GUEST BLOG: Gareth Hughes – Deep Sea Oil Drilling, National & Labour are ignoring the facts

439
14

oil2

New Zealand stands at a cross roads on deep sea oil drilling. Should we continue? to encourage foreign companies to searching for more oil deep under our waters? Or should we start seriously investing in a clean energy alternative? The current Government would have you believe that what there is no alternative to the economic future of New Zealand; drill it, mine it, frack it. It looks like the Labour Party would have you believe that too: Labour recently came out saying they are comfortable with deep sea drilling “in principle”. But the Green Party knows that more oil development is a recipe for risking our environment, economy and climate. National and Labour are ignoring the fact that fossil fuel development like oil, is leading to run away climate change, which will jeopardise the success of our agricultural sector – the backbone of our economy. The Green Party, however, would create a smarter, greener economy that supports the people of today without making it harder to future generations to make a living.

Scientists tell us that, worldwide, we can burn only 20% of the fossil fuels that companies have already discovered if we want to keep climate change to a “safe” 2 degree increase. So it’s crazy to encourage companies to drill risky wells in deep water in order to find even more oil. Drilling in 1.5km of water is a different kettle of fish tothe shallow water drilling that’s been happening in Taranaki for 100 years and is at the frontiers of technology, geology and geography. When it comes to oil drilling, the deeper you go the greater the risk. When we look to the Gulf of Mexico, we see that for shallow water oil drilling 1 in 272 wells has a spill, while that number increases to 1 in 35 wells for deep sea drilling and to 1 in 19 wells for ultra-deep sea drilling. But we don’t have to risk our beaches and our climate in order to have a strong economy.

We have a wealth of low carbon economic development options and we could lead the world in selling clean energy solutions. This isn’t decades off, this is now. Clean energy solutions like solar, wind and geothermal energy, as well as electric cars are available, affordable and increasingly desirable. Clean energy is potentially a $20 billion annual economic opportunity according to Pricewaterhouse Coopers and we know it grows four times as many jobs as fossil fuels. BERL estimated we could employ up to 27,000 Kiwis, around four times the numbers employed in the oil and gas sectors in NZ, simply by using our forestry wood wastes as a sustainable biofuel, helping reduce our $7b annual fuel import bill. It’s more likely we’ll see our installing solar panels on people’s roofs or working on better buses and trains or in the IT sector than a handful on Anadarko’s offshore rigs. The world is crying out for clean energy, green tech and IT solutions and we could grow more jobs and an even richer New Zealand selling our expertise and services than just our oil.

Now is the time to transition to a low-carbon economy. As the Pure Advantage group of leading New Zealand business people has said, “the countries that reduce the carbon dependency of their economies most quickly and develop carbon friendly technologies will be the most prosperous in the 21st century.” That is in part because countries that transition first can sell their low carbon technology and expertise to the countries that transition later.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Deep sea oil drilling is a defining environmental issue of our time. New Zealand stands to lose a lot if the world cannot limit climate change to 2 degrees warming. It can’t be said enough: Our agricultural nation depends on a stable climate. If we don’t get serious about climate change our farmers will suffer increased droughts and damaging storms, and profits will suffer. This year if Labour and National want to ignore the realities of climate change and throw their support behind deep sea oil drilling, that’s their choice. The Green Party knows there are better alternatives, which is why we will focus on providing solutions to do more with less oil and invest in a smart green economy.

We stand at a crossroads. New Zealand can look to the Beverly Hillbillies for economic inspiration and risk our environment, economy and climate through deep sea drilling, or we could look to the future and grow a richer NZ through a green economy.

 

439 COMMENTS

  1. Sure, Labour’s environmental policies are lame, and National’s are destructive, but who really believes that we can still save the environment under capitalism?
    Green capitalism just ain’t gonna work. We can’t recycle our way to an environmentally sound capitalistic utopia. Its delusional to think we can. The only way to be an environmentalist is to be an anti-capitalist.
    Using the neoliberal logic of ‘individual responsibility’ as a way to save the environment is embarrassing. We need structural change, and by that I mean changing the economic, social and political systems. Saying no to a bit of drilling ain’t going to do much.
    Green capitalism is not a subversive form of socialism, it’s the complete opposite. Green capitalism is a continuation of neoliberalism, and its done in a way that makes us all feel good about ourselves.

