Stephen Colbert vs IPCC
The Stephen Colbert from the US Comedy Central channel playing his usual fake fox news commentator. This time his enemy is the science of climate change - enjoy!
Bookmark to:
34 Responses to “Stephen Colbert vs IPCC”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
You gotta admire the French, turning the lights off for 5 minutes. FIVE MINUTES. Such a deep and profound gesture. Much like just about every other idea I’ve heard so far.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Strange… I don’t recall anything profoundly stupid being said here… just that the commons has to be costed into the capitalism we practice.
BJ
February 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
‘The Word’ on the same topic is also very good. It looks at ‘dispute’ in the scientific community. It Was on Youtube a while ago.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Bjchip - how do you get from meaningless gestures to “stupid at Frog blog”? I’m not saying stupid, and I’m not saying specifically Frog Blog.
I’m saying that most ideas I hear to curb emissions will not have major impact - they are mere gestures.
Instead of everyone being pleased that the Eiffel Tower has “raised awareness” with 5 minutes of “lights out” we could consider the 20,000+ lights they switch on the rest of the night, 365 days a year. And then extrapolate out to all of the buildings with unnecessary lighting burning the midnight oil.
Or are things really not that serious?
February 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
zen..let us put your query into context shall we…?
cos’ for the last long while you..over at rightwing cabal sir humphrys..have been leading the climate-change denial charge…
have you had a change of heart..?
or are you just here for mischief..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“Warm Troopers”
Heh heh….
February 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
You misunderstand my views I think Phil. I make my points for different reasons than you may assume. Few people seem interested in asking, it seems easier to insult, tease or jibe. The conversation goes off the rails after that. Witness Danyl’s latest effort on my post about the Portugese Referendum on abortion failing to get the required 50% to be binding.
I am skeptical of AGW. I am skeptical of some of the various reports and data used to justify AGW. I do believe it important to test “mainstream ideas” and you can learn more if you get involved in either side of the debate. I’m open to data. I’ve changed my mind on things before. I still haven’t made up my mind about AGW (let alone GW) but so what?
That position doesn’t mean I am against reducing pollution. It makes good common sense to minimize damage to the environment. I’ve traveled a fair bit, and seen the effects of pollution. I am quite happy to put the AGW debate aside and just examine what people want to DO about it.
Surely, there is stuff we can do that WILL NOT hurt people at a personal level (hurt, I say, as opposed to different levels of discomfort and inconvenience). So what do people want to DO?
I’m looking at policies, and they either make no difference, are meaningless gestures, or, for the ideas that may count, seem to be framed with no thought of the hurt (I think full awareness of the effects is important, and should be debated)
So, my thoughts on the Green Eco-Tax are negative, because it seems ill-thought out and has contradictory messages. If you guys are lucky enough to get a chance to try some of your policies out - why stuff it up? It might be the only chance you get.
To the point above - the Eiffel tower and its 20,000 lights off for 5 minutes. Really, don’t you just feel the marketing vibe with this one? Got shares in SETE (who run the Tower). They’ll probably be considered as an “Eco-Friendly” investment option now. And that’s just funny.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
of course eco-taxes will work…
tax relief for the clean ones..
sock it to the ‘dirty’ ones..
and built in financial incentives/help to ‘clean-up’..
eco-taxes are a perfectly logical tool of/for reform..
and if not eco-taxes to help people change..?…then what..?
rely on individuals/businesses to ‘do the right thing’..?
dream on..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 12th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The Greens Eco-Tax brochure: Eco-Taxes will be offset by a tax free threshold of $5,000. At 19.5%, that means less than $1,000 rebate to be perfectly offset by $1,000 per tax payer on Eco-Tax. A whole billion dollars of Eco-Curbs.
18.7 cents a litre on diesel and a carbon charge of $10/tonne on CO2 (but making sure it doesn’t exceed 300 million dollars or so if they hold to the concept of the rebate compensating low income earners) and NZ is saved? Will that really make a difference? Be honest now.
Or is the reality the raft of changes the Greens want to bring in are far more profound than that and they don’t deem it necessary to articulate the actual impact? Or worse, they haven’t thought about the impact? The Eco-Tax document talks about taxes, but nary a mention of “target results” that we could judge it’s effectiveness.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
zen..face reality..
it isn’t ‘the raft of changes the greens want to bring in..’
it is the raft of as yet unimagined changes that will be forced upon us by changing circumstances..
but nobody yet knows what those changes will have to be..
and the extent of the challenges we will face..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 12th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
So therefore, let’s not talk about the changes the Greens propose and their impact?
Still, you gotta admire the Aussie Greens. This is more like what I’ve been talking about:
Federal Greens Leader Bob Brown today proposed that Australia should shut down its $25 billion a year coal industry within three years to help reduce global greenhouse emissions.
