165 thoughts on “General debate, April 14, 2013

  1. I see Stephen Hayward displaying the usual “conservative” willful ignorance of science. I don’t see any actual data however, just another stupid claim that the change in the rate of change of surface warming of a planet that is 4/5 ocean that is miles deep, is indicative that the energy imbalance has somehow abated. He is as full of shit as every other jackass who’s claimed the same thing for the same reason.

    I don’t think there is a single HONEST conservative out there anymore. I remember when “conservative” used to imply some integrity, an ability to accept science coupled with an unwillingness to change things for the sake of changing them, an unwillingness to shackle future generations down with ruinous debt, and an unwillingness to destroy the planet.

    Times have changed.

    The neo-libertarian conservatives, the acolytes of the Chicago school, the slaves to the market… those folks? They are now running the right-wing, and it is no longer anything like honest. Not with itself, and not with the people. When people figure out how badly they have been lied to it is going to get quite ugly. The only question, given the fact that we are talking about New Zealanders, is whether such an event can precede the heat-death of the universe.

    But we aren’t making the mistake. Hayseed is.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html

  2. Greenfly says “At least you don’t have to worry about the value of the MRP shares you planned to buy. They worth bugg*r all now. ”

    You are so gleeful, you’ve failed to realise you are celebrating the taxpayer getting screwed for hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Actually, what your policy has done is scare off all the Kiwi mum and dad investors, and created interest with the speculators.

    The shares will still sell, but your policy announcement has just switched hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayer into the pockets of speculators.

    The irony is what the Greens will achieve, is the exact opposite of what they say they want – govt losing money, speculators gaining, lower NZ ownership, and higher overseas ownership.

  3. Arana – Finding some trivia about wave generation potential in the weaker sections of the last IPCC report is about as relevant to AGW as the Boston Marathon Bomber. It doesn’t address the theory, or tell us much of anything except perhaps that too many people involved in writing the damned thing and it was bigger than it should’ve been. Given that the Telegraph is reprinting something from 2010 you have less of a point with their beat-up than you think.

    “Inside every big boring book is a small interesting book trying to come out.” – or something like that. Don’t know where I heard that.

    Mann has corrected most of the mistakes he made earlier.

    The errors in climate science, such as they are, do not affect the theory.

    The errors by Spencer affect HIS theories though.

  4. As Arana so helpfully pointed out, global average surface temperatures have always varied. What is more, the denialists have also pointed out some of the reasons for this including variations in solar radiance (insolation), variations in the reflection of incoming solar radiation from aerosols, and the El Nino/La Nina Oscillation. And when we take these into account, we find a steady increase in surface temperatures. Note that the first two effects also apply to the rate of rise of ocean temperature.

    Trevor.

  5. become a real winner and join the Green Party

    I don’t much care for organised religion, but thanks anyway.

    I don’t invest in the NZ sharemarket, silly. I’m not crazy. It’s strange, though – I thought the Greens and Labour wanted money to come out of housing and be invested in NZ business? So why send a signal to the world that your politicians will destroy shareholder value and crow about it?

    There are plenty of utilities in other countries that don’t face the threat of socialism.

  6. Nit-picker. Get out of your bedsit, for all our sakes, and do something to raise your depressed spirits. Shake off the drab, Arana. At least you don’t have to worry about the value of the MRP shares you planned to buy. They worth bugg*r all now. Go buy yourself a Lotto ticket or better still, become a real winner and join the Green Party.

  7. Drabness perhaps best describes poverty of spirit.

    But your initial comment was about surroundings, not a person. Both revealing and disingenuous.

  8. Yep. I followed your instructions.

    Not saying you’re predictable, but there are as yet undiscovered tribes in the Amazon that knew you were going to say that….

  9. Spencer disregards other explanations of the slow down in surface warming, because he wants to be right. He disregards, in his preferred explanation, the fact that equilibrium must be reached – the energy lost to space must equal the energy input; with CO2 trapping more of the energy, the earth’s temperature must rise to compensate. Recent research favours Spencer’s 2nd explanation, which is the more of the energy has gone into heating the oceans. That is consistent with increased sea level rise, so a layperson would surely accept that warming hasn’t actually stopped, it’s just slowed at the surface. Glaciers continue to melt and Arctic sea ice continues to melt, so any hopes that AGW has stopped seem to have no evidence to back them up. Sensible people would surmise that we need to take urgent action.

  10. I know people who have very little money but are the very opposite of drab. Drabness perhaps best describes poverty of spirit.

  11. In answer to your 11:03 question:

    I was just thinking yesterday – whilst I sat in my drab little bedsit watching “Home & Away: The Early Years” – how curious it is you use poverty (“drab little bedsit”) as a form of derision.

    Curious, indeed.

  12. I can’t provide links you can click on as my posts get quarantined if I do so. This is why I alter the links, but you can still follow them if you cut and paste them into your browser.

    Here’s one:

    weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-circus-leaves-town_718070

    (cntrl + c to copy)

    “[T]he climate change story has been overtaken by facts on the ground. Most significant: The pause in global warming​​—​​now going on 15 years​​—​​has become so obvious that many of the leading climate scientists are grudgingly admitting that global warming has stopped. James Hansen, who recently stepped down as NASA’s chief climate scientist to become a full-time private sector alarmist, is among those admitting that the recent temperature record has flatlined..

    Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding​​—​​the oceans​​—​​is not cooperating with the story line. Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too.

    These inconvenient data are causing the climate science community to reconsider the issue of climate sensitivity​​—​​that is, how much warming greenhouse gases actually cause​​—​​as I predicted would happen in these pages three years ago: “Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?” “

  13. I can’t provide links you can click on as my posts get quarantined in I do so. This is why I alter the links, but you can still follow them if you cunt and paste them into your browser.

    Here’s one:

    weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-circus-leaves-town_718070.html

    (cntrl + c to copy)

    “[T]he climate change story has been overtaken by facts on the ground. Most significant: The pause in global warming​​—​​now going on 15 years​​—​​has become so obvious that many of the leading climate scientists are grudgingly admitting that global warming has stopped. James Hansen, who recently stepped down as NASA’s chief climate scientist to become a full-time private sector alarmist, is among those admitting that the recent temperature record has flatlined..

    Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding​​—​​the oceans​​—​​is not cooperating with the story line. Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too.

    These inconvenient data are causing the climate science community to reconsider the issue of climate sensitivity​​—​​that is, how much warming greenhouse gases actually cause​​—​​as I predicted would happen in these pages three years ago: “Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?” “

  14. Arana – if you want your questions to be given any sort of serious consideration, please learn to provide links that we can click on. Links above that work start with “http”, a colon and two forward slashes. Your links don’t.

    Trevor.

  15. In answer to your 11:03 question:

    Blah, blah, blah…ad hominem….blah, blah, blah…..ad hominem…blah blah…blah….

  16. Readers will note that Arana earlier linked to a claim by Roy Spencer that insinuated the oceans weren’t warming. Now Arana suggests they are. Thus the illogicality of the climate troll is laid bare for all to see.

    I give you a 2/10 for effort, but do try harder next time.

    My comment was:

    “Thermal expansion/sea level rise doesn’t tell you if man causes warming, or not, as sea level rise would occur with natural warming.”

    That is fact.

    Spencer may say it is or isn’t warming. That is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was in direct response to your post.

  17. Arana – “Thermal expansion/sea level rise doesn’t tell you if man causes warming, or not, as sea level rise would occur with natural warming.

    Readers will note that Arana earlier linked to a claim by Roy Spencer that insinuated the oceans weren’t warming. Now Arana suggests they are. Thus the illogicality of the climate troll is laid bare for all to see.

    Physics isn’t like that, the universe, and the climate, follow rules that are internally consistent.

  18. Blah, blah, blah…ad hominem….blah, blah, blah…..ad hominem…blah blah…blah….

    Why aren’t you damning the IPCC and scientists for these errors?

    telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

    How about Al Gore?

    How about Mann?

    wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/30/dr-michael-mann-smooth-operator/

    Your position probably stems from an ideological basis, not a factual one.

  19. Arana – “Are you saying if a climate scientist has made errors in the past, then everything they say subsequently, is wrong, Rob?”

    I think most readers can understand the pertinent facts here. Spencer and Christy were wrong for over a decade. They actively disputed the warming surface temperature trend, and all the obvious warming signals such as worldwide glacier melt, and refused to fix their analysis. It fell to others to correct their mistakes, and to publish them in the scientific literature, before they did anything about it.

    The have a long history of being wrong about climate, and obstinate about it in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. Like you it probably stems from an ideological basis, not a factual one.

