115 thoughts on “General debate, March 24, 2013

  1. SPC – Although the wastewater injection may have triggered the quake (and even that is in dispute), the quake occurred because there was stress building up at a fault line, and would have occurred sooner or later. If the wastewater did trigger the quake, it may have prevented an even larger and therefore more damaging quake later, by allowing some of the stress to be relieved.

    Trevor.

  2. arana – even if the CO2 sensitivity is less than that thought by the IPCC, the temperature rise will be more than 2 degrees C or 3 or 4 degrees C unless we curb CO2 emissions. And so far there are few signs of CO2 emissions being curbed. Projections of CO2 levels exceed the levels considered by the IPCC when they tried to forecast the overall range of likely temperature rises.

    This shows that you can’t overestimate human stupidity.

    Trevor.

  3. Kerry – So now we can apparently get accurate temperatures from the Sahara in 1813 from tree rings and ice cores?

    Keep up the jokes.

    Next you’d be calculating average wind speeds in the Sahara for each month of 1813 from tree rings.

  4. Not really up with the play, are you Photo.

    There have been big advancements in refining the accuracy of using tree growth to find past temperatures in the last couple of years.

    They can do a lot better than within 20 degrees, and then there is isotope measurement.

  5. Kerry says “Never heard of ice cores and tree rings. Photo?”

    Nice joke.

    Ice cores and tree rings will give us a really accurate picture of what was happening in the Sahara 200 years ago.

    And sea temperatures.

    And tree rings will give us a really accurate picture that is was a bad growing season in a particular year because it was very dry, or perhaps very cold, or perhaps very hot, or maybe too wet, or too windy, or just a bit cloudy.

    And we should be able to tell what the temperature was from a tree ring (to the nearest 20 degrees).

  6. Kerry say “Photo thinks we couldn’t measure the weather two hundred years ago.”

    That’s not what was said.

    Though here are some 1813 weather questions for you.

    Can you give me half a dozen readings of how many carbon parts per million were in the air over NZ in the year 1813.

    Or what the ocean, land and air, temperatures were in various parts of NZ that hadn’t yet been settled in 1813

    Or Antarctica in 1813 (before anyone had ever been there).

    Or perhaps the average water flows of the Zambezi at Victoria Falls in 1813, (four decades before it was discovered).

    Or average temperatures of the Sahara Desert at Timbuktu in 1813 (before any European had ever been there).

    And what were temperatures measured with in 1813? (considering thermometers at the time taking the same reading often gave differing results by several degrees).

    Can you explain how rainfall, temperature, storms, droughts and wind speed (and parts per million of carbon) were measured in 1813 in all those places that hadn’t been discovered, with instruments needed for some readings that hadn’t yet been invented?

  7. Good Arana… I vastly prefer rational argument. Lukewarmers are generally rational.

    Still wrong, the Norway study has serious issues with over-fitting the recent surface temps, but at least not without SOME scientific support.

    The bulk of the science is supporting about 3 degrees and 2.5 is not impossible to believe. The wiggle room diminishes as the data accumulates. The RISK however, is not considered by the folks reporting at the Economist.

    Unfortunately, the risk has to be assessed and decisions made in spite of uncertainty. I linked to a very good and really well done discussion of the risk earlier.

  8. I have unsubscribed as I can’t login. The Moderator will have to make a Vimeo account to see the step by step video I made showing how I can’t login.

    Goodbye.

  9. So, even if one is a believer, the fact is we may well be dealing with a non-problem in terms of effect. A slight rise is likely beneficial.

    It would be very bad news for the anti-fossil fuel nutters, tho’….

  10. economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    “Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

    This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.”

  11. “to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs”

    Interesting.

    http://www.100percentpossible.org.nz/how/factoids/
    “Last year NZ spent about $8 billion on imported oil – almost as much as we earned from dairy exports.
    Treasury states that in 2011 imports of ‘mineral fuels’ was $7.479 billion, while exports of ‘dairy produce etc’ were $11.479 billion.””

    Incidentally this is roughly doubling every 4 years.

    From a purely economic view, substituting even a quarter of fossil fuel imports with locally sourced renewable’s such as wind, wood waste energy, tidal, geothermal and other sources means we could spend the earnings from all those cows on much more useful things.

    Over reliance on oil is diverting funds from “real needs”.

  12. Sometimes when we get people like Arana and Photo on blogs I wonder if they are just trolling, like arguing and taking the piss. Or paid to agree with anything National do, as they so unfailingly support them no matter how daft it is.

    Then they come up with something that proves that there are people who are too thick to see what is happening all round them.

  13. Photo thinks we couldn’t measure the weather two hundred years ago.

    Bullshit Photo. I did not give it as proof, but as, just one, one of many indications which together with thousands of others add up to proof.
    That is called scientific proof, you wally!

    There are more than two glaciers on the West Coast. Fox and Franz Joseph are notable because they are easily accessible and not usually masked by snow.

    By the way, Franz Joseph is receding again. Rapidly!

    http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/216185/glacier-retreat-surprises-experts
    “A spectacular ice retreat at the Franz Josef Glacier has surprised even the experts.
    The 500m retreat in just four years”

    As I saw, when I was there, last year.

  14. FYI – My network connection has gotten ill. ADSL keeps resetting. Two different modems do the same so I am not sure how reliable it will be for a while.

    Get them to test the cable in your street, and from your house to the street. Or if you know how, test the line yourself. It can be due to a damaged cable or connection – happens often – which makes it subject to interference.

  15. Arana – do you have any details of the projects you mention when you said “it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs”?

    All of the projects (except CCS) which reduce CO2 emissions reduce dependence on fossil fuels and therefore have at least an element of saving resources for other real needs. CCS is being promoted by the Business As Usual (BAU) crowd rather than the green movements.

    Trevor.

  16. BJ,

    Had the same problem, new wireless modem from Telecom fixed the problem.

    Do think modems (especially if on like most 24/7) have a lifespan. Amazing how hot the little blighters get. Have mine now off the carpet and on a stand to improve airflow through the unit.

    Though I suspect that corus guys working on the phone exchange box at the end of the street had something to do with it resetting itself every hour or so..

  17. photonz1 – “Similarly every time someone claims the latest “worst event in a hundred years” being proof of global warming, they undermine their own argument, because there was an EVEN WORSE event 100 years ago, before global warming.”

    That isn’t necessarily the case. The 100 years window may have been determined by the start of observations, not by an even worse event. Each example has to be examined separately.

    Trevor.

  18. @BJ – good luck sorting out your ADSL. I had something similar which turned out to be dried out electrolytic capacitors in the ADSL modem, after literally years of being powered up 24/7.

    Trevor.

