by frog
Labour’s attacks on John Key and various National MPs for not believing in climate change are interesting, but ultimately a bit of a sideshow. It doesn’t matter whether Cullen and his team believe in climate change or not if their actions are not doing anything to address the problem. Believing is a relatively easy step to take given there is a global scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by humans.
Cullen and Clark can talk about sustainability and carbon neutrality as much as they like, but they are currently responsible for an increase in coal mining, dairy conversions and carbon emissions. Greenpeace says that their own target for the acceptable level of global warming is not low enough. On this issue Labour’s record is not significantly different than National’s.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, April 2nd, 2008
Tags: carbon emissions, climate change, coal mining, dairy conversions, global warming, greenpeace, Helen Clark, john key, labour, Michael Cullen, national
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
yah. Provide your reasons please. One would think...
Here it is, spoken like a true Hollow Man!
“Well I, I mean in a sense, I never have a personal view these days, I mean if I express a personal view, that ultimately turns into the party view, I’m, I am the, the, the voice piece if you like, or the, the face of the National Party, and so no I really don’t have the ability to give a personal view…”
This election (like others) most NZ’ers will vote for the arrogance of Labour or facade of National. Most of them will make up their minds at the last minute, and their desicion will not be based on policy.
Better hope we can get a decent green vote and inspire more people to get informed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not the ‘consensus’ again!! *Arg* Should be a link to a page which explains all the detail of what you mean by that word!
C’mon McTap he said that he was satisfied the evidence pointed to AGW and he wants “50 by 50″! If he expresses personal views it gets twisted into ‘”National Leader thinks that…” as opposed to “John Key, citizen, thinks that…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>global scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by humans
April 1st was yesterday….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, the consensus again. If people have a problem with the concept of climate change, could they please take it up with the thousands of climate scientists at the IPCC. Once you get them to change their mind then come back and talk to politicians and the media. In the meantime how about supporting those politicians who are taking a science-based approach based on the best evidence in front of them to possibly the world’s most pressing problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog I agree with you, you have inadvertently highlighted the main reason Labour are doing so poorly in the polls, the public have had enough of the rhetoric and now realise that Clark and Cullen are nothing more than hot air.
Lets have a quick look…
Closing the gaps….Failed
Sustainability……..Failed
Top half the OECD…Failed
Sleaze free govt…..FAILED
They have achieved very little in the last eight years despite the economy being in excellent health, I agree with those who say that Cullen will be judged as the worst finance minister this nation has ever had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why is it that anybody who dares question the con that is climate change or speaks out against it is treated the same way as a Holocaust denier?
There is NO CONCLUSIVE proof people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There isn’t a consensus. It’s a lie, so best you stop reapeating it, because it won’t become any more true by virtue of being repeated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS: Nasa AQUA
tinyurl.com/3xangr
“Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good debate on issues onboard greenpeace now, good to see jeanette talk to Nick Smith,
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/rainbow-warrior/webcast
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks peterquixote. I’ve just posted on this too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will anyone address the latest findings of Aqua? Inconvenient?
There appears to be radar silence on the matter…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, a leader doesn’t have to believe that global warming is proven to be caused by humans to do something about it.
Even if you thought there was a reasonable chance of anthropogenic global warming turning out to be a false alarm, it would be reckless to take the risk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not if the cost of doing so is high. Think of the opportunity cost.
If we pour trillions down a black hole, people die.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the satellite, personally I was waiting for someone like BJ Chip to wow us with his/her knowledge of such things, but I suppose I would ask where the results have been published and what analysis it has been subjected to beyond Marohasey the published field biologist (kudos), from a think tank who is “dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.” which seems to be somewhat incompatible with government reactions to climate change.
There were a few comments by Gareth Renowden from hot-topic.co.nz on the satellitte on this Kiwiblog thread http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/warming_projections.html#comments but I don’t know any more off the top of my head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for costs http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would be interested in BJs take on this comment: tinyurl.com/2767sd
“This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Roy Spencer agreeing that he is RIGHT!
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood.
The climate is not sensitive to CO2 warming because the water vapour is a damper.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: I agree with those who say that Cullen will be judged as the worst finance minister
No, that has to be Sir Wwobert Muldoon (heh, heh, heh)! With Sir Wwoger Douglas and Wwuth Wwitchardson not far behind.
