Interesting Climate Change Facts:

A 1:20 year event becomes a 1:4 year event

A 25% increase in 30 minute precipitation reduces the likely flooding period from 100 to 17 years

A 25% increase in peak wind gusts = 650% likelihood increase in damage

A 1 degree Celsius mean temperature increase increases the likelihood of wildfires by 25%

Is it any wonder that the actuaries are putting our insurance premiums up all around the world? When those uber-geeks believe the changes are happening, who is this frog to disagree?

Source: Preparing for Climate Change by Dan Stojanovich (Extract from Engineers Australia September 2007)

62 Comments Posted

  1. Au contraire, greengeek, the landcrab and it’s compatriots were the original ultra low emmissions vehicles, read on….

    Ah well BJ, that was just the cunning emmission controls favoured by the British and Italian engineers – ‘if it aint going it aint polluting’.

  2. Hey…. just do the pentagram thing with the candles and the chicken every week and the Italian electrics work like a charm

    Can’t say much about the English electrics… had to collect them out of the net we kept under the engine to catch all the various bits as they fell off… its hard to say if they were actually working when they decided to go walkies.



    (( no serious comment intended here ))

  3. Neither the Vanguard nor the Humber 80 were anywhere near as good as the humble Morris 1800 landcrab, which was a fantastic example of technological mastery. Unfortunately all of these contributed to global warming.

    In the future we need to build flat, smooth motorways that are available only to ‘greenfleet’ vehicles like electric bicycles and other lowspeed environmental transport that have a whole new level of technical sophistication (and preferably better electrics than ANY English or Italian car ever had).

  4. kiore,

    Among the most nonsensical were
    * The British Empire was a jolly good thing

    Of course it was, if you were British, just look at Labour’s behaviour in the 1930s. We were so eager to prove our Britishness we even managed to declare war on Hitler before Britain did. Ok, that might be myth created by mix up with the international dateline but face facts, if we weren’t British we would never have experienced the heights of technical sophistication, namely the Standard Vanguard and the Humber 80.

  5. Weeell, that didn’t work did it. Should have been a strike through intelligent. A thinking person is the opposite of a bigot. They don’t have to be intelligent, just thoughtful.

  6. If toad had said (or at least intelligent thinking people, rather than bigots) he would have had the support of any good dictionary editor. And he wouldn’t have offended bb.

  7. Samiuela

    What somebody did in their political past should be irrelevant, even I have voted for the Greens and the Labour party in previous elections.

    However it is relevant when they continue to preach communist ideology and introduce hard left legislation into the house.

  8. Um, I know at least half a dozen people in the Greens who are former National Party members, including one who is a former National Party MP. Does this mean that the Green Party is just a front for free market capitalism espoused by the National Party?

    People (or at least intelligent thinking people, rather than bigots) do change their views on both issues and ideology over time, as more evidence becomes available to them.

  9. I find all this speculation of who in the Green party is a communist (or not) amusing. Firstly, so what if some Green party members were formerly communists? So what if some still are? If you find this so objectionable, you can:

    a) Join the Green party, so that you can have more say in their policies.
    or b) Form your own party
    or c) Vote for another party
    or d) Get on with your life



  10. You ignore the fact that parliament went against the peoples wishes.
    The thing was that we were being preached to that smacking was never ok; what we needed to do was watch Nanny on TV. I washed Nanny with my wife: this kid wouldn’t walk back to the car (threw a tantrum). Nanny spent about 10 minutes cajoling the kid. My wife said that when she was a kid if she did that her parents would just walk off and leave her (and we don’t need Nanny to know what would happen next). In Japan naughty kids get locked out of the apartment “Whaaa! let me in…. Whaaaa!…..” (Of course they should be reported to Cyfs).
    The truth is that the notion that it was never OK to smack didn’t ring true with loving intelligent parents and the ignored and downplayed Otago Study bares that out.

  11. BB: “how on earth can you call that [section 59 repeal] democratic??

    There are two checks and balances around the repeal of section 59. (1) it was voted for by a majority of our democratically-elected parliament (in fact, a very large majority once National proposed a compromise that most could live with). (2) people are free to elect a future parliament that will change the law back if they want to.