  19. FYI – My network connection has gotten ill. ADSL keeps resetting. Two different modems do the same so I am not sure how reliable it will be for a while.

  20. Kerry says “I am talking about over 90% of 100′s of glaciers, not one.”

    YOU are the one who gave the West Coast Glaciers example as your proof of global warming

    Now you do a flip-flop and say they don’t mean anything.

    Kerry says “One extreme weather event proves nothing. A pattern of more and increasingly extreme weather events does.”

    Even if weather patterns are IDENTICAL to a century or two ago, we will have massively INCREASED measuring, recording, and reporting of extreme weather events

    So an increase in reported extreme weather events, is at least partially due to a massive increase in measuring equipment, measuring places, recording devices, and reporting methods (i.e. media, internet etc).

    Similarly every time someone claims the latest “worst event in a hundred years” being proof of global warming, they undermine their own argument, because there was an EVEN WORSE event 100 years ago, before global warming.

  21. No Photo. You are blethering as usual.

    I am talking about over 90% of 100’s of glaciers, not one.

    One glacier receding or advancing could be anything. Most of them receding shows warming.

    One extreme weather event proves nothing. A pattern of more and increasingly extreme weather events does.

  22. fin says “Despite the FJ glacier not being a very sensitive indicator of climate change; the graph of it’s retreat, that I have linked to, clearly supports the theory of global warming.”

    This is an example of what I was complaining about – you say Frans Josef “clearly supports the theory of global warming”, when it has ADVANCED 25 of the last 30 years during global warming (missing from your very old graph), and had a much more massive RETREAT in the late 1700s when there wasn’t any.

    It advanced when it should be retreating, and retreated when it should be advancing. Rather than clearly supporting global warming, it does the opposite.

    Hence my point about people swallowing so called “evidence” hook, line and sinker, without the slightest questioning.

  23. The article you claim to be unlinkable:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

    — was answered by ACTUAL Climate Scientists

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket

    Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D.
    Distinguished Senior Scientist
    Climate Analysis Section National Center for Atmospheric Research
    La Jolla, Calif.

    Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

    Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

    Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

    Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

    Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

    Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington

    Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

    Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

    Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

    Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior’s Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

    Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

    Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

    Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

    David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

    Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

    Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

    Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

    David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

    Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

    William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

    Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

    Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

    Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

    Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

    James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

    Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

    Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

    William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

    Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

    Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

    Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

    ________________________________________

    Notably, of the 16 original signatories 2 are currently practicing climate science. One has an alternative theory he likes but which has some fairly powerful counterarguments. ALL of their arguments were debunked before being made. They are the “Zombie” arguments of denialists… and the “Gish Gallop” they present is dissected at length…

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

    …and the Wall Street Journal is not actually real accurate on any of this

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/news-corporation-climate-science-coverage.html

    Something you have had explained several times. It is a Murdoch pub. It is biased to the point of uselessness.

  24. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

    BULLSHIT! Arana, PURE bullshit… Consensus occurs and is invoked with ANY theory that has been challenged, tested and shown correct sufficiently that any scientist in the field will recognize accept and use it.

    Consensus OCCURS when the science is actually correctly reflecting some objective reality. The theories of evolution and relativity are good examples. Where there is no consensus there are competing theories of similar validity. There are NO SUCH THEORIES in climate science. Just blather.

  25. Photon, “I just think it’s better to question claims, like what people call irrefutable proof when it obviously isn’t ”

    Despite the FJ glacier not being a very sensitive indicator of climate change; the graph of it’s retreat, that I have linked to, clearly supports the theory of global warming. It’s very sad, and I don’t want to believe it, I’d rather be like Arana, but it’s pretty clear.

    “I have little doubt humans are making a difference to our climate.”
    I wish you were wrong, but I think you are right :(

  26. Arana.
    You were the one complaining about people believing experts.

    I believe what I can see for myself.
    Like the NW passage ice free for the first time in recorded history.
    Sea temperatures rising around the NZ coast.

    I remember that list. A list of scientists put out by one of the denialists organisations.
    Wasn’t that the list that many of the scientists whose name was on it, were rather puzzled as to how they got there? And the rather strange lack of climate scientists!

  27. fin says “Photon, you seem to think that because the FJ glacier advanced for 20 or 30 years, that is evidence that AGW or indeed GW is not happening. Is this correct?”

    No – not correct.

    Just pointing out that what some people call irrefutable evidence, has – been proving the exact opposite for 25 of the last 30 years.
    – has had similar glacial retreats in the past, obviously for reasons other than man-made global warming.

    I have little doubt humans are making a difference to our climate.

    I just think it’s better to question claims, like what people call irrefutable proof when it obviously isn’t – instead of swallowing up the most extreme predictions available, hook, line and sinker.

  28. Arana YOU said I am bluffing. I showed my cards.

    You showed yours when YOU said you didn’t understand the science.

    I think that’s a fair argument to make.

    …rather than presuming it is “a reason why I should accept your view”

    I didn’t ever say you should accept MY view Arana. I just say you should stop denying the science.

    __________________________________

    There is no proof man is causing catastrophic global warming by releasing c02.

    Shown and “proven” so far is that man is causing warming by releasing CO2.

    The “catastrophic” part is in the future. The SCIENCE is what predicts it. So you ARE arguing against the science… and denying you are making the argument in the same breath. You are suffering a fairly extreme form of cognitive dissonance at this point. You can continue to suffer or you can admit that you don’t understand the science and…

    Do you actually want to experience the catastrophe before you will believe that it will happen? Do you also jump off tall buildings because you don’t believe there will be a sudden stop at the end of the fall? Your reasoning isn’t even good enough to be suspect here, it is complete trash.

    “Current temperatures in the Artic are the same as in 1943.”

    That is simply wrong Arana. If you actually provided a reference link I’d be happy to have a look at the source of their error, but it is simply and completely wrong.

    I might guess Christy.

  29. Photon, you seem to think that because the FJ glacier advanced for 20 or 30 years, that is evidence that AGW or indeed GW is not happening.
    Is this correct?

    Surely you can see that when predicting future weather patterns, the longer your data set, the better your predictions will be.

    The trend in the graph is clear. I do not dispute that the glacier advanced for 20 years. The glacier was still advancing until 2008, but since then it has entered a very rapid phase of retreat. As is the case for most other New Zealand glaciers … the shrinking process is attributed to global warming.[9]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Glacier

  30. Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

    Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

  31. You have failed to make an argument, Arana. For the simple reason there is supporting evidence for AGW.

    There is none for the other proposition, despite the obvious incentives for anyone who can disprove AGW.

    Which is why you are trying to make out it is a contest of belief.