    A recent example is a laughable post from Spencer about surface winds, where he claims wind speeds haven’t increased. Sorry, but the man doesn’t have a clue. The mixing of heat into the deep ocean occurs in areas where ocean currents converge – with no where else to go but down. These are typically at the edge of the sub-tropical gyres (large slowly rotating masses of water). It is no coincidence that the heat reaching the deep ocean has dramatically increased here, as have winds speeds. A fact borne out by dozens of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

    For a long time it was thought that the thermohaline circulation was the only means of ventilating (mixing air & heat into) the ocean interior (the ocean below the well-mixed layer), but observations have shown this to not be the case at all.

    You are always going to be at a disadvantage here, because you don’t actually read the scientific literature on climate. No matter. As I’ve written before, you are a lost cause, and are simply a tool with which to educate rational readers about what climate science actually has to say about these topics.

  20. Few are buying the professed innocence of the timing. Gutter politics.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…..

  21. Why are the Greens trying to reduce electricity prices? That doesn’t seem very green to me. Of course, their policy may be an attempt to torpedo the sale, which would be acceptable. But then that makes them no better than any other political party.

  22. “Ministry of Education figures released under the Official Information Act show Prime Minister John Key has pumped money hand over fist into the elite private school attended by his son.

    While the government pleads tough economic times whenever public schools call for more funding its subsidies for Kings College increased by an eye-watering 40% ($1,663,585 to $2,325,587) from 2009 to 2011.”

    “And just a few days ago Education Minister Hekia Parata revealed the government was “actively considering” increasing these private sector subsidies even further in this year’s budget.

    Does it get any more rich than this? The greedy bastards.”

    From ……” http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/04/18/does-it-get-any-more-rich-than-this/

  23. Oh yes, another link from “Skeptical” “Science”. That will convince, me, BJ.

    The appeal to authority fallacy is often made in support of AGW i.e. scientists say AGW is happening. They are qualified, so we should believe them. Right?

    Given Spencer is more qualified than you or Skeptical Science, perhaps I should believe him on the basis of qualifications?

  24. There is significant year-to-year variability in global average temperatures, so whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time.

    Yes.. well… the point to THAT is that Spencer is only looking at… well.. a very FEW years relative to the climate record, and missing the point entirely as he often does. He offers a lot more nonsense on his blog than in his scientific papers and the disconnect between the two is little short of astonishing.

    Feel free to quote him as you wish Arana, he is in your “camp” (if you are playing “lukewarmer” this week) and he has done his own reputation considerable damage over the years… Not in his scientific submissions, but his blog is another story entirely.

    “Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website[4].”

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

    That said he does have his moments. He knows the effect exists, and he will argue with the idiots who don’t believe even that much. Those guys make it harder for him, as they lack all credibility. All he really is, is a lukewarmist…. not a denier.

  25. BJ says “The comparison you just made though, is the value to the investor, which is a whole ‘nother animule.”

    Newsflash to BJ. The govt is keeping 51% of assets.

    It just shows how the Greens are happy to destroy billions in assets and hundreds of millions of govt income, that they’ve spent two years fighting to protect.

  26. Photonz-

    Nothing destroys the asset value more than the new Green/Labour Policy.

    Proving the Greens two year campaign to stop asset sales because they are so valuable to the taxpayer, was a TOTAL CON JOB.

    Not so fast with that double switcheroo mate.

    Making a claim about the value to the taxpayer is why we’d keep the things.

    The comparison you just made though, is the value to the investor, which is a whole ‘nother animule. :-)

    We don’t do that sort of contortion here… though I know we DO have some really flexible thinkers :-)

  27. You flatter me, Arana, I know not why. Perhaps you hope that by promoting me so rapidly (I don’t expect to win that role for at least 4 years)my head will swell and burst, leaving me as brain-scrambled as you are?
    No, back to Summer Bay with you, you’re little use here.

  28. There’s nothing that pleases me more – after my Home & Away collection – than reading the informed, persuasive, reasoned, compelling arguments presented by Greenfly.

    He could be co-leader.

  29. Arana (sitting alone in her drab little bed-sit, bored, bored, bored),

    “What can I do with myself now? I’ve watched my whole “Home and Away” collection so often I can reel-off the dialogue in every single programme, with the accents…
    …I know! I’ll drop some trite criticism into Frogblog and see what happens! He he he he he he!! Sometimes, my cleverness rivals even my insubstantialness!”

  30. And wasn’t Hughes dreadful on The Nation. Smalley skewered him on high cost “green power” generation prices running contrary to wanting lower power prices for consumers. He was then left babbling empty cliches, convincing no one.

    You’re much better off letting Norman run this one.

  31. Are you saying if a climate scientist has made errors in the past, then everything they say subsequently, is wrong, Rob?

    What have errors a scientist may have made in the past got to do with the current readings? You said yourself that he has since corrected them, which destroys your own argument.

    There is significant year-to-year variability in global average temperatures, so whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time.

    Thermal expansion/sea level rise doesn’t tell you if man causes warming, or not, as sea level rise would occur with natural warming.

    Stick to the comic books, Rob. You appear new to the propaganda game, and not off to a great start.

  32. Awww, photonz1! You missed the opportunity to call us communists (North Koreans or whatever), nor did you say we are bat-sh*t crazy, insane, stupid or idiots! Your standards have slipped and the quality of your interference has tumbled.
    It’s so hard to attract decent trolls these days!

  33. Greenfly – the funny thing is, that the economic sabotage….er…..what you call Green policy……was so rushed and ill thought out, that you and the Greens have failed to realise a massive own goal.

    Nothing destroys the asset value more than the new Green/Labour Policy.

    Proving the Greens two year campaign to stop asset sales because they are so valuable to the taxpayer, was a TOTAL CON JOB.

    So much for Greens protecting the goose that keep laying golden eggs – you’ve just wrung it’s neck.

  34. photonz1 said: “I think most people see it for what it is – economic sabotage.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
    Oh no they don’t, my nervous friend, they see it as a way to poke the profit-hungry “Electricity Industry” fat cats in the rheumy eye, and get cheaper power. They like it. We like it.
    Hence the smell of desperation that hangs about you like a cloud of midges.

  35. Trevor – Arana is new to the climate troll game. She/he isn’t aware of the series of blunders Spencer and his cohort, John Christy, made with their compilation of the MSU data. These microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites measure the radiative brightness of oxygen in the atmosphere, and this is used as a proxy for temperature of the lower atmosphere.

    Intercalibration errors between the various MSU instruments aboard different satellites, failing to correct for orbital drift, and a number of computational errors, had the UAH (University of Alabama, Hunstville) showing a cooling trend throughout the 1990’s when in fact the atmosphere was warming strongly. Spencer and Christy staunchly resisted making the necessary adjustments and it took a number of scientific papers, pointing out their errors, for Spencer and Christy to finally pull finger and fix their dataset.

    Being wrong is simply par for the course for Roy Spencer.

    Apart from melting land-ice, I wonder what Roy thinks is causing sea level to rise? There isn’t enough melting land ice to account for the 3.18mm of sea level rise per year, so maybe it is thermal expansion from ocean warming making up the deficit? That’s certainly what those thermometers on the ARGO floats measuring increasing deep ocean heat are indicating.

    And one last thing….global warming is accelerating.

  36. Arana – Roy Spencer has essentially produced the same temperature information that I have already explained to you. The raw temperature data is affected by the El Nino/La Nina oscillation, aerosols and variations in solar radiance (insolation). Adjust for those effects, and you get a much straighter line that shows a steadily increasing temperature in agreement with the models. The ocean temperatures ar also climbing steadily.

    Roy Spencer is a known AGW denier.

    Trevor.

  37. Roy Spencer produces some inconvenient data:

    drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

    “So, if you are going to claim that the observations support some of the models, and least be honest and admit they support the models that are NOT consistent with the IPCC best estimates of warming.”

    Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

  38. At issue here is, among other things, “making profit” from the production and distribution of energy. “Work Done” is not increased, so “profit” is not possible, just the exploitation of resources and the public. The notion of profit from it turns a deaf ear to the interplay between work and money and the environment.

  39. photon

    If you are going to make power prices cheaper by $700m, the first thing that goes is profit.

    Wrong! Between 2011 and 2012, Genesis Energy’s revenue increased by 23.7%, Mighty River Power’s by 31% and Meridian Energy by 12%. Yet their net profits for the same time period increased 443% for Genesis, decreased 88% for Mighty River Power and decreased 306% for Meridian Energy. Clearly other dynamics including efficiency gains or losses determines a companies net profits.

    Trying to say a 7% revenue reduction will be taken from 4.8% net profits is the only thing that’s loony around here photonz1.

