Leap Day - Day of the Frog
Tomorrow is Leap Day or International Day of the Frog. It’s kind of like Christmas for Frogs, but only once every four years. So I hope you’ll be joining me in the celebrations. I’ll be sharing lots of frog-related news with you.
Some of
Some of the leading causes of frog endangerment and extinctions are habitat loss, over exploitation, introduced species and climate change.
If you’re in Auckland and you want to celebrate Leap Day you can help fundraising for endangered frogs by heading along to the Zoo where House of Shem and Katchafire are playing.
If your in central Wellington keep an eye out for Metiria and her band of frogs on and around Lambton Quay during the afternoon as they are out holding leap frog competitions, climbing trees, taking pictures here and there, chatting to people about frogs, and having coffee. I hear there might be similar frog activities in other towns too.
Or you may just like to take up one of NZFrog’s suggestions to help them with their work to save endangered frogs.
And of course I’m sure other blogs will be writing about Leap Day too. Kiwiblog will be uncovering the story of a frog advocacy group that has been silenced by the Electoral Finance Act, the Standard will discuss how John Key pulls the legs off frogs when no one is looking. I expect No Right Turn to have detailed policy analysis on possible legislative action relating to the Maud Island Frog. Hard News will report on the cultural impact that Archey’s Frogs had by releasing a song of their mating call exclusively to iTunes. Whale Oil will continue to amuse his readers by photoshopping Jeanette’s head onto a frog (guffaw).
Photo Credit for Archey’s Frog: NZFrog
February 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Will the Greens support Muriel Newman’s call for an independent royal commission into climate change/global warming?
I would have thought that this is an extremely good idea, the pubic need to hear the findings of a TRUE independent commission, failure to support this commission would suggest that one side or the other has a hidden agenda.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Who is Muriel Newman?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Oh, you mean Muriel Newman’s call for an independent royal commission into the “so-called threat of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming“.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Thats the one, why would you not support a independent royal commission?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I don’t know the official Green Party response Big Bro, but my instinct is that, given the scientific consensus, it’s now time for action, rather than re-litigation.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
it’d sure be a turnup for the books if a little old nz royal commission suddenly popped up & said “oi world, we’ve just resolved that whole global warming debate once & for all!”
February 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Dr Muriel Newman says
Perhaps some one with some credibility…
Never mind. Waste of time.
peace
W
February 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
If the Greens are so sure that the weight of scientific opinion is behind them why on earth would you not support a royal commission?
The findings could only help your cause, hell it might even convince me that there is something to it.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Depends if that Oreskes article counts for anything or not. No doubt I am a massively biased pinko or something but a Commission would give plenty of ammo to the argument NOT do anything until we get it and…ugh, politics.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
frog..
was it something i said..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
It’s not just Oreskes. Wikipedia has statements by 17 climate science organisations concurring with the consensus, including the much maligned but massively representative IPCC. Green Facts defines ‘Scientific Consensus’ as the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field. It does not mean all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress. It also does not mean the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions. Therefore, Scientific Consensus is not a synonym of “Certain Truth”. But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Sorry Phil! You’re obviously also welcome to join the upcoming blogathon on frogs.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Stephen
If the findings of an independent commission supported doing nothing or that climate change is NOT man made then so be it.
If however they found that it IS caused by man then surely that would add weight to your argument.
It worries me that there are so many who do not want a full and frank discussion or investigation into the whole climate change issue.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Thats called the IPCC. See above for all that ‘consensus’ stuff.
Frog, couldn’t a ‘climate science organisation’ include say the NZ based Climate Science Coalition? Meaning just the fact that they ARE may not mean a lot. Though those ones on Wikipedia are heavyweights for sure!
February 28th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
you know it’s all feckin’ descartes’ fault..eh..?
what’s been done/is happening to the frogs..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/why-manymost-of-us-have-no-qualms-about-the-ea tingfarming-of-other-livingsentient-beingsi-dunno-about-youbut-i-blame -descartes/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
BB, it’s basic (if there is such a thing) quantum physics. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases must cause the surrounding atmosphere to be warmed when bombarded by infra-red radiation. The theory says it should happen, and scientific experiments in controlled conditions show it does happen.
Of course there may be other things happening in an uncontrolled environment such as the atmosphere from time to time that can counter the effect. But that doesn’t negate the fact that our actions in releasing these gases is changing the climate from what it otherwise would be.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Big Bro - how would Muriel’s Commission convince you one way or another on the issue when the 2,500 climate experts from 130 countries who contributed to the IPCC’s latest Assessment Report have failed to convince you? If Muriel knows something that the entire global community of climate scientists is not yet aware of, she would do well to draw it to their attention now.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Oh, this video’s for you Muriel.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
An inconvenient cooling. Latest data released today: tinyurl.com/2z8dux
Meanwhile….
“Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis”
Probably all a right-wing media conspiracy of some sort….
February 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I await the semantics…
February 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Frog
I am not and never have said that Newman has convinced me, all I am saying is that I can see no earthly reason why we should not have this royal commission.