    It is not. It is a contest of observable fact, against those, like you, and all the usual suspects, who think that opinion trumps fact. You are in good company with all the creationists, politicians, true believers, neo-classical economists and other idiots who deny reality when it does not suit them.

    And. I have my own water temperature series for the NZ coast, from 25 years of seagoing. No sign of cooling. They have been steadily rising..

  32. All in all I find your argument is tedious and without any corroborating information. Good luck with your climate change denial Arana… You’re going to need it.

    Thanks, but it won’t affect my life in the slightest. You can panic about it, if you want.

    It’s merely an interesting question, and a prime example of how science can be corrupted by despicable politics.

  33. The conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is real was made in the early 70′s. That initial conclusion has been subsequently proven on numerous occasions since then, which is hardly leaping to conclusions Arana.

    It hasn’t.

    There is no proof, anywhere, man is causing dangerous warming due to c02.
    This is why you keep falling back on consensus, because you can’t produce the proof.

  34. Just because they receive government funding to study such things doesn’t equate to any corruption Arana, they are simply being paid to study things and report on those findings.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

  35. Why?

    “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    Consensus isn’t proof of anything. It’s a smokescreen.

    Next.

  36. Arana

    My argument doesn’t fail – yours does.

    Why? Because you don’t agree with the approximately 98% consensus that says anthropomorphic climate change is real? Playing with semantics and saying that because there isn’t 100% agreement doesn’t change the facts of the matter Arana, and proclaiming yourself judge and jury to dismiss that consensus simply makes you look foolish!

    You then say that on one hand a group of scientists have nothing to gain, whilst acknowledging another group of scientists do. So money can influence one side of the debate, but not the other.

    In this case, money has been shown to be influencing one side of the debate. There are direct links between the oil and gas industry and certain unscrupulous scientists.

    In complete contrast to that corruption, there’s no evidence that any scientist has been influenced by money to promote anthropomorphic climate change. Just because they receive government funding to study such things doesn’t equate to any corruption Arana, they are simply being paid to study things and report on those findings.

    Those reports, if you bothered to read them Arana, should be able to sober up even the most ardent climate change denier.

    If I were a scientist, I’d be on the pro side, as that’s where most of the money is.

    Which says more about your lack of scruples than anything else… Thankfully most scientists aren’t like you.

    People do make mistakes. It is right to keep asking questions, and not leap to conclusions.

    The conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is real was made in the early 70’s. That initial conclusion has been subsequently proven on numerous occasions since then, which is hardly leaping to conclusions Arana.

    All in all I find your argument is tedious and without any corroborating information. Good luck with your climate change denial Arana… You’re going to need it.

  37. Your position regarding consensus isn’t scientific, Jackal. It’s political rhetoric. As Michael Crichton points out:

    “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    My argument doesn’t fail – yours does.

    You then say that on one hand a group of scientists have nothing to gain, whilst acknowledging another group of scientists do. So money can influence one side of the debate, but not the other. Uh-huh. If I were a scientist, I’d be on the pro side, as that’s where most of the money is.

    People do make mistakes. It is right to keep asking questions, and not leap to conclusions.

  38. Arana

    I’m not arguing against science. Nice straw-man, champ.

    Well, actually you have been Arana. That’s pretty obvious to anybody who knows anything about climate change science.

    BJ, you’re now listing your qualifications, presumably as a reason why I should accept your view, when last week you rejected the view of a climate scientist, however her qualifications trump yours, so why don’t you accept hers?

    I think BJ was informing you that he’s qualified to understand the dynamics of what is occurring. Whether someone else is more qualified that he disagrees with is beside the point, a point that I think he has made well… The scientific consensus is that anthropomorphic climate change is real.

    The problem with your argument Arana is that we’re not talking about one or two scientists coming to the same conclusion… We’re talking about thousands of different scientists in various fields of expertise coming to similar if not the same conclusions.

    Another area where your argument totally fails Arana is that most scientist have nothing to gain from proving climate change one way or the other. In fact the small percentage of scientists (I think it’s around 2%) that agree with your “hypothesis” are likely to be associated with industries that do have something to gain from saying climate change isn’t being adversely affected by industrialization… Namely the oil and gas industry.

    In this regard I disagree with BJ, because attacking science that has an ulterior motive is always beneficial. Science is no holy grail, but it’s the best thing we have to finding the facts. Usually such (un)scientific findings are easily refuted, which clearly indicates that the majority of climate change science doesn’t have an ulterior motive.

    If it did have an ulterior motive, the climate change deniers would be able to prove and/or back up their arguments with scientific fact… But instead we just get cherry picking data and bold faced claims from people like Arana without anything remotely scientific to substantiate them… Bullshit in other words.

    It’s important to note that anthropomorphic climate change hasn’t ever occurred before, and with anything that’s unprecedented, people measuring and making predictions on those factual findings can make mistakes. Those previous inconsistencies, such as saying New Zealand would become more tropical instead of drought prone, don’t negate the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. They simply show that the full effects are yet unknown, because it’s an unprecedented occurrence.

  39. I’m not arguing against science. Nice straw-man, champ.

    There is no proof man is causing catastrophic global warming by releasing c02. There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. The fact one is receding or growing now is not a sign of AGW. Current temperatures in the Artic are the same as in 1943.

    BJ, you’re now listing your qualifications, presumably as a reason why I should accept your view, when last week you rejected the view of a climate scientist, however her qualifications trump yours, so why don’t you accept hers?

  40. @Arana – I am bluffing? You think perhaps that my work at NASA JPL didn’t equip me to understand what is going on? That perhaps my intelligence and multiple degrees are unequal to the task? I DO still get access to some paywalled documents despite having no money – the Meehl study linked through from the deep ocean warming for instance. I do read them… thoroughly, despite the demands that makes on my time.

    The conclusions I reach from the research done are usually no different, from those of the scientists who do the research, but I also ask them questions – and get answers. To YOU these are just a few more inaccessible untrustworthy people to tell us what to think and believe out of ignorance.

    To ME they are scientists and the information they offer is as good as it gets. They may be wrong, and they are never sure, but they are always sifting for the truth. If they encounter someone else who is also interested in the truth, they usually help.

    The difference between science and the opinions of random strangers, or your “beliefs” is that science is supported by observation and experiment and objective facts.

    Remember what happened when the Energy companies tried to find research to overturn AGW? They spent a potload of money on their own payrolled scientists, only to be told that it was real. Science is not about making the research match the opinion of the guy with the money. What happened after that? It is instructive. They bankrolled CEI, the same mob that spearheaded the lies for big Tobacco. Paid propagandists. Who have been attacking science ever since.

    Attacking science. Stupid. “Darwin Award” stupid.