    If New Zealand signs a free trade agreement with China, it will not fit either of those conditions. It will only be agreed to by Cabinet, and future parliaments will not be able to simply repeal it. That’s a serious example of a failure of democracy.

  12. BB: The science of cllimate change has nothing to do with smashing capitalism or any other political system. It has everything to do with physical chemistry, isotope chemistry, atmospheric physics and other scientific disciplines. It has been accepted as scientific truth by communists, anarchists, capitalists (such as insurance companies) and militarists (such as the Pentagon), because the science is indisputable. The only people who are still pretending the science is not clear are those with a vested interest in the status quo . Is a capitalist isotope analysis of carbon emmissions different from a communist one? Does the isotope profile change its composition in a quantum like fashion depending on whether it is a capitalist or a communist observing it?

    To use an example you would understand, it is the same as the animal welfare debate in New Zealand. Most people who have any scientific ability, and indeed most people with any common sense, from all political persuasions, now know that hens suffer in battery cages. The only people still insisting that the science is unclear are those with a vested interest such as the meat and egg industry, and the government officials and ministers they have bullied into submission.

  13. I don’t believe the Green Party are communists, but there is definitely an element who seem to have the upper hand. I see no reason why a Green party shouldn’t be economically central. BTW I heared Metira on Afternoons with Jim Moira, apparently she was associated with Sue through the Unemployed Workers Union.
    With too many people of one type, you wont get change as people who don’t like your thinking wont join in sufficient numbers (Catch22). Note Sarkovskys (?) reforms in France.

    I think the difference is that some Greens really do believe capitalism is the cause of all our ills. Myself, I admit I’m a bit confused, but I don’t believe in continual economic growth; I believe we should aim for a sustainable lifestyle where we rediscover values. To me you utilise markets as you would water for a waterwheel.

    I would like to see (if it is possible) a wiki which exams the big questions and becomes a policy forge, ie aiming to educate and understand…. better than a few people sitting in a room. :mrgreen:

  14. stuey Says:
    November 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    seeing as the Greens have appropriate decision making as one of our charter principles we have a long history of supporting decentralisation of power

    Someone ought to do an analysis of green party decision making re the various charter principles.

    S59 repeal…. principle of non violence (why not appropriate decision making?)

    Noise from speedway…. how do you apply appropriate decision making?..

    What if with drawl of troops from Iraq resulted in a bloodbath?

    I’m far from convinced that the green Charter is anything but a convienient way to justify whatever policy you want.

  15. Thanks for your reply, Greengeek. I fully share your frustration at the glacial pace at which awareness and action on climate change and all the associated concerns arise. I want to stand on streetcorners with placards (actually, I do, quite often : )) but I’m aware of all the complicated psychology around the issue. For me, and Icehawk, the Green Party IS the party that your third paragraph cries out for, and for me, I’m in it to help it stay that way.

    But I also know and accept that social justice, or social responsibility, as I prefer to call it, is an integral way of helping people move towards better choices, and can’t be separated from ecological wisdom.

  16. Pingpong:

    > “The two policies you highlight as reasons for not being able to vote for us are tiny, tiny parts of our overall policy, and the reason that you keep stubbing your toe on them instead of policies like energy efficiency, waste, climate change and conservation, is because the sort of stereotyping you display has been disseminated so continuously it’s pretty universal.”

    The thing is…anything that I can PERSONALLY do to reduce these bad climatic events and minimise my negative environmental footprint I do already do myself, just because I want to. I don’t need any political party to convince me that it is worth doing.

    What I DO need is a political party that understands how great is the need for EVERYONE ELSE to focus on sustainability and renewability aswell. I need a political party that deals with facts, and has enough credibility that it is able to convince non-believers about what is right.

    I have not, so far, been able to view the Greens as being helpful in achieving that objective of convincing non-believers that the environment is the one most important issue. You might find that hard to believe.

    As Stuey pointed out, I need to put more time into reviewing the Greens manifesto, and am doing so, but the reality is this: I and other voters like myself judge the Greens by their public profile and public efforts.