It looks just as silly when you keep spelling Clark’s name with a ‘K’, BB!
Sorry frogblog readers – I won’t do it again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad, you forgot Nordmeyer. And Vogel, who borrowed squillions to build a railway system that didn’t even get close to completion till after the motor had made it redundant. Well, blame his successors for getting cold feet during the depression, otherwise it might actually have worked out alright.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
bjchip has to go on a training course in Melbourne for a week and won’t be around to explain much of this… Marohasy is a spokesperson for another die-with-our-boots-on denial group. Spencer, the scientist who created the stir, has made some real howlers in the past, and is basically supporting lindzen’s view that there is an infrared “iris” effect that damps the changes. Other scientists read the data differently and evaluate the magnitudes differently. There may be an iris effect… how much of one exists and at what latitudes it presents, is not clear. What IS clear from the paleo data, is that it does not dominate the results. It can get warmer than it is, it has in the past, and if there is an “iris” it does not in any way change the existence of our silly experiment with the only planet we have and it is unlikely to be large enough to save us from our own stupidity in conducting that experiment.
The Australian was grossly irresponsible to present just one side of that discussion, told second hand, by someone with an ax to grind… I can see journalism there wants some input… I have to pack some boots.
I have a lot more to say but have to boogy.! I will be back in 10 days.
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
I will agree with you about Muldoon, he was a fool but given that he was a socialist I would have thought you would rate him highly.
Douglas and Richardson were great ministers of finance who saved this country from financial disaster.
BTW, I have not knowingly spelt Cullen or Clark’s name with a K on THIS site for some time, I cannot remember who raised an objection about it but since then (out of respect for this site) I have not knowingly done so, IF I have slipped then I can assure you it is not intentional.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
heh heh, (alleged) Freudian slip BB? I would wonder what the Greens think of Muldoon’s finance policies i.e. the massive economic protectionism (sounds terrible to me), nationalisation of MANY assets and the very high top tax rates (I would suspect all of these would have similar caveats to eco-tax/tax shifting idea)
God!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter and Big Bro – and the rest of you deniers out there, move with the times! the earth is warming – no question!
Heres an example – sediment cores taken after the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf show that it has been intact for the last 10,000 years, and prior to 10K the shelf was grounded at the core sites due to the last ice age.
So what- its been warming for 10,000 years you say? well the the last 10,000 years has seen a steady state with little change and now the climate is being forced beyond this.
The earth is warming, open you eyes and ears to the hard geological facts – or go find another planet to live on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
here’s a link: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Antarctic-Ice-Shelf-Collapses-Due-to-Global-Warming-5879.shtml
and a quote:
Domack’s paper provides evidence that the break-up of the ice shelf was caused by a combination of long-term thinning (by a few tens of meters) over thousands of years and short term (multi-decadal) cumulative increases in surface air temperature that have exceeded the natural variation of regional climate during the Holocene period (the last 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP-
On your first link: The article opens right up with terrible statistical mistakes. You cannot take recent years as your point of reference- this is a matter of long-term warming or cooling, and there will be variations within the trend. We are still within the error margins of a linear increase in temperature, but yes, in absolute terms, we have gone down in temperature in the very short term. The issue is whether the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will drive temperature up in warm periods, not whether those warm periods will be consistently increasing all the time. The temperature is still effected by other factors. That is why nobody disagrees with this.
On your second link: Water vapour has been debunked quite thoroughly in the past, so I have no idea how to interpret the aqua satellite data- after all, I’m Not A Climate Scientistâ„¢. Let’s see if BJ has anything to say- he’s by far the expert here. If water vapor isn’t contributing, I believe that gives us more time before we get chaotic feedback, (which we would actually need in order to prevent permanent damage, if we accept the IPCC conclusions) but it doesn’t solve the issue of the missing carbon sink, or the saturation of the oceans with carbon, which would likely still unleash chaotic feedback if those sinks were allowed to be fully saturated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
The comment you make about alarmists being proven wrong is based on information that scientists have found. The information that alarmists use is also based on what scientists have found. Here is how it fits into the little equation below.