    Science is the premier tool of our “intelligent” species to survive and prosper, to separate fact from fiction. So yes, I listen to the science, all of it, not the propagandists.

    What do YOU do?

  41. Arana. I’ve been giving facts in support of AGW for over two years on this blog alone. But your counter argument consists only of OPINIONS.

    You are up there with your fellow, idiots like creationists, tobacco supporters and anti-vaccination lobbyists, believing your opinion should mean more than sound science.

  42. Unfortunately, stopping the support for biofuels in NZ stopped some very promising progress on biofuels from wastes.
    Particularly algae from sewage plants.
    The sort of progress we need to make to eventually cut fossil fuel use.

    Which we need to do for economic as well as environmental reasons.

  43. Photo.
    You had noticed that over 90% of the worlds glaciers, are receding, hadn’t you.

    And you do know that it can be, too cold to snow!

    There is no one credible claiming the opposite, just some denialist twits trying to fudge the issue..
    It was known more than 20 years ago that some glaciers, near coasts with high rainfall, may get more snow feeds, and advance, as temperatures, and snowfalls rise, even though the majority are receding.

    By the way. Look at the heights of past terminal moraine at Franz Joseph compared to today. It may be faster, but it is a lot shallower. .

  44. Arana’s contribution to the debate.
    “I don’t know anything about it, but I am going to ignore those who do, and what is happening outside my window, because in MY OPINION, it is not true”.

    I know arguments and I see large gaps in this one, suggesting high levels of uncertainty, bluff and bluster.

    Some pro-AGW arguments in this thread:

    “I claim to know a lot about it, but I arrived at the conclusions I did because I believed what someone told me. I believe warming is happening outside my window, because in MY OPINION, it is true”

  45. This is a climate crime – powering Houston.

    http://vimeo.com/39515152

    66 million lbs per day is 33,000 short tons. At 100 tons per car, this is 330 train cars each day supplying the power plant.

    The plant burns the contents of one of those railcars in about 4.5 minutes.

    There are things that are worse than nuclear energy and dams on rivers.

    Here in NZ it remains hard to justify nuclear, but we know where it IS needed it is foolish to choose anything else.

    We know that we are too many on this earth to be supported BY this earth, and that our overshoot was made possible by the use of fossil energy. To stop emitting CO2 and not die back ungracefully is a huge challenge.

    To do so while rejecting some of the tools at our disposal… even more difficult.

  46. Photonz and Fin – Ultimately the fate of those Glaciers is NOT clear as the modeling is not detailed enough. Several factors at work… too many for me to make any prediction at all.

    While climate is in a transient state (still warming rapidly) the increase works to SUPPRESS rainfall.

    In the steady state rainfall is expected to be greater.

    At the same time the melt due to the temperature increases.

    Where the balance gets struck is arguable either way and what happens in any given decade is IMHO, unpredictable and unpredictive of what happens in the next.

    The excess of la-nina events seem to give us a hiatus in surface warming as the deep ocean picks up heat. Does that give us a period in which the precipitation increases and the glaciers gain? or merely don’t lose as fast?

    Is this good? Is the grounded ice of the WAIS destabilizing faster? The details we don’t know ARE important… but the heat imbalance is a brutal reality that cannot be wished away.

  47. Fin – interesting that your graph of Franz Josef is missing TWO DECADES of rapid advance.

    Why is the last recorded reading on it a quarter of a century out of date?

  48. Fin – I’ve heard climate scientists say that global warming will heat the Tasman Sea, resulting in more evaporation and therefore more precipitation as snow at high altitudes. The increase of snow at the neve will increase the advance of the West Coast glaciers.

    And other climate scientists have said the opposite is happening.

  49. Both the Franz Josef and the Fox glaciers are very sensitive to variations in climate. Even small changes in snowfall can result in substantial changes in the position of the terminus.
    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/glaciers-and-glaciation/page-2

    In 2012 Dr Brian Anderson, a Victoria University senior research fellow in glaciology, said the retreat was “really unusual and quite amazing”
    “In general, we expect that the glaciers will get a lot smaller in the coming century, as the climate warms,” Dr Anderson said.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10818264

    Since the 1930s, there is a clear trend of fast retreat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Franz_Jozef_Glacier_NZ_fig13.gif

  50. Kerry says “Anyone who visits the West Coast of the South Island can see for them selves.”

    So why did Franz Josef Glacier ADVANCE at one of the fastest paces in the world in the 80s, 90s and 2000s?

  51. Arana’s contribution to the debate.

    “I don’t know anything about it, but I am going to ignore those who do, and what is happening outside my window, because in MY OPINION, it is not true”.

  52. Arana – We don’t “predict” climate over 10 years or even 20. Fifty on the outside, and the predictions are for a planet, not a part of one.

    You CAN model it and you can make assumptions about the inputs. After 10 or 20 years you can look at the actual inputs, and if they vary from the assumptions you can still check your answers. Now look at this link

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk

    That TREND is what they predicted, and that is EXACTLY what they got.

    You are still offering false arguments and I am concluding more and more that you do not give a stuff about the truth.

    Look at the deep sea warming. THAT was an unexpected path for the warming to take, and a more dangerous one for us. The science is good on the global scale but the details are hard to pin down. It is not doing anything “unexpected” apart from getting worse faster.

    I see that you “don’t understand the science” but you see yourself as expert enough to call it rubbish. This is a topic you should stay away from. If you are smart enough to claim ignorance, you SHOULD be smart enough to STFU and listen to people who aren’t in that state.

    The energy imbalance remains, the warming continues, we are killing the future of our species and you are working to return the planet to an environment suitable for giant lizards.

  53. Well I am logged in, I just can’t comment unless I’m moderated, Moderator! I’m even logged into my account on WordPress, through WordPress and still I’m supposedly not logged in.

    This is all just annoying.

  54. And who would they be? Because, so far, they didn’t predict warming would stall, and they appear to have vastly overestimated the size of the problem.

    I think I understand the nature of climate science. It’s a chaotic system. Those who know the most don’t understand much at all. There is a lot of guessing going on, but it’s being presented as certainty.

    97% of who agree on what? And since when does agreement constitute proof?

    And you’re another who pretends to understand it, when you can’t possibly do so. Because even those qualified to do so barely understand it. And how can they be expected to? It’s a massive, chaotic system of which little historic data exists.

    Admit it – your position is based on very little knowledge of climate.

  55. I am happy to admit I do not understand this field of science.

    Right. Then you are obliged to look for answers to people who actually do.

    Do you?

    Well apparently not.

    You don’t listen to the climate scientists at all. 97% agreement there. Do you reckon evolution is also a crock?

    You don’t listen to me… though I am linking and explaining accessible and understandable versions of the science for you.