  40. If you are going to make power prices cheaper by $700m, the first thing that goes is profit.

    Agreed. It’s how the Powercos strategically respond to that challenge is where it gets interesting.

    This is why the whole thing is definitely more of a political shot to undermine asset sales than anything else by introducing uncertainty to the market pre Mighty IPO.

    If it pays off, the IPO process fails and the Powercos stay in govt hands.

    Then the next left leaning government can determine whether they want to fore-go dividends (probably the whole lot I suspect) to put money back in consumers pockets or possibly try something more radical like reunifying the power generators and the transmission network, and look to gain operating efficiencies that way.

  41. Gregor says “The $700m figure is revenue not profit though, right?”

    If you are going to make power prices cheaper by $700m, the first thing that goes is profit.

    Next, you still need a few hundred more in savings, so that may come from tax not paid (no tax if a company makes a loss), and cutting investment in new generation, lines, reliability etc.

    What wind farms would have even been built in recent years if
    a/ companies were not allowed to make profits from existing generataion assets.
    b/ companies were not allowed to make profits on new wind farms they built.

    As of this morning, the Greens/Labour nutty plan has wiped off $600m of the value of Kiwis retirement savings (in just two companies), including two million people with Kiwisavers.

  42. Photonz1 – I didn’t make myself clear enough obviously.

    The $700m figure is revenue not profit though, right? Therefore if it not paid to Power retailers it represents a saving to consumers, a proportion of which will be reflected as reduced Powerco profits and hence dividends (the 60m-90m put out by Labour, representing about 25% of current profits).

    Like you though, I can’t work out how this can be reflected as no loss in dividends, unless the dividend threshold is raised or the operations become more efficient.

    Work it out. A $60m saving for 2m consumers is a $30 a year saving – not the $330 saving being touted.

    That makes no sense. It’s not the dividends being yielded to consumers (1.7m residential rather than 2m). It’s the costs not paid – opportunity powerco revenues.

    $700m in revenues foregone across 1.7m customers is about $400 a year in the back pocket.

  43. Gregor asks “photonz1 – isn’t the $700m a calculation based on potential revenues not paid by consumers to Powercos (i.e. a hit on Powerco revenues) as opposed to any form of savings?”

    I’d love to know where the savings come from. Total after tax profit from the big five last year (95% of the market – SOEs and private companies) was $488m.

    So to save $700m they’ll have to take every dollar of profit away. Then take another $200m. Then millions more to set up and run a whole new government department.

    But the Labour claims this can be done with only a loss of $60-$90m in dividends.

    And Russel Norman claims it can be done with NO loss of dividends.

    Gregor says “I would have though dropping dividends by $60m of $256m (about 25%) would be about right if profits were reduced by about 25%,”

    Work it out. A $60m saving for 2m consumers is a $30 a year saving – not the $330 saving being touted.

  44. photonz1 – isn’t the $700m a calculation based on potential revenues not paid by consumers to Powercos (i.e. a hit on Powerco revenues) as opposed to any form of savings?

    I would have though dropping dividends by $60m of $256m (about 25%) would be about right if profits were reduced by about 25%, though admittedly it doesn’t seem to take into account the fixed costs of capital and maintenance that the Powercos will incur.

    Your thoughts?

  45. Labour thinks that by reducing their dividends by $60-$90m, they can save $700 million for consumers.

    The Greens think they can magic up $700m out of nothing and still keep ALL the dividends and company tax.

    They cannot explain where these magic $700m savings will come from, when private profits last year were just $256m, and they won’t touch SOE dividends.

    As the Herald said today, this policy will kill the market, and would be damaging because it’s as delusional as some of the Greens other monetary policies.

  46. James Henderson is correct:

    “Russel Norman is right: the failed ‘Mr Fix It’ has no answers of his own to the power price increases under his watch and panicked when Labour and the Greens presented their own.

    But the funniest bit was when National tried to say that it is a North Korean idea (you know, North Korea, that country with publicly-listed power companies). In truth, it’s South Korea that has a Single Buyer like NZ Power. And their power prices have fallen 39% in the past two decades while ours have risen 68%.”

    It’s not a white surrender flag that’s gone up, photonz1, it’s the flag pole and it’s firmly lodged in Mr Joyce’s nether regions and those of poor, rapidly-loosing-his-allure Mr Key (seen the latest polls? Oh dear.)

  47. “Surrender flag”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    And Arana has a unicorn for sale. A unicorn!. Did you buy it from Lord (Haw Haw) Monckton, Arana?

  48. BJ said:
    “Which is why the government should keep Tiwai open and we pay for that as we must because THAT Aluminium isn’t putting more CO2 in the air. It displaces carbon emissions. Which we must choose… always.”

    I am not sure that this is entirely correct. Although we generate the electricity to power Tiwai from renewable resources that don’t put CO2 into the air, the aluminium production process also has a carbon reaction, and this certainly puts CO2 into the air. My understanding – although this might not be correct – is that the carbon anodes are made from fossil fuels rather than biomass and therefore contribute to increased CO2 concentrations.

    However since most aluminium plants have the same process, making the aluminium here is still better than making it in countries where the electrical power comes from burning coal or gas.

    It would be better still if more of our electrical power came from renewables rather than coal or gas. The aluminium smelter could help there too, by using more of our surplus off-peak power while cutting back on its power usage at peak times.

    Trevor.

  49. Roman – “Yeah right. All they do is parrot Skeptical Science. They are a great example of group think in action.”

    I write for Skeptical Science. For example, this is my latest post there: Global Warming is Accelerating, but it’s Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail.
    I’ll get around to explaining how heat is getting down to the deep ocean in later posts – it has to do with the boundaries of the sub-tropical oceanic gyres (large masses of slowly rotating water).

    This deep ocean warming shouldn’t come as any great surprise to anyone familiar with paleo oceanographic research. In ancient warm periods the Earth had a much reduced surface-to-deep-ocean temperature gradient, and the equator-to-pole ocean temperature gradient was greatly reduced too. This implies that the polar and deep ocean are likely to warm faster than surface/equatorial oceans over the long haul. It just seems to be happening faster than previously anticipated.

  50. Right Roman… you go right on believing whatever you like. You don’t (I notice), actually present any facts… AND you resort to an ad-hom attack on my credibility? I think you’re just getting lazy mate. You’ve done better in the past.

    Furthermore, if you don’t like the arguments on skeptical science you can go to the source papers. If you’re willing to pay for them.

    … but where did Hansen’s paper come from? A pre-release on archiv.. not a skeptical science link around.

    Maybe you aren’t JUST lazy… I think you may have that cranial-rectal inversion thing going on now.

  51. The fact the world has warmed before, without man-made c02, shows it’s possible we’re in a natural cycle.

    Nope. Show me the forcings for the warming we have now. What is it that is driving the temperature of the ocean up, holding the temperature constant when it OUGHT to be cooling given all the other stuff happening.

    See, you have to show your work Arana, just like the Scientists do.

    Except you don’t have anything to show.

    Your hypothesis has to be plausible, not just barely possible. We have a very good working theory that explains what is actually happening. Now you are claiming that some completely UNKNOWN forcing just happened along at the exact same time as we emitted all this CO2, and it is THAT we have to watch out for? That IS effectively the nature of your assertion here, whether you realize it or not.

  52. “stark, raving, Monster Loony Party mad”

    Says the Dominion Post, in their summation of the Green/Labour power policy.

    It’s effectively a white surrender flag for the next election.

  53. Why set up yet another layer? Why not simply regulate areas where they see too much fat?

    5,000 jobs? That sounds cheap. I guess workers will accept monopoly money for their labour, so no problem there. And so what if there’s no capital investment. That would only result in increased capacity. As usual, a well-thought out plan with no drawbacks.

    Want to buy a unicorn, Greenfly?

  54. Steven Joyce’s headless-chicken response – peeeeeeerrrrrrfect!!

    Thank you, Steven. You are playing your part to peeeeerrrfection.

    Go, photonz1! Go, Arana! You can do it!

  55. Knockout blow! K.O. Good night nurse!

    Well done team Red & Green.

    Watch them squirm and squirt.

  56. I get the feeling that in desperation to sabotage the asset sales, Labour and the Greens have come up with an extraordinarily stupid idea.

    The big five (95% of the electricity market) made total combined profits of $488 million last year. Greens and Labour reckon by cutting those profits a bit, they can save $700 million.

    It sends a big message to anybody who invested their savings in companies like Trustpower and Contact to built new windfarms, that a Greens / Labour government will screw you over bigtime and make your retirement investment worthless.