I will admit that I do not believe that climate change is man made but I am not afraid of the findings of a royal commission.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
You could ignore all the other posts here too!
February 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
big bro said: I can see no earthly reason why we should not have this royal commission
BB, I thought you were opposed to the State wasting money on things. This would be a waste of money, because the science has all been done.
BluePeter said: (quoting) to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus” that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis
That is not the consensus, BP. They are mis-stating it - for political reasons I suspect. No-one really knows to whether modern warming is primarily man-made, and no-one really knows if it is yet a crisis.
What the science tells us is that if we keep increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, as we are doing, we will warm the atmosphere and there will be a crisis. Short-term, there can be other factors that may play a part - one way or the other.
If there are any arguments, they are about how fast it is happening. It’s a matter of “when” that may be in dispute, not “if”.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
So a “Royal Commission” made up largely of people who have no depth of knowledge of science will prove to you that the science accepted by the IPCC and pretty much every other scientific organization on the planet should be accepted by you? … or in the unlikely event, they will reject all of that body of knowledge to embrace some other theory?
respectfully
BJ
February 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
BluePeter,
I know you are suspicious of the IPCC. I don’t know why you aren’t also suspicious of the meeting in New York you mention.
In any case, why don’t you go and have a look at the scientific journals and make your own mind up on the matter?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Frof asked Who is Muriel Newman? I presume it is DR Muriel Newman BSc Mathematices. Unfortunately more recently a Member of Parliament. Possibly the latter experience has csrabmled her brains so that her earlier training doesn’t work anymore.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:06 am
samuiela, the scientific journals aren’t exactly for the ‘layperson’. Even the abstracts are often pretty complicated. Unless you’re illustrating a point about how much ‘experts in the field’ are needed, the journals probably aren’t going to be that much help (especially since they are pretty hard to access in the first place!)
February 29th, 2008 at 8:16 am
StephenR,
I realise that the scientific journals are not for the layperson. However, what else can someone like BluePeter do, if they are suspcious of all the organisations which try and summarise the scientific research in an easier to understand form?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Mmm, yyyyes fair point.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
samiuela
Perhaps the “consensus” is often overstated.
Meanwhile, that graph is interesting, eh? Wonder what happens if it keeps tracking down?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
It is just as I thought, those pushing the climate change con are scared of an independent inquiry.
The obvious question is why?
February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
do. you. ever. explain. anything?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
BB
I am still wondering why you’d waste good money and valuable time taking this to a Royal Commission.
You can’t explain this to me in any satisfactory way without implying that you think lawyers and laypeople and political appointees are better at science than scientists.
If you CAN you certainly haven’t. Until you DO I am under no obligation to accept the additional expense and delay as necessary.
I am in no way worried about having one or the outcome except that it will waste time. I know the scientific case, and I know the risk management case and both of them are quite overwhelming. Easterbrook decided it’s happening. Lomborg admits that it is happening. Denial that it is actually going on is almost as scarce in the scientific community as phlogiston physics.
I’m still being nice here… I LIKE you because you give honest opinions and have some things in common with us all.
respectfully
BJ
February 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Isn’t increased variability with an upward temperature trend a part of ‘climate change predictions’ anyway?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
BJ
Royal commissions have a habit of finding out the truth, I see nothing wrong with it.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
BB said: Royal commissions have a habit of finding out the truth
Like the Winebox one, eh, BB?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Or the GE one?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Are they or aren’t they a bunch of lawyers/judges? What question would they be investigating?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
BB
You still haven’t explained why the truth discovered by scientists is not true until a Royal Commission is convened.
If the value and accuracy of science can only be judged by political appointees and lawyers then maybe we should simply let them do all the science.
The problems I have with it are the time wasted, the money wasted and the inference that they understand the science better than the scientists.
I have no doubt of what they would find.
You want a Royal Commission to tell you that the scientists aren’t lying to you, to each other and to the world at large? The implication of your need to have one is that you think this is a risk.
I worked at NASA JPL. Those guys do not give a rat’s butt about the politics and they could no more have a conspiracy than you can keep control of a herd of cats. They worship the truth FIRST.
You are implying something that is..in a way, quite insulting.
respectfully
BJ
February 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Ask and ye shall receive (if I feel like it).
As for a Royal Commission, I think the world’s climate scientists have a better grasp of the situation than a bunch of fat old retired judges. The House of Lords’ inquiry was an abortion - which is why the Deniers are so keen on repeating it.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ka pai idiot/savant! Love your work!
February 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
BJ
There is an agenda behind the climate change movement that often clouds the opinions of those who are not convinced, it is also fair to say that not all scientists are of the same mind.
Those who dare question climate change are usually abused and ridiculed, I am not prepared to blindly accept the climate change argument nor am I happy about the ridiculous costs we are going to have to face when our efforts will mean NOTHING in the global “fight” against climate change.
Lets have a commission, let the judges hear both sides of the argument and then we might get somewhere near the truth.