    You don’t read RealClimate.

    You don’t read SkepticalScience.

    You surely don’t read the raw scientific papers available.

    You do parrot the denialist line pretty well. For someone who claims to “not understand the science” you sure post a lot of arguments… all rubbish of course, but you are quite vocal about how nobody else understands it either… but how would YOU know?

    No Arana… you’ve been outed here…

    You don’t WANT to understand it and the reason you don’t is that you’re afraid that if you do your comfortable worldview will disintegrate… and you’re wrong about that TOO.

    Just not so. You can believe the Climate Scientists and still regard “big government” as a generally bad idea. Heckfire, you can still disagree with us about every social issue under the sun… and you can disagree about what to do about it. Photonz does it, why not you?

  56. For example:

    “The Marcott reconstruction has been joined to the Shakun reconstruction prior to that, and the HadCRUT4 global temperature data since, and the projected temperature change under the A1B scenario for the future, by Jos Hagelaars, in order to show us some perspective on climate change past, present and future.”

    I have no idea if that’s a valid approach vs [insert any other approach here] . I doubt you do, either.

  57. I saw it, Fin. So what? It’s just more highly selective pseudo-scientific sophistry selected on the basis it supports the conclusion you arrived at long ago. I produce the same in response, and no one is any the wiser.

  58. The position of non Maori and Maori in this land is exactly the same as the position of the Palestinians to the Israelites, the only real difference being Maori own the majority of the land, and they always have done.

    No, they don’t. No race owns land by virtue of skin colour. Land is owned by virtue of title.

    This country was stolen from Maori by thieving little white guys with the idea of making money for themselves under the guise of representing the Queen of England.

    That’s how it was at the time. Land was taken by conquest. Maori engaged in the exact same thing – tribes fought each other, and the weakest got eaten.

    Then some white people and brown people signed a treaty, and we agreed to live by the rule of law, which, whilst not perfect, was a vast improvement on being dinner.

    For the descendents of thieves that you are, you people need to be much more conciliatory

    Good grief. Following that stupid example, Maori are decedents of cannibals, so perhaps they should be more grateful we imposed a sense of peace and order.

  59. It would appeal to those who seek a “cleansing”, a “washing away” of all that is rotten, in order to start anew.

    Biblical. Involved an ark….

    And some others are just doomers.

    Always look on the bright side of life, I say.

  60. I think a lot of people arrived at their conclusions about this issue via the media and their political allegiance, as opposed to the result of scientific inquiry.

    Confirmation bias takes care of the rest.

    I am happy to admit I do not understand this field of science. There are very few people in the world who do, but many who like to pretend they do. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    I remain skeptical because of the *nature* of the debate. It’s got the slimy fingers of politicians, bankers and other vested interests all over it. It doesn’t have the high degree of certainty about it that more “settled” scientific conclusions do – i.e. physics involved in flight

    Until such time, it is right to keep asking questions.

  61. Arana said “The views she expressed sounded like she’ll represent all races, and not just conform to to a minority radical activist agenda set by a small group within Maori. A group of people who, I feel, are doing more to damage race relations than any other group in this country.”

    This country was stolen from Maori by thieving little white guys with the idea of making money for themselves under the guise of representing the Queen of England.

    New Zealand only consists of the land that was legally purchased by those thieving little white guys, who then went on to establish a parliament, that still exists today) to invent laws to purloin the rest of the land, driving the people on it into desperation.

    The non Maori people are lucky the Maori people don’t do to them what was done to Maori. Revenge is often seen in on the news media when crimes by Maori are committed against laws that have no legal right to be applied to Maori! You might be a New Zealander, but Maori are not, they are Maori.

    The position of non Maori and Maori in this land is exactly the same as the position of the Palestinians to the Israelites, the only real difference being Maori own the majority of the land, and they always have done.

    For the descendents of thieves that you are, you people need to be much more conciliatory.

  62. I thought the topic was the appointment of Susan Devoy as Race Relations Conciliator?

    And if my comments have to be approved, why are there any trolls commenting as surely they can be set to, ‘to be approved’ status as well?

    So Susan Devoy will be as good as any other political appointment not based on direct experience, but as the Minister who appointed her said (not an exact quote just remembering what Judith Collins said on the TV News)”as a woman she knows what it’s like to be paid less and treated unfairly.” So from that perspective of women being undervalued in society, she and any other woman would be ideal for the job.

    Who was the last man who got a political appointment because he was a man, or good at a sport, or got an honour? All I can think of is John Kirwan, but I don’t think coaching a professional rugby franchise was politically motivated.

    I bet the Minister will be most annoyed if it’s discovered that a female Race Relations Conciliator gets paid less than a male Race Relations Conciliator, but even if that’s not true you can be assured the amount of tax you pay to keep such political appointments won’t alter.

  63. The Jehovahs would label me an “unbeliever”. I guess they’re right.

    It’s not saying much, tho….

    Believe what you want, BJ.

  64. Arana – I answered Andrew in detail regarding Booker, without even once going to Skeptical Science (which remains an excellent site and hated by all right thinking right wing nut jobs, because it exposes their errors and lies). That answer applies to your quotation of Booker’s rubbish. I am not going to repeat myself.

    You clearly didn’t read either… possibly because they don’t often have cartoons?

  65. Oh noes!

    The AGW debate is stuck fast. It’s like the Jehovahs Witness at the door. They are never going to stop believing, no matter what you say. You’re never going to believe what they say, either, as you know it’s just something they’ve chosen to believe :)

    Big claims require big proof, but the AGW science is mired in uncertainty.

  66. Meanwhile.

    In the real world, outside of the fruitcake one.

    Glaciers are receding. Just because the IPCC got the magnitude wrong does not change the fact that they are! Anyone who visits the West Coast of the South Island can see for them selves.
    The North South range of tropical species is spreading. As shown by mosquitos in NZ. And Locusts in the USA and Africa.
    Weather events are becoming more severe. A sign of more energy in the atmosphere.
    Ocean acidification is increasing.
    Etc Etc.

    The earth is warm because of Green house gases. Otherwise it would be too cold for life on earth.

    The only credible cause for extra warming, apart from moving closer to the sun, which we know is not happening, is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    We have increased Greenhouse gases significantly above natural levels. The effect of which can be shown, and quantified, by a simple lab experiment.
    We have an earth warming faster than can be explained by natural levels of green house gases.
    We are adding the gases.

    Earth is warming and it is humanity that is doing it. Fouling our own nest.
    No one, despite the millions on offer to anyone who can debunk AGW, has shown any other credible explanation.

    AGW denial, when you can see it happening all around you, is the act of a fool.