    And also a message that anybody who invests their money in the productive sector is at high risk of being screwed by government – better to invest in housing.

  57. “The point is that scientists agreeing about something doesn’t mean much without proof… Here are a few more examples”

    Most of the examples you link to aren’t backed by any evidence that there was a general agreement in scientific circles – one is folk wisdon, another about beliefs of biblical scholars – most of the rest just cite one person who believed it. The stuff about the rejection of heliocentric model of the solar system owes more to legend than history.

  58. With electricity in New Zealand it is important to remember that because of the SOE arrangement, electricity is another income stream for the government. The profits that SOE utilities make go to the government coffers. That profit could be undone, and then the price of electricity reduced by that same amount and the entire electricity industry wouldn’t have to change a bit. We would all benefit by lower electricity prices.

    So it is in fact trivial to reduce the price of eleccy in New Zealand.

    Problem 1: That would leave a hole in the government income which would have to be filled from some other source.

    Problem 2: Not all utilities are SOEs, so those that are not SOEs would then have to compete with those that are SOEs who no longer have to pay shareholders. So Contact and Trustpower (and, in a short while, Mighty River Power) would find themselves in the schtuck, as they could no longer match the prices of the profit-free bretheren.

  59. I tend to agree, Gerrit.

    A far more simple model would be active regulation by strengthening the powers of the Electricity Authority.

  60. Is the Greens electricity policy just announced a piss take or are the Greens reverting back to state control aka 1970’s Muldoon era.

    Can only sell electricity to the state. A state that will employ an extra 5000 people to distribute power to the people.

    You guys serious??

  61. Bullies don’t bother me, Greenfly. You might want to reflect on your views on bullying and look at your own behavior.

    The scientific community is vastly supportive of the proposition that AGW is occuring and is significant. You’ll no doubt be able to find a gaggle who don’t agree, but your lot are in the vast minority.

    You can repeat the fallacy in as many forms as you like, but it won’t make me accept that fallacy. A number of people agreeing on something means a number of people agree on something.

    It doesn’t constitute proof.

  62. “That of Rob and bj is clearly deep”

    Yeah right. All they do is parrot Skeptical Science. They are a great example of group think in action.
    Because they don’t go outside that circle (BJ in particular) their knowledge is pretty thin imho.

  63. “They agreed. They were wrong. A rogue scientist proved them wrong.”

    You could rely on winning the lottery, which I’d never personally recommend, though some people still gamble against odds as a bizarre investment strategy.

    Most of the time, however, “rogue” scientists tend to be wrong, despite the publicity they might attract in hindsight if they’re not.

  64. Scientists can get things wrong, Arana? That’s your argument?
    I wonder if there are any examples out there, where scientists have got things right???

    Yours is a shallow argument, as befits someone who admits to haveing a shallow understanding of science.

    The scientific community is vastly supportive of the proposition that AGW is occuring and is significant. You’ll no doubt be able to find a gaggle who don’t agree, but your lot are in the vast minority. Numbers do count, Arana, in this instance, but somehow you are able to dismiss that factor, choosing instead to run with the minority. Why that is is difficult to determine. Your raeasoning and examples don’t stack up at all well when compared with those of bjchip or Rob Painting, for example (sorry, other clear-thinking commenters, I had to choose a couple as examples). You say your understanding of science is shallow. That of Rob and bj is clearly deep so why in Gaias Good Name would anyone other than photonz1, regard you as anything other than a denier without substance and validity in this argument? Your contribution consists of relentlessly returning to your base argument (It’s not true, it’s just not true la la la la la la la – I can’t heaaaaar you!)and linking to flimsy examples that support your flimsy arguments. My interest is in the logic you use/don’t use, and te argument methods you employ. None are much chop, I’m sorry to say, so for me it’s your science knowledge, your logic and your argument that are shallow. Aside from that, you present a very strong case:-)

  65. “Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information”.

    They agreed. They were wrong. A rogue scientist proved them wrong. What was the problem there, Greenfly?

  66. “My position has never changed. I hold a skeptical position.”

    You must suffer terrible cramp.

  67. “The point is that scientists agreeing about something doesn’t mean much without proof.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Cripes!

    Scientists, unable to agree that the likelihood of something is very high, because they don’t have “proof”.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Cheers, Arana, ya wee monkey!

  68. If I had a shallow understanding of an issue, and opinions based on pre-existing prejudices, and I nevertheless wrote scores of comments making bold proclamations on the truth of my opinion

    My position has never changed. I hold a skeptical position.

    You chose to believe someone else, just like I did. Your selection process was guided by your existing biases. That’s the nature of belief, sir.

  69. I don’t take you seriously, Arana. There. I owned up to it.
    As I say, the difference between me and most people in this thread is I admit it.

  70. The point is that scientists agreeing about something doesn’t mean much without proof.

    Here are a few more examples:

    science.discovery.com/strange-science/10-science-mistakes.htm

  71. “99% once agreed the world was flat.”

    99% of whom? And when? Do you have any facts to back this statement?

  72. “I assume you expect me to take you seriously.”

    If I had a shallow understanding of an issue, and opinions based on pre-existing prejudices, and I nevertheless wrote scores of comments making bold proclamations on the truth of my opinion, then no, I wouldn’t expect you to take me seriously.

  73. Yes, possible, with about a 3% probability. The possibility that it’s man-made sits at around 97% or thereabouts.

    You see, that’s just stupid political rhetoric.

    “97%”. What does that even mean? 97% of who agree on what, exactly? And so what if they do agree? 99% once agreed the world was flat. They can sit around agreeing all they like – they still need to prove it.

    “Consensus” “science” without proof is the talk of politicians, not scientists, and should be ignored.

  74. So you admit your views on climate change are based on existing prejudices and political alliances, and you have a shallow understanding of the science, and yet you expect us to take you seriously?

    I assume you expect me to take you seriously.

    As I say, the difference between me and most people in this thread is I admit it.

  75. Nothing is sacred in the path of the social progressives, particularly anything held by middle class straight families.

    Shunda – a serious question.

    How will your marriage and family situation change as a result this law being passed?

  76. “The fact the world has warmed before, without man-made c02, shows it’s possible we’re in a natural cycle.”

    Yes, possible, with about a 3% probability. The possibility that it’s man-made sits at around 97% or thereabouts. Never-the-less, Arana chooses to side with the ‘natural’ argument. What does that tell you, sports-fans?

  77. I suppose Arana should be admired for being honest about her denial. She’s better than most deniers I talk to, who claim to be open to the discussion and say,wide-eyed and slack-jawed, ‘the climate has always been changing’. The Southland Times editorial “Warmest regards”(Tuesday) was a ripper, lampooning the deniers so artfully that many of them believed they were being championed.

  78. “My understanding of the science is shallow… they simply chose someone to believe, probably based on their existing prejudices and political alliances, then damn me for doing the same thing. The difference is I’m honest about it.”

    So you admit your views on climate change are based on existing prejudices and political alliances, and you have a shallow understanding of the science, and yet you expect us to take you seriously?

  79. “Head of DOC, Al Morrison, says the cut is 3%.”

    Over what period? In real terms or dollar terms?

  80. BJ,

    The fact the world has warmed before, without man-made c02, shows it’s possible we’re in a natural cycle.

    AGW sites are as one sided as the likes of Climate Depot. They cancel each other out.

    My understanding of the science is shallow in the same way my knowledge of chaos mathematics is shallow. I’m not a climate scientist. Most people are not, but some people like to pretend they understand it as if they were climate scientists.

    What they’re really doing is trying to mask the fact they simply chose someone to believe, probably based on their existing prejudices and political alliances, then damn me for doing the same thing. The difference is I’m honest about it.

    We’re producing more c02. Fact. Does this impact climate? It’s hard to see how it wouldn’t have some impact. How much impact and is it dangerous?

    Now there’s a question…..

  81. Yes, awesome. It’s one of the few times I’ve heard of Parliament TV being so popular.

    I was appalled at the way most of our MPs ridiculed and mocked NZ citizens.

    Regardless of the submissions received, there is a principle involved in being an elected representative that these clowns just don’t seem to understand.

    The most interesting aspect of the debate was the true intentions of this bill finally coming out, epitomized by Maryan Street. It turns out the whole deal isn’t about marriage (exactly what I said all along) but is about ‘social capital’. In this regard, the bill is an exercise in total delusion if they think it is going to stop suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, bullying, or anything else.
    I look forward to seeing how they plan to spend this social capital.
    Nothing is sacred in the path of the social progressives, particularly anything held by middle class straight families.