All the things on the planet that we need to survive
+ All other things on the planet that we didn’t realise we needed to survive
+ (Stuff that can be turned into TV’s and video games
- TVs and video games)
+ (The Human population x (overated intelligence – actual intelligence)
x arrogance x ignorance))
= Life on Earth + TVs & video games
The scientist’s findings come under the “(overated intelligence – actual intelligence)” factor, which may or may not have reduced the “ignorance” factor, but clearly has increased the arrogance factor a notch or 2.
Remember that this equation still has a margin of error of +/- the “Star Trek” factor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap
I would prefer it if you remained on that other planet you’re presently occupying
Climate changes. Just as well, or we’d be living in an ice cave. What affect does man have? We don’t know. We really don’t. But some people pretend they do….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug mate, you’ve lost me, corrections or otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
I’m just saying that if you debunk the evidence that dissagrees with your opinion, because some new evidence comes out that conflicts with the evidence you didn’t like, then you would have to accept that the new evidence might be wrong too, or it could just be that it’s been interpereted the wrong way.
As I said before, we don’t know what we don’t know.
The “Star Trek” factor is where people believe we will be able to get into our spaceships and colonise another planets, which will then supposedly solve our problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
I’ll be your devils advocate on the Aqua thing.
I’m not an expert here, but maybe the effect these people have been noticing is just global dimming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
If you read the whole article, you could possibly take it that we are in another cycle of global dimming. If you take a look at the global temperatire graphs on the link below, you will see a decrease in temperature between 1880 and 1910 an another dip between 1940 to 1950. These also may be caused by global dimming, but you can clearly see that the trend is going up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I might look into it a bit more myself, and see if maybe someting big was going on just before the 2 drops (indstrialisation maybe?) that I mentioned above that might point to global dimming caused by human activity.
One interesting thing that you can see with the temperatures is that there is no really significant dips from around about the 70′s to now (if Jennifer Marohasy is correct). Maybe this is because of the Monreal Protocol which banned CFC’s and largely relaced them with HCFC’s which are believed to contribute to global warming.
Maybe if Jennifer Marohasy is correct about the temperature dip, then it could be more proof of AGW rather than against it, because we now have the increased pollution coming from China which could be contributing to global dimming.
Although I might be wrong.
P.S. The other aspect you need to remember is that Jennifer Marohasy is a global warming scheptic, and as David Bellamy has proven, global warming schepticism can cause tunnel vision, and if you have ever looked through a tunnel, the view on the other side is very clear, but sometimes a bit blinding.
That’s why I keep saying that people need to look at the whole picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Just as an addition to my previous comment.
The first major dip could most likely be due to the industrial revolution.
The second big dip starts at around the start of WW2 and gradually goes back up at around the end of WW2. The also coinsides with the 1952 London smog diaster which brought about the clean air act there (but I’d say this is a moot point).
And then there are a couple of smaller dips around the time that the green revolution really started to kick in (higher energy input increases pollution output).
And then (as I said before) we have China’s growing economy (thanks in part to our coal that they burn). China’s economy started to grow bigger around 2000 which is where the graph shows a leveling in temperature change. As I understand it China is using alot CFC’s which are believed to be a contributor to global dimming (remember what happened after the Montreal protocol came into effect?). With the size of China it stands to reason that if I am correct in my assumption, they are probably causing another shift into global dimming.
So what do you think BP?
I was a bit on the fence before I looked at it this way, but now I think that JM might have accidentally given more clout to the AGW idea with her pointing out the dip in global temperature readings.
I just goes to show you that scheptics have a huge role to play in finding out what’s really happening too.
But as I said before, I could be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a Mark Twain quote for you BP,
“…the trouble about arguments is, they ain’t nothing but theories, after all, and theories don’t prove nothing, they only give you a place to rest on, a spell, when you are tuckered out butting around and around trying to find out something there ain’t no way to find out…There’s another trouble about theories: there’s always a hole in them somewheres, sure, if you look close enough”
This works for both sides of the arguement too, so if you or nobody else does, then I’m going to try and pick holes in my own theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Global dimming: I do not know.
It is up to those who contend that AGW will cause climate disaster to prove their position, not for me to prove an alternate position.
Michael Crichton: “I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On my way to the airport, no time but not to let this pass….