    It is pointless to suggest that we need to accept the whole gamut of Greens policies, because we simply don’t. There are plenty of other parties who are good enough to keep the country ticking over.

    In that respect, it really doesn’t matter whether Labour or National gain power, all that matters is that facts, science, common sense, and good dialogue succeed in conveying the environmental message to the masses and force the hand of the major parties.

    I struggle to understand how the nay-sayers can deny the probability of humans having hastened climatic instability.

    Equally I struggle to understand why the Greens publicly spend so much time worrying about the Dalai Lama, cannabis use and other issues like the smacking thing etc etc.

    I guess that is the reality of politics…well-intentioned people get bogged down with the temptation to interfere in things they shouldnt mess with, to the detriment of their focus on the things they SHOULD mess with.

  17. So what steps can be taken to protect us from these bigger events?

    Can buildings be built stronger to handle the higher wind speeds, and if so, how does the potential homebuyer find out how much wind a house can withstand? Will the insurance companies offer lower premiums for stronger houses? (It isn’t in the builder’s interest to build stronger than necessary at present, providing the house lasts 7 years or so.)

    How can I find out whether a house is at risk from flooding? (Historical information isn’t much use for a new subdivision or merely infill housing, particularly since other factors change e.g. more development in the catchment area increases runoff.) Again, are insurance companies looking at flooding risks, or merely averaging it all out and thus penalising those on higher ground?

    Should we be planting iceplant along our highways as a firestop measure? Would harvesting the biomass reduce the fire risk?


  18. Yeah… well if you want to argue S59 , choose some other Green. We’ve had that fight. It is entirely unrelated to your calumny about communism.

    You are calling me and other Greens communists. This is FALSE. The refutation of it is not rhetoric, it is TRUTH. You can find a handful of former members of the communist party in our midst. They are GREENS… or do you reckon that having been a child once you are always going to be a child?

    What do you want… we should find all former members of the communist party and blacklist them? Maybe your middle name is McCarthy?

    Communism is just as idealistic and mistaken as libertarianism, and both are rubbished quite effectively by reality and history. Your sort of mislabeling and misleading however, is even more mistaken and dangerous.

    Read our charter. You are arguing social issues now because you’ve already lost the debate on climate change. Fine … but that you reckon that charges of “communism” are worth even mentioning tends to weaken the parts of the criticism that actually might have some validity.

    No Nick… you can’t argue that the Greens are Communists because Sue Bradford was once a Communist and Sue Bradford is a Green. The logic there is broken. I could recognize that sort of argument as a fallacy before my 8th birthday…. but it does not surprise me to hear it again.


  19. Thanks stuey, am also looking foward to you attempting to prove that the S59 bill was about fixing the law. But your question is valid so ill answer it.

    First lets have some evidence:
    1) Sue Bradford is a former communist
    2) Sue Bradford is heavily opposed to parents smacking their children
    3) Sue Bradford rejected the Chester Burrows amendment, which would have made the bill acceptable to all. Why?

    While my previous comment was mostly assertions its better then stuff like: “surely the biggest pot / kettle moment of the year” and “it isn’t true and it shows exactly how little you know” which are vauge assertions not even related to the topic.

    Anyway, everyone knows that this is what this bill does. It makes it illegal for parents to smack their children. Effectivly enshrining into New Zealand law Sue Bradfords prefered parenting tecniques.

  20. Nick C: “Thanks for that bj, am looking foward to your actually reply that is not 100% rhetoric.”

    🙄 surely the biggest pot / kettle moment of the year! So, Nick, which part of your comment is not rhetoric?

  21. ># ekstatek Says:
    >November 26th, 2007 at 8:24 am

    >Anyway I’m going fishing now, if jim anderton has left me any and not sold them all to the japs (who own most of our fish companies and are have just set off to hunt the few remaining humpbacks), I say send out our defence force and torpedo them! Remind them what our fathers fought for.

    Some of the destructive fishing practices are done by Japanese firms, but just as much is due to New Zealand’s own fishing cowboys. And I wouldn’t approve of violent actions like firing torpedoes which kill people and lead to oil slicks. I would prefer a less violent solution like filling their diesel tanks with sugar while they’re in port.