    • …who really believes that we can still save the environment under capitalism?

      Leaving aside the question of what ‘saving the environment’ even means, the socialist societies that have existed to date (Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia and North Korea) suggest that if it can’t be ‘saved’ under capitalism it’s not going to be saved.

      • i doubt many people that are anti-capitalist are pro tyranny like the north korea or russian states were.

        If someone says they are anti-capitalist all it means is that they are anti-capitalist. It doesn’t automatically make them pro-stalinist, pro- maoist or pro feudalism or primitivism for that matter.

        Why not just assume that because someone is anti-capitalist then they want to be ruled by aliens from out of space instead. Ok, im making the argument absurd here but you see my point?

        • “Why not just assume that because someone is anti-capitalist then they want to be ruled by aliens from out of space instead. Ok, im making the argument absurd here but you see my point?”

          Nah, that’s a good point Stroggos…well it’s about as good as Psycho Milt’s point. But that’s the norm from PM.
          As you say, who the hell wants totalitarianism? That’s why I’m against capitalism – it just concentrates power but under the guise of freedom (lol fox news)
          20th Century Socialism/Communism was still based on the same underlying premise as capitalism – progress (whatever that means?) Bigger, faster, etc…consuming the environment asap.
          As far as the environment was concerned 20th Century Socialism/Communism was little more than nationalised capitalism.
          Sustainable capitalism is comical, but when one points it out the idiots always start parroting Saggy Thatcher.
          God help us all

        • Unless an anti-capitalist is just a daydreamer, or maybe a nihilist, they want to replace capitalism with something. Only, capitalism doesn’t actually want to be replaced with something. So a credible anti-capitalist wants to forcibly replace it with something. To date there’s only one contender for forcibly replacing capitalism with something, and it turned out to be worse than capitalism. So if Gareth’s thinking in terms of working within capitalism, good.

          • Stuart Hall died today. You should read his writing about Thaterism its resulting cultural hegemony.
            Or watch this.
            Your T.I.N.A. rhetoric is so 1990s. I’m surprised people who know how to read still believe there is no alternative to individualised consumption.

        • I like the term “enterprise” one can be enterprising without being capitalist, which implies as it does name, that capitalism’s aim is the accumulation of it, enterprise does not necessarily mean that the aim is to accumulate more than you need.
          The other term I would like to find favour is prosperity as opposed to wealth, one can prosper without necessarily having to accumulate more wealth than one needs.
          The world is in desperate need of a new way, maybe some of the answers can be found in Tim Jackson’s “Prosperity without Growth – Economics for a finite planet”

          • I’m anti-capitalist, but I’m not opposed to “business”. A few years ago I was involved in the Oblong Infoshop. This was a community-run internet cafe which charged money for a service (internet access), in order to cover its overheads, so it was technically a “business”, but it’s main objectives were positive social change (supporting activism, increasing use of free code software like GNU/Linux etc). Those who could not afford to pay could instead give volunteer time, and use the services for free. The only downside of this model was that it wasn’t able to pay people for their work, so it wasn’t an alternative to jobs/ benefits.

            Organisations like Oblong which have social/ environmental primary objectives, but also try to earn enough money to cover overheads and pay people for their work, are called Social Enterprises. They often run as democratic workers co-operatives like Loomio. To me, this is a viable anti-capitalist economic model, and I’d be thrilled to see the Greens announce policy to support the establishment of social enterprises/ workers co-operatives.

            • Yes, me too, but it took a bit of thinking, how I could marry my desire to be autonomous and my preference for working for myself with my essentially anti-accumulating too much, views as well.
              I now no longer believe that “jobs” is what we need, I think we need to seed the idea of enterprise in people’s minds and truly wonder if the real enemy is actually “big” and that is the enemy of both right and left economic thinking.
              Well that’s what I think for what it is worth

      • Fair point, Milt; environmental degradation has occurred under both the capitalist and Soviet (I don’t refer to them as “socialist, just as China is not capitalist) systems. The difference is that, at least, environmentalists have an easier time in the West as opposed to one-party regimes.

        In my ‘umble opinion, the economic system is secondary to Humanity’s capacity for stupidity for ignoring reality, in the blind pursuit of economic, political, or profit-making goals.

        I often wonder if the reason we have never picked up transmission signals from alien civilisations is that the galaxy is eerily deserted. Technological civilisations self-destruct through either atomic war, environmental degradation, or some other form of technology-assisted, racial mass-suicide.