  67. Meanwhile in the world outside Arana’s study:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10873610

    ‘Defence Force ill-equipped for increasingly likely scenario of multiple threats, report claims.

    The changing climate will increase security threats to Australia, including the possible collapse of fragile states in the region and resource wars, a new report has warned.

    The report, by the leading defence think-tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the speed of change means the nation’s military planners can no longer brush off the likely impacts as they did in the 2009 white paper that saw no crisis emerging for at least two decades.

    “That’s no longer the case,” Heavy weather: climate and the Australian Defence Force says.

    “The downstream implications of climate change are forcing Defence to become involved in mitigation and response tasks right now.”‘

    Trevor

  68. Oh, a link from “skeptical” “science”, BJ? Does it feature a cartoon?

    Meanwhile…

    “Of course, there was a modest temperature rise in the 20th century, as a continuation of the warming that began 200 years ago as the world naturally emerged from those centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. But the 0.5C rise between 1976 and 1998 was no greater than the 0.5C rise between 1910 and 1940 (with 35 years of cooling between them, so that the net rise in the past century has been only 0.8C).
    Yet it was on that modest rise in the 1980s and 1990s that the whole of the greatest and most expensive scare in history was launched on its way, with all the terrifying political and economic consequences we see around us today. The very last people to recognise this, alas, will be our politicians, because they seem incapable of looking properly at the evidence. The price we are all increasingly having to pay for their gullibility is incalculable.”

  69. Let me count the ways :-)

    1. If you look at the link I provided IMMEDIATELY ahead of yours, you will see that the warming of the globe is not the same as any plateau in the surface temperature. The 2 dimensional “skin” layer measured by the CRU does not measure the warming of the planet very well.

    2. It also omits the sea ice melt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GetB-xs9D_A

    3. The choice of axis for the graph is absurd – to the point of being stupid. We are looking for change, not absolute differences. Lets measure it all in absolute degrees kelvin and it looks like

    _____________________________________________

    or we could measure sea level change in absolute terms… 10 meters of change doesn’t mean anything

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/death-by-chartsmanship/

    …the chart looks much the same

    ________________________________________

    4. The timeframe is ill chosen of course. 10 years? How droll. Try 10 thousand.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/#more-6456

    THAT looks natural…. yeah right.

    5. There is a reason for the surface temp being flat. If there weren’t the CO2 forced upward trend the surface temp would have been going cooler.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk

    Note the likely relationship between the ENSO events and the deep ocean warming.

    Monbiot has also had a whack at a different idiotic post from the same source.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/03/climate-change-daily-telegraph-christopher-booker

    Fundamentally? Booker is either too stupid to be believed or a liar.

    The third choice is that he is a cleverly disguised alien encouraging us to remake our planet into a suitable habitat for giant lizards.

    :-)

  70. sprout:

    If we liberalised land supply and encouraged foreign investment into housing…what would happen? We would have all these silly people building houses for NZ because it’s a “good investment”..so they think..and hopefully these unthinking people will do what they have done in China, and produce massive amounts of (unused) real estate because they believe “property prices can’t fall”…and this will lead to an OVER-supply of houses in NZ. That’s just dandy! Ultra cheap rents for NZ locals, and in time, once the bubble blows, incredibly cheap houses – and all provided by Chinese (or other) misinvestment.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50142079n

    Maybe we should play the international community for fools…and get them to build our houses for us? Just start up a bubble and let them go hard!

  71. Jackal says “There’s actually no quote of Annette Sykes saying any such thing… Instead it’s claimed by Ron Mark that she said those things, which have been contradicted by others at that meeting.”

    Actually it’s be quoted frequently, including a number of times in parliament.

    And people at the meeting were prepared to swear on oath a legal affidavit that she did say it.

    And BJ defends Sykes because she says was although she was happy capitalist were killed, she was sad for the cleaners. How f**ked up is that?

  72. For anyone who is still wedded to the idea that banks do not “print money” and push up the price of assets, totally unrestrained by the size of the economy.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

    “”In some ways these conclusions are unremarkable: banks make money by extending debt, and the more they create, the more they are likely to earn. But this is a revolutionary conclusion when compared to standard thinking about banks and debt, because the money multiplier model implies that, whatever banks might want to do, they are constrained from so doing by a money creation process that they do not control.

    However, in the real world, they do control the creation of credit. Given their proclivity to lend as much as is possible, the only real constraint on bank lending is the public’s willingness to go into debt. In the model economy shown here, that willingness directly relates to the perceived possibilities for profitable investment—and since these are limited, so also is the uptake of debt.

    But in the real world—and in my models of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis—there is an additional reason why the public will take on debt:

    the perception of possibilities for private gain from leveraged speculation on asset prices.””

  73. More DOC job cuts looming. I just hope at some point DOC manage to say “OK, we’ve got to lose staff, and work with endangered species is a priority, so we won’t be cleaning the toilets on the Abel Tasman track anymore or maintaining the road to Fox Glacier”. Bye bye tourist income.

  74. photon

    c2 says “This week, Judith Collins called Annette Sykes stupid.”

    That’s a very mild term to describe someone who admitted she laughed and “jumped for joy” when the planes crashed into the twin towers.

    From Duncan Garner TV3 interview with Hone Harawira “Are you comfortable with someone like Annette Sykes being so involved, I mean remember what she said around the time of 9/11 where she laughed and effectively applauded and clapped when those planes went into the towers on 9/11? I mean are you comfortable being a party in parliament having someone like that there?”

    Typical of you to treat heresy as gospel photon.

    There’s actually no quote of Annette Sykes saying any such thing… Instead it’s claimed by Ron Mark that she said those things, which have been contradicted by others at that meeting.

    Here’s the relevant Hansard (PDF):

    RON MARK: The bill seeks to deal with those acts, and anyone in this Chamber who says that those acts are not possible is ignoring history. That is why we move on such legislation as this bill. Let me clarify something that really happened in New Zealand. This is a quote. This was said in New Zealand by a New Zealander: “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers, I jumped for joy. I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack.” That might sound like fantasy, or like the rantings of a lunatic who got some sort of perverse pleasure out of seeing thousands of people killed in the terrorist attacks on the twin towers, but it was from a speech given by Annette Sykes to the Green Party at an anti-war meeting held in Rotorua on 9 November 2001.

    Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That is a point of misrepresentation. I was at that particular meeting. It was not a Green Party meeting, and I think the member has his quote wrong, as well.

    Personally I would believe the word of Keith Locke over that of discredited former National MP Ron Mark any day of the week.

    If misrepresentation is all the right wing has to discredit its opponents, you’re in a worse political state than I first thought photon.

  75. The great unknown off course is the 42% of those who consider themselves as Maori but are on the general roll. Right leaning?

