptance. That is what lets them survive tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, infidelity, etc etc.

    “Keeping on keeping on” is hardwired into us more than the intellect to change our course of action.

    That is what I firmly believe anyway.

    And that is why I don’t want MY government giving anyone else the power to trade my lifestyle or surroundings away.

    If there are going to be any trade-offs affecting my life I want someone to stand face to face with me and offer me a planetary benefit as payment for a personal tax.

    Then I can either tell them to go to hell, or pay the tax if I agree that they are right.

    I’m afraid Roger Douglas’s economics, and Max Bradfords power reform “benefits” long ago convinced me not to trust the machinations of officials.

    If I am going to contribute to a greener world (and of course I am…) then I want to do it face to face by being able to buy green products over the counter, driving my homebuilt greenfleet vehicle on public roads (or ride my bicycle in safety!!) etc etc

    There are so many PRACTICAL steps our government could take to make NZ a greener place.

    The more tax we ship off overseas the less we will really change here.

    To those who believe that NZ will make money off it’s international “greenness” I say “bunkum”.

    The miscalculations made on our behalf when we first signed Kyoto will likely be repeated again. It is not that hard to outsmart us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  59. The only miscalculation made when NZ signed the Kyoto agreement was in thinking that we didn’t have to do anything to keep our emissions down. We are still well placed to get our emissions under control and down below 1990 levels, but it requires much more action that this ETS.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

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>