  82. Yes, awesome. It’s one of the few times I’ve heard of Parliament TV being so popular.

    Across the ditch it’s already being painted (by lobbyists) as a big economic benefit for NZ:

    “Mr Croome said over 1000 Australian couples have indicated to Australian Marriage Equality they intend to marry in New Zealand as soon as possible, through a survey on AME’s website. [---snip---] It is estimated that Australian same-sex couples would spend $700 million on their weddings if they were allowed to marry, but now New Zealand will get a significant slice of money that should be spent here.”

    Time will tell.

  83. Queer marriage! Well done New zealand!
    A question why does it now take 4 months for the legislation to come into effect?

  84. Hansen’s latest (and I think it will be last) paper to be published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society this Northern Hemisphere Summer.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.4846v2.pdf

    If you aren’t scared, you don’t understand. His “exaggerations” aren’t.

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf

    He knows and from his work I know, and there isn’t a lot of choice in the matter.

    Which is why the government should keep Tiwai open and we pay for that as we must because THAT Aluminium isn’t putting more CO2 in the air. It displaces carbon emissions. Which we must choose… always.

  85. Sam quotes ““DOC’s operating budget for the last financial year was $335 million, which was $25m less than in 2008.””

    However I’ve also seen a stuff report the budget has been cut $63m in just two years.

    I’ve also seen in DOC reports and their annual report that govt funding has slowly increased from $274m in 2007 to $294m in 2012.

    DOC gets nearly $40m funding from non-governmental sources, so there’s been some newspaper reports make the error of taking the total DOC budget (including the extra $39m of non govt funding), then comparing it to ONLY the govt funding portion. They they wrongly say there has been a huge cut.

    Head of DOC, Al Morrison, says the cut is 3%. So hopefully he is more accurate with his figures than many of the newspaper reports I’ve seen which have messed up badly.

  86. Sam: “So Key’s gutting DOC on the one hand, and announcing an increase of $158 million to attract tourists on the other. So we wreck one of our primary tourist assets, then spend money on marketing to make tourists want to come here. Plain stupid.”

    Small gripe — it’s the whole National-led government, not just John Key.

    In light of this, I’d like to see DOC put in some decent bids for Vote-Tourism money towards running its Great Walks network, and other facilities that are primarily designed or heavily improved to accommodate international tourism. According to its Annual Report, DOC only seems to be drawing funds from Vote-Conservation. (Maybe I’ve misunderstood?)

    Great Walks don’t directly pay for themselves and so are a drain on DOC funds and divert money from other things DOC could be spending on. They’re also big tourism ventures that are aimed at international visitors, and they’re a major reason why many people visit New Zealand, albeit at the cost of DOC for the benefit of businesses.

    Air New Zealand’s Great Walker competition was coincidentally won by four people who originated from four of New Zealand’s top five tourism sources (Australia, UK, Japan and USA). All were required to blog about their experiences to people who were no-doubt interested in following a winner from their country. The whole thing was clearly a big marketing venture designed to sell more tickets for Air New Zealand, again at DOC’s cost in the Great Walk network as well as other facilities that are designed or enhanced to accommodate international tourism.

    When New Zealand’s government invests so much in tourism with the intent of getting back its investment, it seems strange to me that DOC should be funding its tourism activities from money that should be targeted at conservation and local recreation opportunities… especially if you consider that the Conservation Act doesn’t mandate that DOC has anything to do with tourism, except to “allow” for it.

  87. “What is your descriptive name for a 10%,15%,20% or 25% cut, if you describe just a 3% cut is “gutting DOC”?”

    “DOC’s operating budget for the last financial year was $335 million, which was $25m less than in 2008.” ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873425 )

    So what does that make the cut in real terms, given four years of inflation? Off the top of my head, I don’t know, but if you can make it equal 3 percent, you are a magician.

  88. “We can argue the semetics of the “overwhelming” part. 64% in this survey

    http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/aucklanders-want-govt-cash-rail/1626890/“”

    Last time I looked 64% is a majority. What percentage voted for National?

    “But when we drill down we find that a majority want state funding. I guess that is why the Greens want to cancel the Transmission Gulley project”.

    Auckland public transport, and roading has been underfunded for decades, on a per capita basis, compared with Wellingtons. Which means Aucklanders have been paying for cheap travel for Wellington for decades

    “Not sure the people in Wellington would be “overwhelmingly” in support of paying for an Auckland rail loop, servicing less then 15% of the Auckland population.”

    See above.

    “I would have thought that the Greens would be more in favour of upgrading the NAL. To decentralise Auckland population, infrastraucture and industry growth to Helensville, Wellsford, Maungatoroto, Whangarei.”

    I am. As you know from my previous posts. I’ve had a lot of support from Northern Greens. And a fair few local Nat’s too, by the way.

    “For without the NAL upgrade, the NorthPort concept for container shipping is a dead duck.

    Not necessarily. A feeder ship service would be more environmentally effective.

    “if the Greens dont want the Wellsford-Phoi SH1 upgrade at least look wider then the Auckland CBD. A place where 900,000 Aucklanders never go.”

    I think the highway North should be upgraded. But not by using up all the funding just to Wellsford.

    They are not necessarily exclusive if we use QE and not paying interest through the nose offshore.

    Better access to Northland, and to other provincial centres and within Auckland city will both give excellent returns in the future.
    The saving from city rail is in all the future motorways and car journeys which can be avoided.

    More efficiently transporting civil servants in and out of Wellington is really a waste of time. Relocate them to Palmerston North. :-).
    Given their present allegiances they may as well be in Washington or London anyway.

    A recession is the best time to build infrastructure as you know.

  89. Considering that Wellingtons public transport, and the Hokianga’s roads, are built mostly on taxes paid by Aucklanders, it is past time Auckland got some back

  90. Greengage,

    exactly the same argument applies to the people of Auckland as well. Surely between them they can stump up the millions required for the rail loop!

    Got it in one.

    If you read the survey results provided in the link you will find that over 50% of Aucklanders want the rail link build from central government finances (shared burden on ALL New Zealanders).

    Same as you want a bus service in the Hokianga district financed by ALL New Zealanders, not just the locals.

    Problem is the Greens are proposing to rob Paul off their new road out of Wellington to pay for Peter in Auckland’s train loop.

  91. @Gerrit: exactly the same argument applies to the people of Auckland as well. Surely between them they can stump up the millions required for the rail loop! And I am so pleased for you that $40,000 seems like a small sum and you can afford to pay a driver and fuel for the year or so that the service would take to become popular. Have you any idea of the economic situation in areas like this, I wonder? AND as I wrote, we are already paying for the public transport in the cities in our taxes – even the poor pay GST.
    I do support better transport in cities by the way, having been brought up in London and travelled a lot on the Underground and buses.

  92. BJ says “Instead of making THAT argument, which I think I would back, Key argues something like mumble-weapons-of-mass-destruction-mumble-technology-mumble-can’t-reveal-details.”

    That argument HAS been made for months. Where have you been?

    The GSCB was working for police and SIS who had legal warrants signed by a judge to spy on people – as they have done for more than a decade.

    It’s insane if the GSCB comes across information relating to organised crime or terrorist attacks, that they can’t pass on any info to police if the person happens to holds or gets NZ residency, or citizenship.

  93. greengage,

    If the Hokianga can sustain a bus service why dont the locals start one?

    Second hand imported Japanese bus around $40K. Employ a driver with a passenger service license and away you go.

    Come on show same enterprise!!

  94. Kerry,

    We can argue the semetics of the “overwhelming” part. 64% in this survey

    http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/aucklanders-want-govt-cash-rail/1626890/

    But when we drill down we find that a majority want state funding. I guess that is why the Greens want to cancel the Transmission Gulley project.

    Not sure the people in Wellington would be “overwhelmingly” in support of paying for an Auckland rail loop, servicing less then 15% of the Auckland population.

    Central government has to balance the needs of Wellington AND Auckland and are in the current situation of supporting better access to Wellington.

    I would have thought that the Greens would be more in favour of upgrading the NAL. To decentralise Auckland population, infrastraucture and industry growth to Helensville, Wellsford, Maungatoroto, Whangarei.

    As is currently happening along the NIMT heading south in Pukekohe, Tuakau, Te Kauwhata, Huntly.

    For without the NAL upgrade, the NorthPort concept for container shipping is a dead duck.

    if the Greens dont want the Wellsford-Phoi SH1 upgrade at least look wider then the Auckland CBD. A place where 900,000 Aucklanders never go.

  95. @Kerry Thomas: And in the meantime, too, we in Hokianga (like many other country districts) have no bus service whatsoever: it was withdrawn years ago. We pay our taxes to support the cities.
    “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath”

  96. Gerrit. Many polls over the years, including one in the Aucklander recently (Sorry cannot find the reference on line) have found overwhelming support for decent rail in Auckland.