It is up to those who contend that AGW will cause climate disaster to prove their position, not for me to prove an alternate position.
It is up to those who advocate continuation and increase in the massive uncontrolled experiment in our atmospheric chemistry and its effect on climate to prove that the experiment will NOT end disastrously.
Crichton is a medical doctor who writes a good yarn… and while I agree with his quotation I apply it to the denialist side far more than the Greens.
I do listen… I do pay attention to what the science says, and I do pay attention to what ALL the science is… but the experiment continues despite the FACT that it is completely uncontrolled both in the sense that we have NO other planet to examine on which we are not doubling the CO2 ,and in the sense that WE DO NOT HAVE A WAY TO STOP IT .
That is a form of the science argument that I regard as completely unanswerable.
Nobody taking the side of business-as-usual or growth-is-good can justify the risks that are being incurred for future generations.
THEY are the ones who are actively changing the environment of the planet.
All we Greens are asking is that they stop thinking that they can do that without us all paying a price.
I gotta disappear for a bit. Back in a week.
ciao
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we continue as we do, then God will strike us down. We don’t know for sure God will strike us down, but is it worth the risk? Essentially the same argument.
c02 may or may not be a problem.
Stott: “will we be able to produce predictable climate change, and a stable climate, by adjusting just one human variable, namely carbon dioxide emissions, out of the millions of factors, both natural and human, that drive climate? The answer is: ’100 per cent, no. This is the seminal point at which the complex science of climate diverges irreconcilably from the central beliefs of the global warming myth. The idea that we can manage climate predictably by minimal adjustments to our output of some politically selected gases is both naive and dangerous”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will we be able to produce UNpredictable climate change, and am UNstable climate and an unstable environment by adjusting just CO2 emissions? That is also 100% certain. You bet… and..
You are betting OUR @#!%! asses. We don’t think it is a good idea, and it isn’t religious scripts, but scientific data that makes the point.
You can’t spin out of this one. We ARE changing things and doing so in the face of science, not religion, that tells us it is the thing for us to do.
It isn’t our experiment, it is an experiment conducted by bankers and businessmen who have no idea what the outcome will be and don’t care as long as it doesn’t cost anything this quarter.
This is risk management. Not Religion. If we forego some growth and some CO2 emissions now and we KNOW (in 30 years time) that we really DIDN’T have to, then our kids can burn whatever we left. If we burn it now and the experiment goes wrong, people die.
Stott is over-focussed and looking at the problem backwards.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pascals wager.
The opportunity cost, whatever our course of action, is real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
I thought you might be able to see reason, but I think you have your head firmly stuck up your a**.
You argued that climate change either wasn’t happening or wasn’t man made because of what another sceptic had said about the observed leveling of temperature change.
I just tried to show you how looking at it from a different angle could prove that the sceptic’s evidence might actually point more towards AWG than against it. And when I did that, rather than even looking for flaws, you just ignored it, because you don’t undertand it.
I”m getting sick of this debate, so I’m going to tell you a story instead.
It’s a true story, although some of the details might be a bit off because I heard it second hand, but the important bits are true.
There was a Skyhawk flying somewhere near Napier, and the Pilot got a low oil pressure warning flash upon the instrument panel. The correct procedure was for him to land at the nearest Airport and shut down, but because Napier was closest he decided it would be beter to head back to Ohakea.
The reason he did this was because the Ground crew would have to go to Napier to look at and fix the Skyhawk, and it would be a huge inconvenience for them, and him too.
Warning lights sometimes went off even when there was no problem too, so it would be a fairly safe assumption that this one might be a false alarm too, and even if it wasn’t the engine would still keep going for quite some time with low oil pressure as long as he took it easy.
This Pilot could see that he was going to save alot of unecessary inconvenience by just taking the slightly riskier option, and that he would be thanked for it later.
When he was only a few miles out from Ohakea the engine finally stoped, and if you know anything about Skyhawks, they fly like a brick when the flame goes out.
The only option was to eject, and the Skyhawk spudded into the ground.
For the sake of saving a bit of time and inconvenience, this Pilot cost the Airforce a perfectly good Aircraft that could have been fixed if the initial warning was taken seriously.
BP seems to believes the warning light is yet another false alarm, and we should not cause inconvenience that might not be necessary.