        Given enough self-interest (which is at the heart of the Free Market/Consumerist society, people (individually and collectively) ignore inconvenient facts.

      • So, the currently stalled great project known as the glorious, international proletarian, socialist revolution, is about to restart and get underway to save us all.

        Bread! Freedom! Land! All power to the soviets,

        Have they announced the date yet?

  2. Hi Gareth,

    I like your work and prefer the Greens approach to this issue.

    Of course there is a ‘however’ coming…

    I am pleased that Labour are providing an alternative to National’s idea of having drilling occurring and having all the profits of this exported wholesale.

    i.e. If we are going to be pressured into drilling by big powerful business interests [interests which seem to hold more sway on ‘democratic’ governments than any people-pressure these days] I think it is far preferable that the profits are kept in this country.

    I far prefer that we focus on the Greens’ idea of developing clean energy and hopefully Labour will start emphasising that too – yet to me Mr Cunliffe’s reference to ‘the Norwegian Model’ [if I am understanding the implications of that correctly] is like a type of safety net and far preferable to the National’s sell-out-NZ-interests-completely-while-fooling-people-that-‘it-is-about-jobs’- approach.

  3. “Deep sea oil drilling is a defining environmental issue of our time.”
    Gareth Hughes

    Kia ora Gareth.

    For a previous generation the defining environmental issue of the time was nuclear ship visits.

    To bring this issue to the floor of parliament and make it an election issue, the Labour opposition party put a private members bill in the ballot to ban nuclear ships from New Zealand waters and ports.

    Will you, or anyone else in the Green Party be putting in a similar private members bill to ban Deep Sea Oil Drilling from our waters?

    And if not, why not?

  4. Hi Jenny

    Thanks heaps for the comment. This term I have put the issue to a vote in Parliament with an amendment to the EEZ Act making deep sea drilling a prohibited class of activity. It was only supported by the Greens and Mana.

    I would happily put a bill in the ballot but after that vote don’t like it’s chances of passing this term so instead have focused instead on the regulations, oil permits, risks associated and supporting the grassroots movement. FYI I have 2 bills in the next ballot on making it easier for families and businesses to install solar PV and another creating the world’s largest marine reserve around the Kermadecs which I hope National and Labour would support.

    Ultimately though the only way it will be stopped is a change of government and a lot of Greens around the negotiating table. That’s what I’m focused on achieving.

    • FYI I have 2 bills in the next ballot on making it easier for families and businesses to install solar PV

      Go Gareth, go Greens.

      NZ is way behind the play in this area cf Germany, and Scandinavia. Even in the Realm of the Koch Bros it is easier for households to convert.

    • Thanks for your reply Gareth. Love your work.

      “I would happily put a bill in the ballot but after that vote don’t like it’s chances of passing this term…”

      Completely agree, my thought here was that it would put pressure on the Labour MPs who are wavering on this issue.

      The example that comes to mind, is the private members bill that Rahui Katene from the Maori Party put up in parliament to get GST removed from fresh fruit and vegetables as a poverty alleviation measure.

      From the beginning, in the face of government opposition, Katene’s bill had no chance of passing….

      But what it did do, was shift the Labour Party’s position….

      At first Labour opposed it vehemently, Phil Goff at one stage saying that any change to GST would be over his dead body.

      But the embarrassing spectacle of Labour MPs lining up with ACT and National to vote it down, caused a revolt in the ranks. After an internal struggle Labour finally agreed to support Katene’s bill, which they did.

      And duly as expected, the bill to remove GST from Fresh Fruit and Vegetables was voted down by the majority ACT and National Party MPs.

      But, from Labour voting to remove GST from Fresh Fruit and vegetables in opposition to the National Government’s position, it was but a short remove for this bill to become Labour Party policy.* (for Labour to not have taken this extra step, would have risked them being seen as complete hypocrites).

      Of course the other and even more powerful example of what a private members bill can do, was the private members bill brought by Richard Prebble in 1984 to make New Zealand Nuclear Free. Again putting this bill onto the floor of the house gave pause for MPs to consider their consciences. The result being, two Government MPs Mike Minogue and Maralyn Waring voted with the opposition. By crossing the floor to vote to make New Zealand Nuclear Free, Mike Minogue and Maralyn Waring removed the National’s majority in the house, effectively bringing down the National Government of Robert Muldoon. To prevent the Anti-Nuclear Ships bill passing its final reading and coming into law, Muldoon called a snap election.