    One of the biggest mistakes in Auckland transport was ignoring Sir Dove Meyers light rail.

    In the mean time Auckland taxpayers pay for a gold plated system for Wellington, which has many times less cost benefit ratio than one for Auckland..

    The fact that patronage goes up so much with each improvement, despite high ticket costs, show the demand is there.

  97. BJ,

    Lying (or the telling of untruths) is not confined to National leadership.

    How about this one from Dr Norman

    We are now proud to be standing alongside the city council, local business, commuters, unions and the overwhelming majority of Aucklanders who want to finally get the rail link built,” said Dr Norman.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/green-party-will-build-auckland-city-rail-link

    Where is the “overwhelming majority” concensus come from? Cant recall anyone asking me or anyone else here in South Auckland.

    So is it a lie if it is an unconfirmed spiel?

    Similarly Eugineie Sage made a comment on her post about the type of Infastructure and housing Aucklanders want.

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2013/03/27/what-we-want-and-what-we-get-in-our-cities/

    Did she or any Green party researchers ask? Not me or anyone else in South Auckland.

    Stop making stuff up and then rightly, with conviction call Mr Key a liar.

    Till then you will always get it thrown back in the face.

    Glass houses comes to mind.

  98. I have to conclude that Key can’t actually help lying now. It has become so habitual that when a perfectly good and truthful argument exists (relating to the electronic spying on folks being extended to apply to surveillance of citizens who are subject to surveillance by other agencies, at the request of those agencies (which is how I understand this)).

    Instead of making THAT argument, which I think I would back, Key argues something like mumble-weapons-of-mass-destruction-mumble-technology-mumble-can’t-reveal-details. Once again proving his dedication to the art of the lie.

  99. Sam says “So Key’s gutting DOC on the one hand..”

    What is your descriptive name for a 10%,15%,20% or 25% cut, if you describe just a 3% cut is “gutting DOC”?

  100. greenfly says “The Arana asteroid, endlessly circling Photon, Planet Key’s nearest moon.”

    greenfly – I always thought you were a spacehead.

  101. @Arana

    Your contributions at this point are filling a much needed gap.

    You asserted that science based websites are one sided. I AGREED.

    I pointed out the reason, which is that the SCIENCE is now very one sided, and you called it a Strawman. That is simply wrong mate. It was a specific answer to your specific assertion.

    First you make out that taking scientists at their word is shallow, now you’re implying we should so just that!

    You asserted that YOUR understanding is shallow. People who are in that position NEED to take the shallower options.

    Part of the problem is different scientists say different things. So you have to choose which scientists to believe.

    Funny how that’s not political and 97% of climate scientists agree is…

    I don’t think you’re from planet Key Arana. I think you hail from somewhere a good deal further out. :-)

    We can’t. It’s a natural process. It’s happened many times before. How do you think the ice ages ended? Car use? Why was Britain warmer in the 15th century than it is now? Air travel?

    Same fallacy AGAIN… how many times does this argument have to be reduced for you. Your argument is the equivalent to saying all thefts are committed by the same criminal because we caught him at it in the past, so any theft from now on has to have been committed by him. You have to understand just how logically flawed that argument actually is.

    Moreover, it is NOT a natural process, as shown several times. You keep making this claim while the CO2 is going up 50 times as fast as in any paleo record we own and the temperature is likewise going up much MUCH faster than at any time in the past 11000 years and in fact much faster than it changed at the end of the last glacial period. You really mustn’t repeat that now that you’ve had its falsehood demonstrated for you… you either KNOW it is wrong or you don’t understand the science and are rejecting the knowledge of the scientists. Which as we’ve ALSO argued, is a mistake. Science is our best hope of success and survival, but it is inconvenient to your ideology so you reject it?

    Good luck with that.

  102. Indeedy.

    When it comes to climate scientists and politicians (cooling in the 70s panic! Warming in the 2000s panic!), I reflect on this….

    youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

  103. Part of the problem is different scientists say different things. So you have to choose which scientists to believe.

    Which, with apologies to Maxine Nightingale, takes us right back to where we, started from… (link)

  104. there’s an article on it on page 7 of last month’s Womans’ Weekly

    It doesn’t surprise me you’re a regular reader.

  105. Preserve us from this sort of “WW” thinking!

    Make up your mind. First you make out that taking scientists at their word is shallow, now you’re implying we should so just that!

    Part of the problem is different scientists say different things. So you have to choose which scientists to believe.

  106. “We can’t. It’s a natural process. It’s happened many times before.”

    As a measure of how far you’ve come since engaging in debate here on frogblog, Arana, this says it all. Why would anyone bother with you. It’s fun to poke the borax though (borax – there’s an article on it on page 7 of last month’s Womans’ Weekly)

  107. “The scientists say it is so, so we should believe it, because these scientists know what they’re talking about”. Ummmmmm…yes.
    (Alternate “Arana” version –
    “The scientists say it is so, so we shouldn’t believe it, because these scientists don’t know what they’re talking about”.)

    Preserve us from this sort of “WW” thinking!

  108. We can’t. It’s a natural process. It’s happened many times before. How do you think the ice ages ended? Car use? Why was Britain warmer in the 15th century than it is now? Air travel?

    whereas the AGW position is that we can (eventually) stop the Earth’s warming by acting to reduce CO2 emissions

    You couldn’t do enough to do so. Most c02 is natural.

  109. arana said:
    “The reality is likely to be the earth is warming, man is contributing to it, but insignificantly. That is what the data suggests.”

    And where did you get the data that suggests that there are other causes of the earth warming? This would be even worse news than AGW as what you are saying is that there is nothing we can do to stop the earth’s warming, whereas the AGW position is that we can (eventually) stop the Earth’s warming by acting to reduce CO2 emissions and eventually reduce CO2 levels.

    Trevor.

  110. Well, Arana, if your explanation reflects the depth of your understanding pre-Gore (very shallow, “some scientists…I guessed…)

    It was, indeed. Keep in mind that’s the exact position of many believers today. “The scientists say it is so, so we should believe it, because these scientists know what they’re talking about”.

    You’re mistaken, as usual. The movie was the catalyst for me to explore the topic in more depth. Unlike many charlatans, I don’t claim to be able to understand the minutiae of the science, however I can spot the lies and political positioning. For example, “consensus”, “97%”, etc.

    These are fake arguments. They are political arguments. They mislead and obfuscate.

    As you strip away the hyperbole, it’s reasonable to arrive at a skeptical position, given the level of uncertainty. The reality is likely to be the earth is warming, man is contributing to it, but insignificantly.

    That is what the data suggests.

  111. “Some scientists had said we were contributing to warming. I guessed they knew what they were talking about.”

    Well, Arana, if your explanation reflects the depth of your understanding pre-Gore (very shallow, “some scientists…I guessed…) and the reason for your rejection of the science because you didn’t find a movie convincing, then I suggest you attend to bjchip’s suggestions, read his comments and links with a critical (and open) mind and build yourself a substantial position on AGW, rather than the ‘Womans Weekly’ version you seem to hold a present.

  112. He is no statesman. I do not have real faith.

    “Daddy? What’s a Statesman?”

    “… a Statesman is a dead politician son”

    “We need more statesmen”

  113. Arana

    You WILL see scientists answer criticism of their science there.

    You won’t see scientific denialism BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

    Dana doesn’t draw the cartoons. Finds some good ones sometimes. We ARE entertained. Those of us who read and understand the technical work are not above that.

    You clearly paid as little attention as possible to what Gore said as his presentation and science was largely correct. He DID make some mistakes about effects… but not about the problem. Gore did NOT get it all wrong and the assertions that he did are still the province of the liars who are paid to mislead you.

    a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”

    The actual mistakes in his film were:

    The Pacific Islands needing to be evacuated “now” rather than in the future.

    ___________________

    Wow…. that’s earth shattering. More, you have asserted several times that YOU do not understand the science. So who TOLD you there were errors in that film? Who CLAIMED to be able to discern them and what were they?

    Eh?

    There are several other points in the film, about the possible effects, which can be argued, and the judge required those to be noted for discussion but they are not really errors, just debatable, and the principle issue, that the temperature will rise owing to our excessive releases of prehistoric carbon, was NEVER challenged.

    You claim skeptical science is one sided and it is BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS ONE SIDED.

    That doesn’t detract from the science, it simply points out more inconvenient truths.

  114. dbuckley:

    I’m honestly not sure. The modern politician is not a strong personality. They’re no-body’s and/or neurotic one-issue zealots. Everything Key is doing could be one big show…of bullshit. He has said much truth in the pest, yet followed through with no substantial action. He is no statesman. I do not have real faith.