BJ seems to think the warning should be taken seriuosly, and it’s better to take the safest option, dispite the inconvenience.
I say we are already just a couple of miles out from Ohakea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The anger directed at those of us who require proof is telling.
I’m not interested in anecdotes. I’m interested in analysis of the problem, if any, and what course of action we should take, having first identified the true extent of the problem.
As I’ve said, BJs argument is a variation on Pascals Wager, but amounts to the same thing. It is NOT trivial to reduce c02 output by a significant percentage. There are very real opportunity costs involved in doing so, and people WILL die as a result.
If you really believe the case for c02, and the doomsday scenarios of the IPCC, then why are you tinkering with carbon trading, which is the equivalent of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic? Shouldn’t you be moving straight to severe lifestyle modification and mitigation strategies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT said “you will see a decrease in temperature between 1880 and 1910 an another dip between 1940 to 1950.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
So there has been a dip in global temperatures in the decade following every global depression. Who woulda thunk it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So are you agreeing with me here Kevyn?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Early on in this thread you wrote:
“There isn’t a consensus. It’s a lie, so best you stop reapeating it, because it won’t become any more true by virtue of being repeated.”
In a sense, you are correct. I would doubt you would get more than a handful of scientists in any field who believe exactly the same things. There is always debate on issues, otherwise there would be no need for any further scientific research. However, if you look at the big picture being painted by most climate scientists, you will see that there are in fact a large number who believe the climate is changing, and this is to a large extent caused by human activity. The argument is over the details.
Climate scientists, and organisations such as the IPCC are simply trying to warn people what the current scientific research is suggesting. By and large, they are not pushing some political wheelbarrow (I know climate scientists with both “left” and “right” wing political leanings). Of course some have a political agenda, but to tar everyone with the same brush, just because of the actions of a few, is wrong.
It is up to the politicians and rest of society to heed the messages from the scientists, or not. If you don’t listen to the scientists on a scientific issue such as climate change, who should you listen to, and why?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the way BP, you may well be correct that the cost of dealing with climate change will be high. I fully agree with your statement that:
” If you really believe the case for c02 …. Shouldn’t you be moving straight to severe lifestyle modification and mitigation strategies?” (as opposed to carbon trading schemes etc).
I don’t know whether the cost of dealing with CO2 emissions will be more or less than the cost of doing nothing; I have my personal gut feeling on the matter, but I’m not qualified or knowledgeable enough to argue one way or another.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
You wrote: “If we pour trillions down a black hole, people die.”
This is well established. If we closed off the black hole which is global miltary expenditure, think how many people would be saved, and what we could do with the extra trillions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the big problem is that the best time to act would probably be when the scientists first start to show concern. Which was in 1960′s in the case of overpopulation.
In 1966 Isaac Asimov predicted that the world population would reach 6 billion by 2000, and that it would be a big problem, but he was fobbed off because his prediction was way too out there. We reached 6 billion in 1999.
I think the people who said, “We need to act now for the sake of our children” were actually our parents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP- you’re shifting the goalposts. Global climate destabilisation is currently scientifically accepted and has limited experimental verification. Until you can find another, more convincing explanation, it’s the “scientific consensus” or only plausible theory with significant agreement among scientists. That means we do get to assume it’s true when crafting future policy.
You can’t tell us to prove something when the proof has already been accepted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you wernt there in 1982/3 when the rubics cube and unification of germany and end of cold wars ,spoy cameras and klashinkovs was going on then quiver when you end up creating something or debateing a ’cause’ and the next day the definition only embarrased your kind participation and fund or speech…………………………The terminologies of both isreal[ security related] and gandhis[ development related] have been worked away, but the treasons that they both tried unite-ing and ruling the planet like anthony and cleopatra failed.the egyptians are still secularists .innocent people like milosovic were ruthlessly killed in jails reading internet development……
The sun has made up its mind to grow and glow because the olden worshippers used to be like americans were before they ‘won’ from communism and perhaps the full rubber and perhaps rthe communists didnt get a star in thousand daggers …’consciensientous]
The word is environmental governance now..comprehensive run over with poverty elliviation that is ‘war of worlds’ getting the citizens into concrete prosperity helves ……
..the solar rage like the ice age is a fact………………what scientist need is to learn how god made these great mountains and passes inthem …that i say is nuclear waste that is either genetically treated to destroy radioactivity or shelled inside concrete abestos and let mountains and get into clean streats with underground safe vegetations etc…………….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>If you don’t listen to the scientists on a scientific issue such as climate change, who should you listen to, and why?