    I would expect the 42% to broadly follow the voting patterns of the rest of the General Roll. There’s no reason not to conclude otherwise.

    No reason to say it is not accurate. Why else would one want to be “seperate” from the mainstream voter base?

    Unless one can get in the mind of every voter on the Maori Roll, speculation is useless.
    They might like the proportional weight a Maori Roll vote carries, the representative MP, the name of the electorate, the feeling of ethnic connection with ones community – a myriad of reasons. I just don’t think it’s as simple as Treaty biased = Maori Roll, particularly given the current role of the Maori Party in acting as catspaw for National.

    The office is far larger then just looking after, what appears to be, a minority of vocal Te Tiriti proponents.

    I agree completely. My pick would a uniting figure; someone with practical political as well as ideological weight, ideally well versed in the complexities of The Treaty as well as global issues relating to race and racism. The trouble is folk of this calibre are almost impossible to find.

    Prior to his fall from Grace I would have said Sir Doug Graham.
    I would have put forward someone like Sukhi Turner (at the risk of nailing my Green colours to the mast).

  76. GregorW

    You are right in that it is 7.6% of voters are enrolled on the Maori roll. I divided the Maori roll into the 4 miilion population base, not eligable voters number. Sorry.

    Thirdly, the appointment was made by a centre-right government whose ideology (broadly) does not represent the interests of Maori given party voting habits of those on the Maori Roll greatly favoured left leaning parties (75-80%).

    The great unknown off course is the 42% of those who consider themselves as Maori but are on the general roll. Right leaning? or non-voters? or left wing voters? or mistrustful of the treaty process benefitting them? or urban Maori with no tribal affiliations? or Maori living in Australia and sick of the devisive politics?

    Who knows?

    Secondly, your comment pre-supposes that those who enter on the Maori Roll do so for (presumably positive) reasons related to their view of The Treaty. I’m not sure this is accurate.

    No reason to say it is not accurate. Why else would one want to be “seperate” from the mainstream voter base? For to get on the Maori roll one needs to know ones IWI and Hapu affiliations and if those are important then it is highly likely that the Maori roll voters are strongly biased towards a Te Tiriti positive outcomes.

    I dont know your Green connection but would be interested in who you would pick for Race Relations Commisioner.

    Bearting in mind that he/she would need to be cognitive with Jewish/Arab relations, Muslim/Christian relations, Indian cast differences, Samoan/Tongan relations, etc., etc., etc.

    The office is far larger then just looking after, what appears to be, a minority of vocal Te Tiriti proponents.

  77. Gregor W said: “The number registered on the Maori Roll represents 58% of eligible voters who identify as Maori.”

    In order to qualify for the Maori Roll all one need do is show Maori ancestry, one can identify as Scottish, or Hebrew, or male or female or neither, if one wishes, and still qualify for the Maori Roll.

    I looked up Te Tirity and I find ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ so if Tirity means anything more than ‘treaty’ somebody needs to get out there and change every website there is.

    Does the Government take into account the Treaty of Waitangi when making appointments like Race Relations Conciliator? I doubt it. If it wasn’t for the fact that British law says the Treaty signed by the indigenous people is being the only legal Treaty, and that Waitangi Treaty gives permission for the Government of the Crown of England to be established over the Crowns’ citizens, not the indigenous people, and that the indigenous people have the right to establish/continue their own Government without interference, and have control over their own affairs, then I expect this current Government would ignore completely Maori interests.

    I understand the Treaty of Waitangi to be a sale of land agreement, that was used to impose colonial rule over another people, illegally. If the Treaty didn’t exist all the people who can’t prove Maori ancestry can find somewhere else to live, as it is that Treaty that allows them to live in New Zealand, but not in Aotearoa.

  78. Is there a correlation between the low number of Maoris on the Maori roll and the appointment of a race relations commissioner who MAY not think that issues of Te Tiriti are at the forefront of race relations in New Zealand?

    Gerrit – I doubt it. They are two completely separate issues and I think the Governments calculus would be much more simple.

    Firstly, your numbers are a little off. About 7.6% of the total enrolled (as opposed to eligible) are on the Maori Roll according to stats @ elections.org.nz.

    The number registered on the Maori Roll represents 58% of eligible voters who identify as Maori. If the numbers were higher, there would presumably be more Maori seats.

    There are currently 7 Maori seats out of 70 electorates, pushing the weighting in favour of over-representation of the Maori Roll in Parliament.

    Secondly, your comment pre-supposes that those who enter on the Maori Roll do so for (presumably positive) reasons related to their view of The Treaty. I’m not sure this is accurate.

    Thirdly, the appointment was made by a centre-right government whose ideology (broadly) does not represent the interests of Maori given party voting habits of those on the Maori Roll greatly favoured left leaning parties (75-80%).

    I think it’s safe to say that the decision by the Govt. took no account of the perceptions of the Maori vote at all, as opposed to basing their decision on whether they felt the relative weight of perception from the Maori electorate would be negative.

  79. Greens, I just wanted to say thank you.

    Thank you for raising the profile of the environment and making it a new religion. We await with empty souls now that the dire predictions are proving unfounded.

    Thank you for using the environment as a hinge to drive the new communism.
    The old one was really needing a new shiny face after so many years of desolation and failure.

    But most of all, thank you for Russell Norman. Without Normans Wisdom, each day would be a dour and humourless old affair.

  80. issues of Te Tiriti are at the forefront of race relations in New Zealand.

    Right. They simply aren’t.

    I’d wager most New Zealanders, who, if asked, would know what the Treaty is, don’t know “the issues of Te Tiriti”, or would be able to tell you what Te Tiriti is.

  81. Perhaps Devoy will be a breath of fresh air, now that the other 94% – Asian, European, Indian, Black, Non-Activist Maori, et al – have a spokesperson who sounds determined to represent all races.

    Long overdue.

  82. But I’m written of as ‘emotional’ and ‘hysterical’ in medical literature, it’s no big deal, you’ll get used to it eventually. I’m sure the Green’s, Environmentalists and alike can get psychiatrists to prescribe medications to suppress their emotions too, if that’s what they want.

    But what’s all this emotive stuff got to do with Dame Susan Devoy? As a woman if she’s not passed the ‘change of life’ she’ll have to suppress those weird emotions women get in a cycle round about their ovulation, if they’re fertile.

    Just see these appointments for what they are, bodies with no teeth, paying lip service to United Nations requirements, that make New Zealand look lie we’re playing the game.

    If Dame Susan was an outright racist she’d be an embarrassment to the Government and gone from the job.