  22. Kiore

    When it is indisputable I will take notice, until then I refuse to believe that the only way to “save the planet” is to destroy capitalism, I am always going to be suspicious when the people who push this con the hardest are the very same ones who have former or current communist sympathies.


    So you do not have to agree with the whole package to be a green party supporter unless you are a climate change denier?
    I doubt that you will believe me but you can ask anybody here and they will tell you that I have offered my votes (both party and constituent) to the Greens if they introduce legislation to stop battery hens and pigs in crates.
    There are many things that I dislike, socialism, the DPB, political correctness, one race political parties to name a few but I would be more than willing to overlook all that and vote for a party that at least attempted to stop the evil practice of caged animals.

    I might be the classic example of everything you despise in your political opponents but I am also a man of my word, all the Greens need to do is introduce this into the house and they can have both of my votes, I would make it my business to find out who voted against them and I can assure you that I would never vote for that party again.

  23. “Keep repeating it Nick C… it isn’t true and it shows exactly how little you know… which is always a useful thing for your enemies to know . Here’s to them. ”

    Thanks for that bj, am looking foward to your actually reply that is not 100% rhetoric.

    Section 59 was not a social justice issue anyway. If we believe the greens it was about fixing a loophole in criminal law, therefore a crime issue. Not that I believe the greens. Section 59 was about the nanny state mentallity, the Helen Clark and Sue Bradford know whats best for your kids mentality. It was about social engineering, taking away parents rights to physically disipline their kids, because according to Sue Bradford thats not the best way to raise kids. Now im not saying it is, but I think that is for the parent to decide.

  24. BB I also remember having a lot of scientific and historical nonsense rammed down my throat at school and university in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

    Among the most nonsensical were

    * Evolution only proceeds through random mutation and selection
    * Life can be manufactured from non-life in some sort of sludge if you wait long enough
    * Animal experiments are essential to save lives
    * Meat is essential for health
    * The British Empire was a jolly good thing
    * Animals only function by instinct and cannot think

    The point I am getting at is you are right, scientists and educators say a lot of stupid things, and many of them are politically motivated. But it doesn’t follow logically that everything scientists say is wrong. Each statement by a scientist has to be checked for accuracy and judged on its merits. I was also taught al lot of very good science and history at school and university, and much of it is still current and correct.

    Regarding climate change, there was a very good essay in New Scientist warning people against making extreme claims or sensationalist satements such as unequicocally stating that the floods in the UK are a result of climate change. They just provide fuel to the sceptics. Some of Gore’s predictions were over the top, and were disputed by climae scientists, but the basic message, that the earth is warming as a direct result of anthropogenically produced greenhouse gasses, is pretty much indisputable. For me, the clinching evidence is the isotope studies which pretty much label the cabon as being “ours”.

  25. Keep repeating it Nick C… it isn’t true and it shows exactly how little you know… which is always a useful thing for your enemies to know . Here’s to them.

    The fact is that social justice issues are not “red” or “communist” issues.
    Read your Adam Smith… not just the parts they teach in business school or on the neo CON blogs…

    No single system stands alone Ekstatek. I can have my doubts over some green policies, but overall it is a good package. The misinformation and propaganda spread about Cannabis is only slightly behind the misinformation and propaganda spread about the Green Party itself.

    There’s something to be said for honesty here, and the lies spread about this party both by our guests and by the media would have led to duels-of-honour in days gone by. It is SERIOUSLY offensive, and I wish we had the legal clout to take people and media outlets to court.


  26. The greens are like a watermellon: Green on the outside and red on the inside. Although im sure most green party members care about the enviroment S59 shows what their real agenda is.

  27. Greengeek, why on earth should we perform dismembering contortions trying to convince people like BB whose beliefs and values seem to be diametrically opposed to everything the Greens value?

    You, as someone committed to environmental issues, have a different claim to our attention perhaps, but I think you’re missing something important about the Greens and politics in general. The two policies you highlight as reasons for not being able to vote for us are tiny, tiny parts of our overall policy, and the reason that you keep stubbing your toe on them instead of policies like energy efficiency, waste, climate change and conservation, is because the sort of stereotyping you display has been disseminated so continuously it’s pretty universal.