The question is which scientists do you listen to? The reality is that very few are saying the same thing, which suggests to me the topic is far from “settled”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>That means we do get to assume it’s true when crafting future policy.
But who do you listen to?
If you listen to James Lovelock, then you couldn’t possibly support carbon trading. You’d need to move to survivalist mode immediately.
Understand why you might doubt Lovelock and you’ll understand why I might doubt numerous IPCC scientists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lovelock: “To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won’t make much difference at this point, and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster. “Green,” he tells me, only half-joking, “is the color of mold and corruption”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cond….
“But evidence from the real world suggests that the IPCC is far too conservative. For one thing, scientists know from the geological record that 3 million years ago, when temperatures increased to five degrees above today’s level, the seas rose not by twenty-three inches but by more than eighty feet. What’s more, recent satellite measurements indicate that Arctic ice is melting so rapidly that the region could be ice-free by 2030. “Modelers don’t have the foggiest idea about the dynamics of melting ice sheets,” scoffs Lovelock.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cond…
“In Lovelock’s view, modest cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions won’t help us — it’s too late to stop global warming by swapping our SUVs for hybrids. What about capturing carbon-dioxide pollution from coal plants and pumping it underground? “We can’t possibly bury enough to make any difference.” Biofuels? “A monumentally stupid idea.” Renewables? “Nice, but won’t make a dent.” To Lovelock, the whole idea of sustainable development is wrongheaded: “We should be thinking about sustainable retreat.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By jove BP I think you’ve got it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Got what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My point about overpopulation.
I’m guessing that I was wrong then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is the world overpopulated? I do not know. I sense it is, but that isn’t my point.
I’m wondering how you choose who to listen to? Because depending on who you listen to, your approach to “solving” the problem will be different. For example, a Lovelock adherent might label Gore a denialist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I listen to everyone.
Just because some people are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything.
I don’t think Gore or Lovelock are wrong. From what you say, they understand the same problem.
Gore talked about overpopulation, and I’d say that Lovelock is hinting at the same thing too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The difference between the two is significant.
While both consider AGW to be a reality, Gore thinks it is in our power to prevent catastrophic AGW, whilst Lovelock does not.
If you sided with Gore, you might think a cap and trade exchange is a good idea. If you sided with Lovelock, you’d think it was a waste of time and money when those resources could be spent on a mitigation strategy.
If you choose the wrong guru, people will die. There is a huge opportunity cost between just those two choices, let alone the continuum of belief across the climate change issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
People are going to die anyway, they already are.
Have you actually read the post I did in the “Is Earth day really the answer to the question” blog?
If you have and it makes no sense, then you will just have to wait for someone else who is better at explianing it than me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not jumping from thread to thread. Why don’t you stick to the arguments in this one?
>>wait for someone else who is better at explianing it than me
Rather patronizing
– especially since I’m running rings around you.
The question remains: who do you listen to? There is not a singular AGW position and course of action.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe you need to listen to your own sense BP.
But your senses will work better once you pull your head out of your a*se.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
You wrote:
“The question is which scientists do you listen to? The reality is that very few are saying the same thing, which suggests to me the topic is far from “settledâ€?.”
The truth of the matter is that most climate scientists agree on the “big picture”, that is: the global average near-surface temperature is increasing as a result of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Most dissenting views come from scientists who are not experts in the field of climate science.
Have a look at the abstracts for the “Journal of Climate”, a major journal for publication of climate science:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive
Unfortunately many of the abstracts are quite technical, but if you browse through publications from the last few years, you won’t find many articles questioning the main points of the issue (increasing temperatures as a result of increasing CO2 levels).
Where climate scientists tend to disagree is on the details. For example, there has been quite a bit of argument over the effect of global warming on tropical cyclone frequency and intensity (quite an important detail if you live in the tropics).