  115. greenfly calls people “fools”, “liars” and “monkeys”, then tells us people don’t deserve to be treated rationally if they use terms like stupid, liars, and idiots.

  116. Some will tell you it is an “alarmist” site.

    Ask him to draw you a cartoon. That’s his area of expertise, after all.

    You won’t see one skeptical position on that site. It’s pro-AGW from start to finish.

  117. You accepted the ‘man-made global warming’ argument…until you saw how some other people thought about it, then you dumped your belief?
    Unbelievable! You make no sense. Care to expand your claim, Arana?

    Certainly.

    It was not an issue I’d paid much attention to up until that point. Some scientists had said we were contributing to warming. I guessed they knew what they were talking about.

    Then I saw that film and thought – “this is the argument? Really?”

    It was full of holes. And as time passes, it’s looking less and less credible.

  118. Negotiations like this occur all the time in other fields Greengage. Nor is a “metaled” (that one took me a LONG time to get) road with no markings or particularly good boundaries that much of a problem. The vision systems and other tricks available are not so fragile as they were.

  119. @DBuckley

    There are several sites where the science is discussed. I refer to them often here. The reports you mention –

    there have been an increasing number of reports that state that the planetary temperature behaviour is no longer according with what the models once said that it should

    – are referred to in those places, and well understood. One might place more importance on those “reports” if they were NOT understood, not explained and were more realistic about what constitutes a planet. The science itself is not making the claims seen in the press.

    If you do not have the science you must rely on the scientists. This is not a simple field of study, if crosses several of the normal boundaries between chemistry, statistics, physics, computational modeling and biology. It takes a lot of background information to be able to confidently answer even simple questions.

    The best site for ACCESSIBLE answers to the questions and particularly to recent questions, is skeptical science. That’s here.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    Some will tell you it is an “alarmist” site. In the sense that it reflects the opinions of the 97% of climate scientists that agree that it is a problem that would have to be true. However, it is open for responses and polite questions are apt to be answered. Realclimate is another such place.

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    and one more, specializing in the statistical explanations –

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/

    – will all help you understand the current state of knowledge.

    I would not reject them out of hand. Remember that the science is largely in agreement… so any site that provides accurate science WILL be described by the mob from WUWT and Faux news as biased.

    Contrast these with the work of 350.org or Campaign against Climate Change or any of a dozen other advocacy groups that advertise the science but do not explain it well. Those have some correspondence with the mob at WUWT. The science stands a bit on its own apart, and while it is unrelentingly contrary to the denialist positions, it remains science.

  120. You accepted the ‘man-made global warming’ argument…until you saw how some other people thought about it, then you dumped your belief?
    Unbelievable! You make no sense. Care to expand your claim, Arana?

  121. I’m gonna beat myself up

    If you insist, Greenfly….

    you’re declaring yourself to be gay, whereas I am bi-curious (or possibly hetro-flexible)

    This place is getting more and more bizarre!

    For the record, I used to accept man-man…sorry, man-made….global warming up until I saw Al Gore’s film.

    “This can’t possibly be their reasoning!”, I reasoned

    But it was.

  122. Here’s one for Andrew.

    Amongst the people who matter, do you beleive there is any real desire for more affordable housing? Or is it all just so much hot air, likely to result in no real change or progress.

  123. I’ve frequently been called a “denier”, and worse, for making the *exact same argument* dbuckley makes.

    Not quite; the argment may be similar, but the underlying position is different. To use an inappropriate but useful metaphore, you’re declaring yourself to be gay, whereas I am bi-curious (or possibly hetro-flexible). Or, to go religious, you’re declared athiest whereas I’m unsure of my belief.

    I used to be firmly in the “man made climate change” camp, and now I don’t honestly know where I am. Given (as you folks well know!) I’m generally fairly sure of my position on a subject (note that is different to whether my position turns out to be right or wrong) this is a somewhat odd state I find myself in.

    (Edited to add: and if I’ve misrepresented your position, then I fully accept the humble pie and apologise upfront)

  124. and as to ‘why not’, it’s a matter of attitude, Arana/photonz1. dbuckley doesn’t call others here ‘stupid’, nor ‘liars’, nor ‘idiots’, consequently his message gets considered rationally. You two, otoh….

  125. “I’ve frequently been called a “denier”, and worse…”

    Awwww!

    Wot rotters those Frogblog warmists are! As one of those awful wascals wot upset you, Arana, I’m gonna beat myself up, metaphorically, and feel stink for the rest of the day.

  126. I’ve frequently been called a “denier”, and worse, for making the *exact same argument* dbuckley makes.

    Perhaps those who did – you were one of them – would now like to retract such comments? If not, why not?

  127. Hey, photonz1! Look over here – one of those “idiots” you’re always on about!

    Trevor29 says: “dbuckley – I appreciate your concerns and confusion.”

    Arana says: You’ll be demonized here!!!! DEMONIZED!!!

  128. Careful, dbuckley. You’ll be called all sorts of names soon – such as “denier, which is kinda like “holocaust denier”, which is very naughty, indeed. You’ll be accused of sacrificing our children. And our children’s children.And our children’s children’s children.

    For expressing doubt.

  129. Greengage: Google for Google’s full-automation car, its modified Toyota Prius. But yes, there may be some practical limits for people who live in extreme rural conditions, maybe. They will initially expensive for them if they can’t be network-based. But full-automation can ultimately do as much as and more than a human.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jhyoMBu7os

    …and:

    http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/thoughts-for-driverless-revolution.html

    think of what “micro-cars” can do for convenient and HEALTHY fast food.

  130. Thanks for your support. I live on a metalled road though, like many country folk. However, with an ill-defined boundary to such roads I would not trust any automated car. And what happens when you meet a car coming in the opposite direction and one needs to reverse? (I’ve an engineering degree so I have some idea of the techniques) Also, our local garage will have no chance of repairing/maintaining such a vehicle beyond the bare minimum.

  131. Greengage: Fair comment, and no doubt. But I think having good space to psychologically wonder and “breathe” is hugely important.

    Note that those cars will automate themselves in 5-10 years, which is great for old people and everyone else.

  132. There are also worries and strains with country life… in many rural districts rates are high, there are problems with sewage disposal, difficulties with transport (no bus services and what do we do when we are too old/unwell to drive a car?) and concern about the community we live in. Many country people I think feel more responsibility to keep things going, volunteer ambulance drivers, volunteer firemen, volunteer library staff, and so on – things that are done by paid staff in the big smoke. City people on vacation in the country often don’t know what’s going on.

  133. I think one of the biggest stressors in modern urban life is social; not in terms of status (I think few *really* care about that once they’re comfortable in their inner-social zone of “significant others”), but in the fact that we are constantly interfacing with strangers. This forces us to suppress our real nature and put on a bit of an act, ultimately to defend our privacy (from strangers)..which is strenuous. Alas, we are a tribal animal – meant to spend 99% of our time with people who *really* know us. [At modern work the problem is exaggerated further. You have to subconsciously watch every word you say because if you say something "technically incorrect" then some loser could try to get you fired for it].

    This is much of the reason why we love our cars so much too. We need our “bubble of privacy” for relief.

  134. dbuckley – I appreciate your concerns and confusion. There is an industry out there deliberately creating confusion and supplying misleading information in order to allow Business As Usual to continue. However some of the concerns that you raise can be relatively easily addressed.

    It is easy to misunderstand what the different models and measurements are telling us. Even the phrase “planetary temperature” can mean different things to different people. Globally averaged planetary surface temperature measurements have flattened out over the last 15 years or so, causing the climate change deniers to claim that the temperature rise has stopped, and that the models must be wrong. However 1998 was a peak El Nino year, and recently we have been in a La Nina phase. El Nino causes higher surface temperatures, while La Nina transfers more heat to the deep oceans and gives lower surface temperatures. Measurements of the deep ocean temperatures show a continued rise:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
    The climate change models can’t predict El Nino or La Nina but predict average temperatures.

    The surface temperatures are also affected by the sun’s output (insolation) and by the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere (which tends to reflect the sunlight back into space). If you analyse the global average surface temperatures and adjust the readings for El Nino/La Nina, solar insolation and atmospheric particulates, most of the up and down swings get reduced and you get a steadily increasing temperature:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
    and that is in agreement with the climate models.

    (I thank BJ for finding these links.)

    Trevor.

  135. By the way! Scientific American Mind, has recently done an article showing that you can tell a city dweller from a rural dweller by their brains – city dwellers have an over-active amygdala (primitive brain structure designed to respond to stress) compared to rural dwellers.