    Also, if every political party reflected perfectly the views of its members there would be three million political parties in New Zealand. If you don’t want to support the Green policies you like because of the one that pushes your button, that’s your choice, but on my scales the Waste Bill, Jeanette’s energy efficiency portfolio, enviroschools and the public transport budget for Auckland, among many other things, well outweigh the S59 amendment, which was a private members’ bill, anyway.

    The thing I really value about their Greens are that they don’t hide their values or their policies, so prospective voters can read them for themselves and make up their own minds. I wish all the other parties were as upfront.

  28. “..I would vote for the greens except Keith Locke is evil! He cares more for his own karma than the countries…”

    and of course..ekstatek is here speaking for/representing the truely ‘deranged’..

    (and..his simplistic (somewhat appealing..on some levels) solution to the ‘japanese fishing/whaling issue’..

    obviously stems more from that irrational well that is racism..

    than from any environmental concerns on his part..

    (maybe he wandered over here from ‘talkback-land’..?..)

    (go you go..!..back over there..!..

    leighton smith relys for his livelihood on those irrational prejudices of you lot..


    gotta give him his ‘due’


  29. We need to make allies with america, and build up our defence forces, what with India, China and Indonesia breeding like feral rabbits, we need to stop them from invading when climate change hits hard.
    I would vote for the greens except Keith Locke is evil! He cares more for his own karma than the countries. I hope that labor in australia can start some thing to help stop climate change because our government is so stupid, in concentrating on the petty things.
    Anyway I’m going fishing now, if jim anderton has left me any and not sold them all to the japs (who own most of our fish companies and are have just set off to hunt the few remaining humpbacks), I say send out our defence force and torpedo them! Remind them what our fathers fought for.

  30. Stuey:

    my point is that in order to promote environmental progress (and convince people like BB) you must be PERCEIVED as a party that focusses on environmental issues.

    It doesn’t matter what you personally think is contained within your Green party manifesto. It matters only what others in the electorate think you stand for.

    I wanted to vote Greens in the last two elections but couldn’t because that dopehead ropehead Nandor hijacked the party image with his silly cannabis pushing.

    I want to vote Greens this time but Sue Bradford has hijacked honest Green intentions with her “aunty knows best” antismacking nonsense.

    The Greens will only ever get my vote when they demonstrate a true committment to green technology issues rather than social meddling.

    So many people WANT to show their environmental concerns by voting Green, but cannot because personalities within the Greens destroy their credibility on the real issues.

  31. BB: “how on earth can you call that [section 59 repeal] democratic?”

    I call it democratic by the fact that a majority of MPs voted for it, including both Labour and National. How on earth can you call that “rammed through”? I would call that a bill that attracted cross party support.

  32. so greengeek, you still haven’t managed to find any other policies that back up your theory then? just the section 59 repeal? if it is “pretty much all” of our policies, then you’ll be able find some more? won’t you?

  33. Stuey

    “seeing as the Greens have appropriate decision making as one of our charter principles we have a long history of supporting decentralisation of power”

    – supporting decentralisation of power is, just as I said, all about trying to “take down ‘the man’ “. It has nothing specifically to do with being environmentalists.

    “also have a look at the political compass – the Greens are out on the libertarian rather than authoritarian axis (unlike nearly all the other parties)”

    – that is exactly what I am getting at. When it suits them the Greens seem to want centralised power to dissolve into liberal, individualised chaos (ie: what some people call ‘freedom’).

    For example, the previous smacking laws allowed families the freedom to decide what worked for their kids. It was a reasonable law. The new antismacking laws took that freedom away and enforced a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to parenting. It will be chaos.

    It would be nice if the Greens could focus just on being environmentalists, and stop dabbling in so many other issues. You should focus on generation of environmentally clean electrical power instead of mucking about with electoral power.

    If only the Greens would stop meddling in other issues like smacking etc, more of us could vote for them.