      A recent TV3 online poll showed that 80% of the population are opposed to deep sea oil drilling. On such figures, going into an election Labour cannot afford to be seen voting down such a bill, and voting against deep sea oil drilling in opposition, Labour would be hypocrites not to back such a move when they become the government.

      I would urge you to reconsider putting such a bill into the ballot now, because you may never get another chance, if the Green Party go into government with Labour all Green MPs (whether in cabinet or not) will be prevented from voting against government policy, or putting up bills opposed to government policy. And Russel Norman when asked specifically if deep sea oil drilling would preclude the Green Party going into government with Labour said “there are no bottom lines.”

      I may be be seen as cynical in saying it, but it is my opinion if such a bill is not put before the MPs now, it never will be.

      * Though Labour have just recently reversed their promise to remove GST from Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, (a policy that they had only adopted under duress), This does not negate the power of this tactic to push labour further to the Left they would normally go of their own volition.

    • Are you able to tell us at what depth you will permit drilling?

      Furthermore, will you retrospectively revoke licences to companies like Anadarko who have already spent 100s of millions in exploration?

        • I guess they might take legal action against NZ if permit are retrospectively revoked.

          Of course, oil companies can recover their costs by passing them onto consumers such as yourself, Jenny

          • “I guess they might take legal action against NZ if permit are retrospectively revoked.”
            Andys

            I suppose they could try. And if they get their kangaroo court made up of ex-oil company lawyers to convict a whole country, what then?

            Fine us?

            Hand cuff us all, and take us all to jail, if we as a sovereign independent nation tell them to, ‘Get lost, we ain’t gonna pay’?

            I say, call their bluff.

            This stuff only works if you have a slave mentality.

            “Of course, oil companies can recover their costs by passing them onto consumers such as yourself, Jenny”
            Andys

            This is the more realistic option. However I am not too aghast at this outcome either. Maybe we might try a bit harder to do without their fossil fuel products, if we have to pay a lot more for them to realistically reflect the downstream cost they have on the environment.

            I think that that the Oil Companies realise this, and rather than charge us the real price of their products, are trying as hard as they can not to price themselves out of the market.

            As long as the Oil Companies can keep the price of fossil fuels artificially low, they can keep competing technologies from coming on stream and displacing them.

            • I don’t think oil companies are keeping their products artificially low. Why would they do that?

              They are in the business of making profit.

              Of course, if you don’t think oil and gas are expensive enough, you can lobby the government to tax it even more.

              $10 a litre for petrol. A $1000 surcharge on all international flights.

              It would delight me watching NZ commit economic suicide

              • “They are in the business of making profit."
                Andys

                Andys the oil industry is the most profitable industry in human history.

                And they want to keep it that way.

                Andys you may be “delighted” to see New Zealand commit economic suicide. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

                Renewables have the potential to replace fossil fuels and are far more labour intensive, creating tens of thousands of more jobs.

                And as for $10 a litre for petrol and $1000 surcharge on international flights, as you suggested.

                That would certainly spur innovation and competition.

                Instead of expensive air travel we could return to sea travel but with a modern twist.

                How about budget, high speed passenger vessels across the Tasman?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSC_Benchijigua_Express

                Up to 1,291 passengers are distributed on two decks. Due to the short crossing time, (like a Jet liner) there are no passenger cabins. For vehicle transport there are 123 car spaces and 450 metres (1,480 ft) of truck lane; the latter can be converted into an additional 218 car spaces.[6] The vehicle deck can be loaded and unloaded in 30 minutes.

                Get rid of the vehicle deck, double the passenger numbers, fit in a bar, a small gym and a creche and much nicer toilets, there you have it.

                With top speed of 78km/hr and a cruising speed of 67km/hr such a vessel could cross the Tasman, Auckland to Sydney in 40 – 45 hours.

                For New Zealanders used to being locked in airline cattle class for 24 hours for a flight to Europe. A direct 40 hour (and much cheaper) trip to Australia in a much roomier vessel should be a doddle.

                For a longer but more comfortable crossing a few hours mid Tasman stopover in Lord Howe, or Norfolk Island would break the trip up.