    …Hmmm, so that’s where the human instinct to “get away from it all” came from? And the anti-sprawl pack-and-stack people want to HYDER-city our lives, by turning sub-urban into urban!

    Please check out the link attached to my name. These people can’t win in the end.

  136. Make what you want of this, but here it is…

    LETTER TO HOLLY:

    Addressing: The Maori Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party,

    I am writing in the hope of promoting a greater bipartisan focus on the housing affordability issue, of which has represented a massive (and unfair?) wealth-transfer from those who did not own urban land prior to ~year-2000, to those who did.

    The impact of housing unaffordability is of course devastating, and the included poster (that I personally composed) gives the message of what has to be done in the clearest possible way. Note, it has been endorsed by Hugh Pavletich and other experts in this area.

    I hope all branches of the political spectrum can come to agree that opening up (enough) new land for residential housing is vital for New Zealand’s prosperity. If there are environmental questions with sprawl, then we should look at maybe improving sprawl – not outright outlawing it. Especially considering NZ is only 1 part in 125 urbanised.

    Best wishes to all,

    Andrew Atkin

    (long-time advocate for housing affordability)

    AND HOLLY’S REPLY:

    Dear Andrew,

    Thanks very much for your email to the Green MPs on housing affordability.

    The Green Party is naturally very concerned with the supply of affordable housing. We recently released a discussion paper on this, called ‘Home for Life’. You can have a look at it here: http://www.greens.org.nz/housing. You can read our full housing policy here: http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/housing-policy-living-well

    You’ll be able to see from this that the Green Party’s plan for more affordable housing will not include increasing urban sprawl. Urban sprawl pushes up the costs of transport, for the individual and for society, and it’s important that we move away from car dependence, particularly as the costs of fuel rise. Climate change and fuel shortages will mean that sprawling cities (such as Houston) that use huge amounts of energy and have high carbon emissions are unsustainable and unaffordable. We would prefer to see housing affordability addressed by reducing housing market speculation and using our Progressive Ownership scheme to help young New Zealanders buy their own home.

    Thanks again for being in touch.

    Kind regards,
    Holly

    Holly Walker | Member of Parliament
    Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
    Spokesperson for Children, Housing, Youth/Students, Electoral Reform, Open Government, and Arts Culture and Heritage.

    AND MY REPLY:

    Holly,

    I’m sure you mean well and I do appreciate the response, but you have been listening to the wrong people.

    *Cars can be 10x more energy-efficient on average than they are now – a demonstrated fact. And electric if you like. We do not need to be anti-car, as such.

    *Extra costs from sprawl (where they exist) are utterly overwhelmed by the cost of housing unaffordability.

    *Demolish-and-rebuild for greater capacity is far more expensive than simple new-builds on the fringes. True, you don’t have to pay for more roading with intensification, but only because it’s impossible to build more roads and so you just have diabolical congestion instead.

    *People should be free to sprawl out so long as they pay their own way, and do not unduly or unfairly affect the environment or other people.

    *It is virtually impossible to achieve affordable housing while severely constricting land supply – as all international research demonstrates.

    Please start with the following. I have studied this issue objectively for a long time. I am pro-environmental (like all of us) and I know what I am talking about.

    Regards

    Andrew

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

    But isn’t sprawl environmentally destructive?

    With only 1 part in 125 of New Zealand’s land area covered over in built surfaces, and approximately 1-2 parts in 100 world over, you can hardly claim that sprawl is anti-environmental. The geographical human footprint is overwhelmingly a food issue. Indeed, we do not have enough farmland (actual or latent) to feed a population so large that human settlement could cover a more significant 10% of the earths surface. We would starve before we could pull that off.

    What’s more, sprawling suburbs tend to induce considerable garden and biodiversity over time, promoting environmentalism, and sprawl can be (and at times has been) designed to be so Green that you can hardly see the houses for the trees.

    But doesn’t sprawl lead to greater transport costs?

    Overall – no. When cities sprawl out they take most of the new travel demand with them, as jobs and infrastructure follow the expansion. Most new transport demand becomes localised to the fringes. What’s more, the alternative to sprawl is densification, and densification increases traffic congestion which in turn impairs transport efficiency.

    But doesn’t sprawl cost lots of money in new infrastructure?

    With population growth, new infrastructure must be provided regardless. In a city that is already operating at capacity, densification (not sprawl) requires demolish-and-rebuild for greater capacity, which is hugely more expensive than simple add-on’s at the fringes.

    Won’t the introduction of affordable housing make my home worth less?

    In terms of local market value, yes, but this is a correction and it must happen if we are to ever see rationally priced housing.

    What’s more, over-inflated housing is fools gold. You can only cash-in if you downsize your home aggressively, and most people don’t. Note that every dollar of appreciation you win from the artificially inhibited land supply, your children lose (and more) for when their time comes to buy a home. So you’re hardly winning them an inheritance.

    Finally, the impact of artificially restricting land supply goes well beyond the residential sector. Forcing commercial operations to pay-out big money to landlords for industrial/commercial land makes your locality a bad choice for new investment, likewise inhibiting economic growth (often severely). It also, of course, drives-up local prices for almost everything.

    What we’re seeing, basically, is nothing more than a mass-collective monopoly of landholders using political savvy to rig the game so as to inhibit their new-build competition. The result is a major (and totally unfair) wealth-transfer from those who don’t hold land to those who do. The landlords win, everybody else loses, and economic investment gets suppressed.

    But the people want the “smart growth” [forced densification] vision. They voted for it!

    Did they? There are questions here. Regardless, the vast majority of people just don’t know the facts, and that is why I am writing this.

    When did you last hear your mayor tell you that only 1 part in 125 of New Zealand’s land area is covered over in sprawl? Is it not curious that all they can say on the issue is “sprawl takes up valuable farmland”…yet can never find enough space on the page to state the most basic and important fact? Alas, there are many pigs in the trough that don’t want to see affordable housing come about, and they have been (and still are) providing a torrent of grossly ill-informed, nonsense commentary on the issue. And that is being polite.

    But isn’t a compact city a world-class city?

    It’s more than rich to attribute the largely subjective words of “world class” and “most livable” to a city that has enforced radically unaffordable housing – and on the generation who can least afford it. That is, young people trying to create a family.

    Please ignore these empty “livability” claims. All this mantra is designed to get people to make the “right” assumptions without thinking.

    And then there is the issue of competitiveness. Melbourne and Sydney are at last looking to reform their forced-densification agendas. They have come to accept it was a mistake, and has been (is) a social disaster. They are making moves to open up new land on their fringes, enough to reinstate affordable housing. What will this mean to the Kiwi exodus to Australia? The current out-migration gale stepping up to a hurricane?

    …And if you want to get academic-heavy, http://www.performanceurbanplanning.org/

    …And if you want to join the conversation, https://www.facebook.com/CantabriansUnite

    …if you want to see a great video, http://www.cantabriansunite.co.nz/

  137. Sane discussion: perhaps the only way to look at it is prudently. If climate change is a fact, then we should be doing all we can to pull back on carbon emissions, rampant consumerism and oveproduction of crap and doing all we can to promote clean, sustainable production of goods, protection of ecosystems like the Amazon basin, growing food sustainably and ensuring its equitable distribution.
    If climate change is not a fact, it will still be a better world to live in.

  138. Recently I’ve been getting bugged by climate change.

    I do not have the PhDs, the years of experience in the field, access to the data and the time to make an independent scientifically defendable determination on climate change, and thus have to believe what others say, and thus have been comfortable for some years now accepting the scientific consensus that climate change is both real and man made, whilst noting that the consensus is some way from unanimous.

    I also get amused when I see people vehemently arguing one position or another; amused because I’m fairly sure they don’t have the scientific chops to make that argument any more than I do.

    Now of the last few years there have been an increasing number of reports that state that the planetary temperature behaviour is no longer according with what the models once said that it should. Some reports state that the planetary temperature rise has slowed, or stopped. Others argue that the measurements are of the wrong things. Some reports are of data that is tainted or erroneous. Outside of the scientific reporting, there is muck-slinging, name calling, finger-pointing, and all sorts of stuff going on.

    In general, scientists do not lie, they report what they find. Sometimes what they find is at odds with the conventional thought. See what happened when Eric Laithwaite suggested that an observed behaviour was at odds with Newtonian physics.

    This is just the science; add in politics, commerce, environmentalism, and entrenched positions, and the whole lot gets to the point of insanity.

    So I’m left wondering: what is a chap to do? Is there any believability out there at all, any sane discussion? Am I just looking in the wrong places? I’m not looking to witness another debate here, just somewhere else to look.

Comments are closed.