  34. Froggie,

    You’re talking about risk. You’re right, but you should also talk about uncertainty. Risk is the chance of bad stuff happening. Uncertainty is lack of knowledge about what the chances are.

    Lets talk about risks. If we play a game with dice, and you lose on a 12 on two six-sided dice, then your risk of losing is 1 in 36. That’s a risk, we can price it, I can insure you against losing knowing that, and it’ll be a tiny bit over 1/36 of your potential losses (a bit over because I insure people to make money).

    Let’s talk about uncertainty. Suppose we don’t know the all rules of the game, or quite what will cause you to lose, though we can make some guesses. There’s a risk still, but we don’t know how big the risk is. That’s uncertainty. I can insure you in uncertain situations, but I’m insuring you to make money so to cover my arse I’m going to make it very expensive for you.

    Uncertainty is increasing as we continue to change the nature of the atmosphere in ways that have never been done before. The variation in the IPCC reports is very large. We know things are changing within a given range, but we don’t really know by how much.

    So not only are risks up: uncertainty is also up.

    Despite what BB and Nick may think: when it comes to risks, uncertainty is not your friend.

  35. BB,

    About a year ago I wasn’t a member of the Greens. The NZ Climate Change coalition set themselves up and issued press releases (notably one by Auggie Auer) about how climate change was all a hoax. I read this stuff, and noticed that the facts and figures they quoted just didn’t match what I’d read about the Keller Curve and global warming.

    That seemed interesting. How could two seemingly intelligent sets of scientists give such different results?

    So I did the maths. I looked at the figures the the climate-change deniers were using, I compared them with what I could find on-line about the carbon cycle. Turns out Auer was quiting a guy called Singer, who was referencing some NASA papers. So I read them. And when I’d made a model of what they were arguing, it became obvious the climate change deniers were talking utter bollocks. And while my grandad, who never went past form 2 at school, wouldn’t have seen why, to anyone who pretended to be a scientist it should have been completely obvious that they were speaking bollocks. Then I checked up and found out that the NZ scientists who’ve set up this climate-change denying cabal include absolutely no experts on the climate. And that’s how NZ climate change coalition – who are climate change deniers – convinced me to join the Green party.

    You don’t want to trust the experts: like, the entire damn field of climatology, and the international committee set up on climate change, and the scientific advisors of the entire G7. I’m okay with that if you’re willing to do the maths and show where they’re wrong. But if you won’t trust the world’s experts, and you aren’t willng or able to do the maths yourself, then why the hell should anyone of us believe you?

    As for your point about the 70s: We have cyclical ice ages because of how the planet moves. We’ve known that since the 1920s. So we’ve known since the 1920s that an ice age is due in the next few thousand years. Hence the “common knowledge” in the 70s that an ice age is coming – in a few thousand years, if the climate follows its normal track.

    But our climate isn’t currently following the normal track. Science has advanced enough that we can now see that, and we’re now much more off the normal track than we were in the 70s. We’ve burned more fossil fuels since 1970 than in all of recorded history to 1970.

    (As for your idea that we’re out to destroy capitalism: I’m a businessman, BB, I and my partners own a small company specializing in software for overseas investment banks. So I recommend you take your stereotypes of what Greens are like and revise them.)

  36. Stuey

    How can any party claiming to have “democracy” as one of its charter principals support a piece of legislation like the EFB?

    This bill makes speaking out against the government illegal in election year yet Greens support it.

    That is not the actions of a party who has “democracy” as one of it charter principals.

    Actually when you come to think of it neither is the anti smacking bill, the vast majority of Kiwi’s did not support that disgusting piece of social engineering yet you rammed it through, how on earth can you call that democratic?

  37. BB: “so Russ, Sue B and Keith Locke are environmentalists first and foremost are they?”

    No, they are Greens, which means they understand that all 4 of charter principles are equally important and indeed interconnected: sustainability, justice, democracy and peace.

  38. Weather disasters ‘getting worse’
    BBC News, Sunday, 25 November 2007

    The number of weather-related disasters has quadrupled over the past 20 years and the world should do more to prepare for them, the aid agency Oxfam says.

    Global warming is to blame for the growing number of weather disasters, Oxfam adds.