I think a lot of people have a fundamental mis-understanding of science. Argument and debate amongst scientists is the norm, and is a healthy sign. People often mis-interpret argument and debate as a sign that the big picture (e.g global warming) is uncertain, whereas if they stepped back a bit, they would find most of the debate is on the details.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I choose not to choose between Lovelock and Gore. I believe that we will need to prepare for a warmer climate, and its bigger storms, higher sea levels, changed weather patterns etc, because we have already let the genie out. However we should also take reasonable steps to avoid making it worse than it needs to be, such as using geothermal, wind and wave power rather than investing in 480MW of new gas generation as one of our SOEs intends.
Since many of the AGW countermeasures also are solutions to peak oil, why wouldn’t we pursue them?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The only problem with countermeasures is that you don’t always know what the adverse effects may be.
The only countermeasure that we truely know will have no adverse effect on the environment is to reduce the human population.
So why wouldn’t we pursue that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The *rate* of growth is slowing worldwide, not good enough?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The rate is slowing because we are near the limit of growth.
The planet hasn’t got any bigger and we have inhabited pretty much all of it now.
There is no room left to expand, so we are pushing out the other species that do not directly support us. What we fail to understand is that we need them more than they need us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was under the impression that they were slowing due to people deciding to have less children than famine/war/pestilence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe, but it’s interesting to note that in the late 50′s to early 60′s the global growth rate was dropping quite dramaticly (down to about 1.3% at its lowest) and there was alot of famine in poor countries. Then the green revolution happened, and rather than just feed the hungry it also feed the growth rate, and it increased to around 2.2% in a very short time.
The growth rate has been slowly dropping since that peak and is down to below the rate that it was at before the green revolution, and yet we still have famine.
There may be more people choosing to have smaller families, but there is the slight problem of sex being a fun thing to do when puberty hits, and some countries are heavilly influenced by religion, so birth control is a taboo subject in many schools. Horny kids and no birth control equals kids having babies.
I don’t think the lowering growth rate has much to do with choice, but more to do with Malthus’s theory.
Before you go saying “Not another Malthusian” I think the green revolution actually proved his point.
I would say that if a pandemic killed off a few billion people, the growth rate would start to increase again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“we still have famine”, yes, but we have a lot LESS famine. You don’t seem to think the higher standards of living that have occurred *generally* worldwide have anything to do with lower growth rates at ALL?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela
And you’d also know that ad populum is a logical fallacy.
Of course scientists will disagree. But they also must prove their theories. Until such time, we should acknowledge them for what they are – informed opinions.
I am in no rush to jump to conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>reduce the human population. So why wouldn’t we pursue that?
How, exactly, do you intend to pursue that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I s’pose you could kill a whole lot of people.
or
Do what China did and have a one child policy.
or
Maybe you could try putting more effort into educating people about family planning, and birth control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK… I am back… DougT… no need for a 1 child policy. It takes about 2.2 or so to get full replacement (some children die or do not reproduce, some people choose 1 or no children) so even a 2 child policy limit actually reduces population.
The question remains: who do you listen to? There is not a singular AGW position and course of action.
Scientists don’t tell you WHAT to do, that’s politics… There is however, a pretty clear AGW position a strongly defined median which is QUIT YOUR B!T*#!ng and start doing something. There is a serious missed communication here, and it has to do with what you are listening to, vs what most scientists are saying. You are choosing to focus on a few (I can count them on my fingers and not run out) serious scientists who think that this is something we aren’t responsible for and cannot influence. You are completely discounting the massive amount of investigation and analysis that persuades the IPCC and the Greens and many others that there is a problem.
While both consider AGW to be a reality, Gore thinks it is in our power to prevent catastrophic AGW, whilst Lovelock does not.
If you sided with Gore, you might think a cap and trade exchange is a good idea. If you sided with Lovelock, you’d think it was a waste of time and money when those resources could be spent on a mitigation strategy.
If you choose the wrong guru, people will die. There is a huge opportunity cost between just those two choices, let alone the continuum of belief across the climate change issue.
Hot news flash… no “CHOICE” is required. Lovelock is talking about the consequences and likelihood of doing nothing, Gore is talking about the ability to do something… THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE DIRECTLY AFTER KYOTO!!! more than 10 years ago. Then it would’ve been much easier.