  83. Surprised to read that there are only 235,458 people in New Zealand who consider themselves to be Maori enough to be on the Maori electoral roll.

    http://www.elections.org.nz/research-statistics/m%C4%81ori-enrolment-statistics-electorate

    That is less then 6% of the population.

    Is there a correlation between the low number of Maoris on the Maori roll and the appointment of a race relations commissioner who MAY not think that issues of Te Tiriti are at the forefront of race relations in New Zealand.?

    Despite what the Greens say?

  84. Still waiting for the Greens to put up a list of “suitable” candidates.

    Cathrine Delahunty asked in her objection to the appointment of the new race relations commissioner

    Why did they appoint a person to the role with no background in Te Tiriti issues or diversity politics?

    To which I replied

    Simply because Te Tiriti issues are not the only issues to be handled by the office of the race relations commissioner.

    Like the constitutional advisory panel, the race relations commissioner office has been hijacked, by a minority race group to look after the interest of that minority.

    Both need to represent ALL New Zealanders, not a 16% minority only.

    It would be interesting to have a list of names that the Greens would find acceptable.

    But remember that ALL kiwis need to be represent, not just a minority of 16%.

  85. How on earth can anyone defend that quote? “Jumped for joy” when a lot of people die horribly? Who would do that? Who would say such a thing? Then “qualifies” it by social class, as if that’s some sort of excuse.

    In any case, it doesn’t even make sense. A lot of the lower-level workers would have been happy capitalists, too.

    Collins was holding back.

  86. She clearly expressed views that were not appropriate for the job she was offered,

    According to you.

    The views she expressed sounded like she’ll represent all races, and not just conform to to a minority radical activist agenda set by a small group within Maori. A group of people who, I feel, are doing more to damage race relations than any other group in this country .

  87. That is a very prejudicial thing to say about someone with the full quotation left out…

    “When I first saw the planes fly into the towers I jumped for joy, I was so happy that at long last capitalism was under attack. Until, it suddenly dawned on me, what about all those poor pizza delivery boys, those poor firemen, those poor policemen, those poor lift-operators, all those poor cleaners, all those other poor workers who are forced to work for and were trying to save those greedy and horrible capitalists!? My heart and head was so confused – happy that some capitalists had been killed and very, very sad for all those who had died while working for them.”

    Given that the EXACT quote was never recorded, that it is likely that Ms Sykes knew it wasn’t, but that she has for a long time had a serious issue with naked Capitalism (as practiced in the USA)…. her description of her inner conflict at the event does ring true.

    …and was not “stupid”.

    She WAS wrong… “Capitalism” – the naked and distorted form that currently is in power over this world, was not seriously under attack. It cannot realistically BE attacked through physical revolutionary means.

    The change required is neither violent nor complete… as Capitalism is not of itself, evil. It is a powerful tool and useful, when restrained from its urge to become government and the single answer to all things.

    I’ve argued the change that is required to bring “Capitalism” to heel in our society and I always get arguments. How can the monetary distortion of fractional-reserve-banking be SO bad? We’ve had it for so long? What else could we do? So many people miss the point that it is scarcely something I would lumber someone with the word “stupid” over, yet this is a point Ms Sykes clearly does not have a first clue about.

    …but your fragmentary quotation is quite unfair, even to her error in judgement and conflicted emotions. Bin-Laden’s attack was an error in judgement too, even though he understood to some degree, the scale of the evil he was attacking.

    …and stupid is pretty universal I am afraid. Annette could call Judith “stupid” and Judith Annette, and both would have a point.

    Key I think, is not stupid. He is simply evil, in a Darth Cheney sort of way.

  88. jc2 says “This week, Judith Collins called Annette Sykes stupid.”

    That’s a very mild term to describe someone who admitted she laughed and “jumped for joy” when the planes crashed into the twin towers.

    From Duncan Garner TV3 interview with Hone Harawira “Are you comfortable with someone like Annette Sykes being so involved, I mean remember what she said around the time of 9/11 where she laughed and effectively applauded and clapped when those planes went into the towers on 9/11? I mean are you comfortable being a party in parliament having someone like that there?”

    From
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1104/S00361/hone-harawira-on-the-nation.htm

    And that’s without even mentioning terrorist training in Libya in the 80s, or the highly offensive racist terms used to describe pakeha.

  89. Arana,

    Susan Devoy has had a public profile for a very long time, if you were going to employ her, she would be a pretty well-known quantity already.
    She clearly expressed views that were not appropriate for the job she was offered, and there are some doubts as to whether she has the skills and abilities to do job the job well.
    If you Arana, were employing someone and you had all this prior information about them, and strongly suspected they were inappropriate for the job, would you still hire them and tell your business partners “give her a chance to perform” whilst you accuse them of being “emotional and hysterical”?
    I think not.

  90. The ‘hysterical nonsense’ came from Judith Collins when she resorted to a personal attack on Annette Sykes.

  91. Collin’s calls a spade a spade.

    Environmentalists are often called ‘emotional’ and ‘hysterical’

    I don’t think that’s a mischaracterisation. Devoy has only just started and already we hear hysterical nonsense about how inappropriate she is.

    Give her a chance to perform.

  92. Cronyism? Card carrying member of the national party? A Dame for prestigious recognition for the national party ?
    Or just keeping the importance of racial problems in this country under the radar, Dame Judith?
    Yes to the above

  93. jc2 – attacking your critics rather than debating the issues is nothing new. Environmentalists are often called ‘emotional’ and ‘hysterical’, it just means the other side have no genuine contribution to make to the discussion.

  94. Any person anywhere will have an opinion on anything, that is a partiality to a particular view, how is anybody not partial? I’d not have considered John Kirwan worthy of a Knighthood even after we heard he suffered from Depression, does that now mean he can’t represent people with mental illness because he’s been honoured, or because he’s expressed an opinion on mental illness? The whole notion of impartiality doesn’t resonate all that well, except maybe in disputes between employers and workers when money is on the line?

    I think Susan Devoy will make an excellent participant in the ‘jobs for the boys’ regime, considering she’s female.

  95. A race relations commisioner doesn’t have to have personally experienced racism directed at them, but they need empathy and to be seen to be impartial. Dame Susan has already stated a position on some race related issues, so she is not impartial. Judith Collins making a personal attack on Annette Sykes by calling her stupid just shows Ms Collins’s complete lack of argument and inability to debate the issue.

  96. This week, Judith Collins called Annette Sykes stupid.

    I think it was because Annette Sykes wondered how much experience Dame Susan Devoy has had with receiving racism.

    This all reminds me of a thing that I’ve seen described in domestic violence, where one partner keeps hurting the other, until the hurt partner agrees that there isn’t a problem.

    If it’s a good analogy, then we should expect more insults that don’t engage with the question.

Comments are closed.