Are NZ Greens going to call for the same policy here?
February 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I don’t think that “Global” Warming is a problem for Zen Tiger.
He still lives on a flat Earth … (no facts or arguments can persuade him otherwise.)
February 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
and whatever you do…
don’t mention/get him started on the mann ‘hockey-stick theory’…eh..?
he’ll never stop..
phil(whoar.co
February 13th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Very nice come backs Eredwen and Phil. That really addresses the points I made about being interested in taking action EVEN IF I remain skeptical about AGW.
Global Warming may or may not be a problem, but I acknowledge that sustainability makes good common sense, and you treat me like s***.
So, what do you think of the Eiffel Tower’s PR exercise?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“..and you treat me like s***…”…(sniff..!..)
aww..!!..
( a ‘hurt’ rabid-rightie..see..!..contrary to lore..they are human..!..they do bleed..!..)
have a big green hug..
(and a (ahem!) meusli bar..eh..?
that’s known out mc gehan close way as the ‘key-cure’..
‘one bar’ll do ya!’..eh..?)
(you cruel cruel person eredwen..!..can’t you see ‘little zen’..no matter how repugnant most of his political beliefs/mumblings may be..is in pain ..?..from (your) cruel cruel words..)
and yes zen..(if you really must have the bleeding obvious repeated to you..)
the eiffel tower turn-off was a stunt..pure and simple..
signifying little..
are you happy now..?
and..um..your point..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am
wtf happened to the comment i posted about ten minutes ago..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Why do you assume I was hurt Phil? I just pointed out your behaviour.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
My point Phil? Well, I made it at the beginning and I think you took the conversation off topic. A recap:
we could consider the 20,000+ lights they switch on the rest of the night, 365 days a year. And then extrapolate out to all of the buildings with unnecessary lighting burning the midnight oil.
Or are things really not that serious?
February 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
What happened to your comment 10 minutes ago?? Hint: S*** happens.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Zen
All I meant by that was EXACTLY what I said… not about what you said… that I don’t recall us proposing anything profoundly stupid here… like shutting off the lights on the Eiffel Tower
As for the Eco-Tax stuff… that’s old. Dates back to when we had less of a problem and more time to solve it. I don’t know what numbers would be required now, only that anything we do that’s meaningful will have more pain associated with it than it would’ve had then.
This gets to a point where people who perceive the future as real are feeling pain which is being administered by people who see the present as all that matters… and they’re frustrated and they are snapping a bit. I do too… sometimes. Angry with those who say “do nothing” and angrier with those who think that growth has no limits.
There’s an issue of timing. Some of what we expect to happen hasn’t happened YET, and some people have prematurely declared the end-game. This is like the markets… they don’t ring a bell to tell you when the top is in… or when the bottom is in… you have to do the best research you can and it’s still a bit of a guess, and the rule that “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” still holds.
… but the limits are there and we’re running afoul of them with alarming speed… so we get a bit frustrated.
I regret that I’ve been busy and I AM busy and can’t participate quite so much right now, but I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort to post.
respectfully
BJ
February 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Fair enough BJ (to all your points).
I’m working from home today (my company is supportive of such initiatives, which have positive flow on effects). I look out my window late afternoon and see the street lights are still on. I wonder how much energy we consume in unnecessary lighting every day in NZ?
February 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Zen Tiger,
My response, adressed to phil, which you describe as treating you like shit
(sorry, “s*** “), was meant as a “don’t bother” to phil. I apologise if you were offended by it! (Given the “mileage” you have made with it since I doubt that you were.)
Using a flat earth comparison was flippant. However, in light of your expressed views about GW /AGW at this time, I regarded it as apt!
Over your visits to frogblog, I had carefully read your posts and had come to the conclusion that you are more interested in seeking a reaction (and preferably a lot of attention) from the Greens than in seeking an honest exchange of ideas.
If this is not the case, I do apologise!
eredwen
February 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I tend to agree somewhat with Zen’s first posting on this thread. I think that the NZ government’s work on sustainability to date has been largely playing around the edges.
What happens when one takes serious climate change measures: some people will be adversely affected financially (though one might argue that they are better off morally/spiritually, if one is that way inclined). Short/medium-term/etc financial impacts have to be factored in, and I can’t help wondering whether in practice these will greatly hinder real progress on sustainability - as seems to have happened to date.
I tend to agree also with Zen Tiger that lovely sounding policies are all very well, but don’t cut it in government, where cost-benefit analyses, impact assessments and consultation must be done. Like Zen, I think that the Greens may need to do more homework ahead of time to ensure that their policies are workable. Otherwise all those lovely policy statements might be as effective as a wet bus ticket.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
prim,
What makes you think that the Greens have not done their homework ?