The problem is that the warming doesn’t stop easily. We probably have 2 degrees of warming locked in. If we work hard at it and knock the burn-it-all-now trolls back into their economic studies we can hold it there… and that gives us some chance to adapt, If we just ignore it and go on burning it all, we will see 3-4 or more degrees of warming. That is a descent into hell… that is where more than half the population of the planet doesn’t even SURVIVE, and possibly a realm in which we can make 95% of the SPECIES on the planet fail to survive. That’s the nature of the experiment. YOUR experiment, not ours.
Whatever you are arguing to do, Lovelock’s mitigation ideas do not rule out Gore’s reduction ideas. Mitigation of damage HERE is about where infrastructure is built and long term power availability measures… food production strategies and efficient shipping. Which is what we tend to argue for. I don’t see how this conflicts with reduction strategies which involve long-term power availability measures food production strategies and efficient shipping… or with peak-oil oriented strategies.
So lets try to understand what is the difference between you and us, because either it isn’t as large as we think, or there is some misunderstanding of what your position is.
The only thing I see you referring to is the “opportunity cost” of doing “something” which apparently puts more CO2 into the atmosphere. Since I don’t know what the something is, and I know that almost anything can be done without burning a lot more carbon, I need to hear more details of your plan.
The only thing that I am certain of is that if past is prologue and it is a right-wing sponsored effort, the beneficiaries will be banks and large businesses and the people who take it in the neck will be the same people as always take it in the neck no matter who is in power, the taxpayers.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The only reason I say a 1 child policy is because in NZ’s case we would need to have a below replacement birth rate to offset the increase in population from imigration. You would also need a buffer for returning expat NZers if they decided to come back home in the event of global food insecurity making NZ a better prospect than other developed countries that rely heavily on imported food.
Because the population is still increasing in NZ I assume that the birth rate in NZ is already too high to offset imigration, because we still have emigration of NZ residents to places like Australia & the UK.
I’d be interested to know how many other countries are percieved to have populations below their carrying capacity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Howto Talk to a Climate Skeptic 101
There is no consesus:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Population is an area where humans fail. It used to be taken care of by the sabre tooth tiger and bugs.
If you look at the UK experience the pop’n was about 40 million at WW2; now they are looking at 85 million and still saying migration is good. Bascially the slippery slope argument holds. People grow accustomed to new circumstances. The Japanese grow used to their cubby hole apartments but a toddler who stayed at my house and played on the lawn cried as she entered her own apartment in Japan. Meanwhile the old farts die out and the yuppies patronise dear old dad for feeling uncomfortable about change. Maybe dear old Dad saw things and heard stories from his father and grandfather Nipper didn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Insidently
“An accurate
assessment of the magnitude of the impact of immigration on economic growth is likely to
be unattainable given existing data. A variety of theoretical economic models
Overall, it is equivocal whether there is enough robust evidence to support the claim that
immigration is always positive for per capita growth. This paper concurs with the
observations of the OECD, which stated “there is not sufficient or detailed enough data on
the behaviour of the New Zealand economy to give clear answers on the overall effects on
per capita incomes of existing residents�. While the evidence suggests small positive net
gains from migration, these do not necessarily stack up as an improvement in per capita
growth rates. Whether immigration is positive is also dependent on which particular group of
people governments are concerned about increasing the welfare of. If it is overall national
welfare then the evidence does suggest immigration is positive. But if this is achieved
through a lowering of the wages of native workers, albeit while potentially increasing returns
to the owners of capital, this distribution of benefit may not be seen as desirable.”
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2006/06-02/twp06-02.pdf
[and we all know about the things economists don't measure........ ]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS I’m not bemoaning immigration per se or immigrants just that I feel that the rewards are heavily skewed towards those who back the two main political parties… [and I'm not sure of that but it is my bet]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone who queries immigration gets slammed down as a racist. I’d prefer the discussion to be around ‘what should NZ’s population be?’ Sustainability can’t get out of the starting gates until we have a stable population at whatever level is appropriate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what are Genesis Energy doing? Applying for consents to build 480 MW of gas-fired generation…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/marlboroughexpress/4466940a6425.html
Surprisingly perhaps, Gerry Brownlee questioned this in parliament:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0804/S00236.htm
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)