    An average of 500 such disasters are now taking place each year, compared to 120 in the 1980s, the report says. The number of floods has increased six-fold over the same period.

  39. “pretty much all of their policies are about stripping others of power”

    absolute rubbish, have you even looked at any of our policies? Go, on find some that are “about stripping others of power”

    seeing as the Greens have appropriate decision making as one of our charter principles we have a long history of supporting decentralisation of power

    also have a look at the political compass – the Greens are out on the libertarian rather than authoritarian axis (unlike nearly all the other parties)

  40. BB: the Greens are not environmentalists (with the exception of Jeanette). They are all about taking down “the man” and his perceived power.

    The whole cannabis decriminalising thing, the antismacking thing, and pretty much all of their policies are about stripping others of power.

    I still can’t figure out why.

  41. Stuey “Do you have any idea how unhinged you sound with your ridiculous conspiracy theories?”

    Really?, so Russ, Sue B and Keith Locke are environmentalists first and foremost are they?

  42. BB: “Climate change is the vehicle the hard left and the communists have decided to use as the way of defeating capitalism”

    Do you have any idea how unhinged you sound with your ridiculous conspiracy theories?

  43. Stuey

    I admire your passion if not your cause (which we all know is the defeat of capitalism by any means possible) but you do not do yourself justice by trying to reinvent (a popular tactic of the left) history.

    I was a primary school, student in the 70’s and we had that rubbish rammed down out throats year after year, I still have a text book somewhere where they detailed what was going to happen to the world when the new ice age arrived.

    Disappointingly for the “Green Cause” they did not attribute this “climate change” to the actions of man, they told us that this was a natural phenomenon that we could do very little about, despite the rantings and ravings of those who believe man is the cause of climate change this is still the case.

    Climate change is the vehicle (no pun intended) the hard left and the communists have decided to use as the way of defeating capitalism, do not pretend that these people care about the environment or the planet, they will use anything and everything to achieve their goals.

    These communists alienate the rest of us who have real environmental concerns, those of us who would like to be involved in cleaning up NZ and doing something about the shocking state of animal welfare in NZ.

    The Greens would see a massive surge in popularity if only they dropped this climate change and social justice rubbish, (they could start right now by pulling their support for the EFB but thats another argument altogether)

  44. Hi Nick, so you’d very much like me to explain why up until the 1970’s environmentalists were claiming a new ice age.

    That’s an impossible challenge because it never happened. There were no environmentalists making doomsaying predictions in the 60’s about a new ice age.

    I challenge you to prove me wrong. Go on, find some documentary evidence of people suggesting a new ice age in the 60s. You might find a few scientists suggesting that it might be possible, and the idea may have gotten into popular consciousness, but you won’t find environmental campaigning groups making a huge deal out of it, you won’t find any people marching or protesting or organising concerts about it.

  45. I sense some of you don’t believe mankind can influence the weather.

    Yes, the forces that drive the cyclical macro events are well beyond the scope of the changes man can make, but we must remember that the small (yet significant) contribution made by man is capable of triggering (or advancing, catalysing, expediting or whatever else you want to call it) those macro cycles so that they occur sooner than would normally be the case.

    Quite likely our efforts could even increase the amplitude of these cyclical events (as could asteroid impacts etc etc)

    Why should we ignore the current climatic instabilities and pretend that man is too small to make a difference?

    Man’s effect on the ozone hole should provide an example for us…we spotted the problem in time, we took steps to minimise our effects, and we appear to have saved the day. OK, the hole will still be bigger than it should for a long time yet, but at least we have turned the corner.

    Why should we accept the inevitability of low-lying island nations disappearing under water because of melting icecaps? Yes it is inevitable, but wouldn’t it be better for it to occur in 2000 years as it would if natural cycles were left to themselves, rather than within the next 100 years because mankind has trigger things prematurely??

    Our CFCs do have an effect on ozone, our soot does coat the glaciers and snowfields throughout the world and increase the rate of melt, our CO2 is capable of causing a greenhouse effect (at least in theory), and our constantly increasing population reduces afforestation, increases damaging runoff, increases the rate of species extinction, and therefore reduces biodiversity, and we in the western world live off crops that have been refined and hybridised to the point that a single rogue virus could potentially devastate the worlds food supply as happened during the Irish potato famine.