February 19th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
If I may step in here…
The Greens Eco-Tax submission may yield an example of further homework to complete. For example, the Eco-Tax submission suggests adding an import duty of 10-15% on incoming items. In addition, it suggests a Tobin Tax (taxing foreign exchange transactions, such as paying for imported goods) and then later there is a suggestion to tax import goods according to its green rating from the country it originated from and also a tax based on packaging costs.
Whilst I can see the logic in all of these taxes, I wonder if any consideration was done on what the total cost would end up being on a range of imports, and any likely unintended consequences from this.
Combine that with capital gains tax on property (another Eco-Tax suggestion) which would potentially increase commercial rents, the increase in petrol and other related costs that would impact on businesses, as items like computer equipment etc would shoot up along with general administrative overheads and we could see the larger companies relocating offshore and downsizing head office functions and branch offices.
Introducing so many layered taxes brings in additional compliance costs, compounded effects and will likely generate uncertainty across many industries, which will translate into hostility.
Most of the new taxes (around 20) in the Eco-Tax submission are meant to be part of a shift, but the only real offset was a tax free threshold of $5,000 (phased in over 3 years) with no clear discussion of how this might be extended if the full range of taxes come into play. Admittedly, there is also talk of introducing a Universal Income, but the information on this is so scant, it comes across as a passing thought, with no concrete information for people to base an opinion on. The default is therefore understandable skepticism that there is any real deep thinking about this.
If the quest for sustainability hits an early obstacle, such as a jump in unemployment, business closures, or an exchange rate crash, the Greens will suffer the most, because discussion will turn to the negligible impact such painful sacrifices are having in a world wide context. Getting further concessions on Green Party ideas after this point will be difficult. I’m not sure that path is a good strategy.
My advice would be to re-work the Eco-Tax submission. Remove the non-Eco-Tax taxes (around 7 items) and choose just a a few key taxes that advances the Eco-Tax concept. Therefore, have some offsets (carrots) ready. Keep it simple and on message. Seek to weave it in with general sustainability issues.
Given Labour’s current situation, you could twist Cullen’s arm to provide a tax free threshold of up to 10K - which is going to look like a massive tax cut to the average voter, and have 8K or so of Eco-Tax balancing initiatives. Hopefully, your initiatives chosen will allow the lower incomes to keep some of the personal tax windfall.
The added bonus is that moving from welfare to part time work may be more attractive with lower tax rates at that level.
Just an idea.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
And a year later…?
March 26th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Eco Tax?!?
Are you stark-raving bonkers?!? As if we weren’t taxed enough!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
You missed the income tax reductions?
March 27th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Zen - When you’re right you’re right.
I pointed out 4 years ago that this party needed a plan for the transition and a step-by-step set of costings. I also pointed out that we needed a web link from the subject of income tax to the subject of eco-tax because people weren’t likely to read the latter when they did not find the former.
That’s one of the problems with “Greenspeak”. We get wrapped up in our internal changes to the language and forget that the rest of the world is not privy to them… won’t understand them. I know all about how you revolutionize thinking by changing language… and I also know how subtly and gradually it has to be done.
respectfully
BJ
March 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Another very informative debate - apart from all that joshing in the middle which was a bit like schoolkids on the back of the bus, fun but empty -
The point I wanted to make was that the Greens will be much better able to “do their homework” if they can achieve a higher percentage this election and get access to cabinet and treasury officials to do the work for them. Remember that the Greens are operating well above their weight-class and don’t have the resources to fully model all of their tax proposals. Does any political party?
Tellingly, Zen sees the logic in the Green tax proposals, and appropriately wants them explored further. The only way to do this is to fund the Greens to do it (supporter forms available from your local Green Office, Zen), or give them more political clout to get the Government to do it.
Personally, I can foresee Cullen nicking the best bits from Green policy for himself.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Thanks for the feedback BJ and Aristophanes. Sounds like an ability for various political parties to request some analysis/impact assistance from the relevant government departments would be useful. There would be a fiscal responsibility angle with economic policies presented at an election too. I’m surprised we don’t have that now.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I couldn’t agree more with Zen Tiger’s first comment.
Reducing waste, using renewable energy and all of the actions that are supposed to help are meaningless if we don’t think seriously about global population growth.
I don’t know if that was also in Zen’s train of thought, but it should make sense that the more people there are, the less resources there are to go round.
Come on Frog, make me happy and start an overpopulation blog.
“No matter what your cause, it is a lost cause without population stabilization.”
March 29th, 2008 at 12:35 am
ZenTiger, how did you set things up to get sirhumphreys.com to load a tracking cookie through your comment link?
March 29th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Cookie name = VisitorID
Data = 9d31fe30-ab77-4a04-9b68-7c968afaa7b8&Exp=3/28/2011 4:35:52 AM