    Heirloom seeds are no longer planted, and the majority of our population has no idea how vulnerable our food supply is. Just witness the current American problems with disappearing bees. No bees, no pollination, no crops.

    Sure, lets not get paranoid and over-react, but the greater evil is to under-react.

  46. Hey big bro. Just thought I’d throw you a couple of links. I would like to post a little summary here but I’m not an expert and would and am therefore not as credible. So you might want to check out this,, it’s the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and this working group – section of the report – deals solely with the science behind climate change. I highly recommend you read it, or at least the summary for policy makers, It is a shame that scientists have not been able to adequately communicate the great body of research that has done on this subject more effectively to the rest of the population.

  47. Nick

    I have not checked the odds yet but you can be sure that I will be putting a bet on the Deshi’s to win at least one of the test matches.

    Cairns and others are in a dream world, the series against the Deshi’s is for the wooden spoon of world cricket, right now we would have to start favorites to win that wooden spoon.

  48. Big Bro- On a lighter note there is a chance that we could beat Bangladesh. They are playing at the basin, and given our recent form it should be a good match to go to as it will be close (if the weather holds out).

    Chris Cairns said a few years back that “New Zealand is too good to be playing Bangladesh in test cricket”. I have a feeling however that Bangladesh have every right to not come here on the grounds that we arent good enough to play them!

    And Stuey please bring me some proof to show us that man is the cause of climate change. I would very much like you to explain for example why up until the 1970’s enviromentalists such as yourself were claiming a new ice age. Your predictions of doom and gloom twist (literally) whichever way the wind is blowing.

  49. Frog

    They might be facts but you are wrong to call them “climate change facts”

    Need I remind that there is NO conclusive proof that climate change is caused by man, when this con is exposed you will have to hitch your wagon to another cause as a roundabout way of destroying capitalism.

  50. and also planting trees and conserving trees for urban shade to protect from increased heat waves,

    for example there’s a brand new school on Waiheke where they completely ripped out an entire hillside of forest and then after it was built replanted it with lovely landscaped gardens and trees – but they won’t grow enough to provide shade for years. What a waste of resources and pointless destruction of ecosystems.

    The same school considered putting a wee footpath through the few metres that remained of the bush to allow kids from one street to walk to school, but some idiot busybody mentioned at a board meeting that it could be used by child predators and then everyone turned against the idea and instead they have to go all the way down one road and back up another, it takes the walking school bus about 15-20 minutes when it should take 5 and of course it means that many of the parents up that road drive their kids to school. Arrgh!

  51. Stuey / Toad
    Let me know as soon as you can control the weather, I would like it to rain and rain hard at every venue NZ is scheduled to play test cricket at for the foreseeable future, the last two tests (Mark Gillespie’s performance aside) have been extremely embarrassing time for us who follow NZ cricket.

  52. no we can’t control the weather but we can put in place measures to cope with the effects such as

    * installing rain water tanks and greywater recycling systems
    * limit extraction of water for irrigation
    * encourage growth of crops that are suitable for dry conditions, e.g. stop growing rice in Australia!
    * conserve water, from not leaving the tap running to taking shorter showers to giving up on swimming pools and spas
    * planting trees and conserving trees to prevent flooding

  53. Blue Peter – of course at one point it was getting cooler. What is important is the long-term trend, rather than one-off temperature observations, and it is getting warmer in both temperate and arctic/antarctic climates.

    Nick C – you are right that we can’t control the weather, but we can influence it. At the moment we are influencing it inadvertently (or in deliberate ignorance) through greenhouse gas emissions.

    For both of you, this is all about probability theory – the likelihood of seriously adverse weather events – rather than one-off observations or whether or not we can influence/control what the weather will be like next week.

    As for me, I’ve just had a week’s holiday in Northland, and the weather was lovely for me as a holidaymaker. But wouldn’t want too much more time without rain, or there will be serious consequnces for agriculture and water supply.

Comments are closed.