                With modern real time satellite weather monitoring and storm tracking and pinpoint GPS navigation, such a high speed vessel could avoid, or outrun most weather systems.

                With less fuel and maintenance costs than a Jetliner I don’t know why it isn’t being done already.

                After all modern international jet travel is only a recent innovation, before the 1960s most international travel was by sea.

                And talking of innovation you can’t beat the 1.5 million inhabitants of the city Gaza who have had all their domestic fuel supplies cut off by a vicious medieval type siege.

                https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/7555-gazan-student-shows-that-necessity-is-the-mother-of-all-inventions

                Andys despite your cynicism the answers are there, all that is missing is the political will.

                Maybe we need look at the alternative to taking such measures?

                Can you bear to look into the abyss, Andys?

                Emergency services were overwhelmed when Hurricane Sandy struck New York, within weeks of Hurricane Sandy, a bigger and even more devastating hurricane struck the Southern Philippines Island of Mindanao. Like Sandy which struck the US unusually so far north, Bopha was the most powerful hurrricane to ever strike the Philippines so far south. Unlike the Northern Philippines, Mindanao was unused to such storms, buildings and infrastructure were more vulnerable. The devastation was incredible, (though little reported in the Western Media), many hundreds more were killed Bopha than by Superstorm Sandy. Death Toll Sandy, Death Toll Bopha. The unusual southerly track of Cyclone Bopha, (even more so, than that of Hurricane Sandy) was definitively linked by scientists to climate change.

                November 8, 2013 Hurricane Haiyan struck the Philippines.
                Haiyan is the most powerful Hurricane ever recorded to date.

                “Typhoon Haiyan the most powerful storm in history”

                According to the Wall Street Journal more people have been made homeless by “Superstorm” Haiyan “than the number of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami combined”. Four million people, (equivalent to the total population of New Zealand), have been made homeless.

                On current trends a super storm of similar magnitude will strike the East Coast of the North Island within the next 30 years, with similar devastating results.

                But still, compared to some we may be getting it easy.

                Some computer simulations and projections suggest that large areas of the tropics, currently home to tens of millions, will become uninhabitable.

                A report commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change was released to the media in September 2012. Concluded that:

                More than 100 million people will die…

                The causes of this mega-death were listed as:

                ….five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

                More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries….

                Reuters LONDON, Sept 26, 2012

                “A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade,” the report said.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html

                Millions of human beings will be sentenced to miserable lives and early deaths by our actions and inactions today.

                Still feel like justifying Business as Usual Andys?

                • “Renewables have the potential to replace fossil fuels and are far more labour intensive, creating tens of thousands of more jobs. -”

                  No they don’t. Renewables create very few jobs

                  And, even if they did create “thousands” of jobs, don’t you think energy would be unaffordable for most of us as a result?

  5. Hi Gareth

    I understand that you passionately believe all of this, I really do. The problem is that more and more evidence is suggesting that the climate alarmist scenario is simply false, and has been aided and abetted by not a small amount of deceit (the hockey stick for example). That’s the real reason the green movement get’s so little traction on this.

    • Feel free to present that “evidence”. Preferably not something 80 years old, either.

      Just some credible, peer-reviewed data will suffice. And not from a front organisation for the fossil-fuel industry, like you tried to palm off before.

      • It won’t matter if he omits what is currently going on in England at the moment, that can be left to speak for itself

      • Oh Frank, let’s recap. You claimed there was no unemployment in the soviet union. I posted a cite from 1933 that talked specifically about the problem of unemployment in the soviet union. Anyone with any intelligence would understand that an article written in the very time of the soviet union would carry some authority. And then there were the other cites. But please feel free to keep bringing it up.

        • “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
          IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, 2010.

          “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.
          Kevin Trenberth, lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC.

          • “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

            When asked who is responsible for promoting climate alarmism…

            “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

            Peter Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder

            • Firstly, that was PATRICK Moore, not Peter.

              Secondly, since when do RWNJs like you quote Greenpeace members?!

              Answer: When it suits you?

              Also, note that Moore isn’t denying global warming. He’s simply not convinced that it is man-made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Global_warming)

              But you chose to leave that bit out.

              You also left out the bit disclosing Moore’s connection with the nuclear industry and other industries.

              Final point, Moore is an ecologist, not a climate scientist.

              I repeat my question (for the nth time): do you have links to any credible, scientific organisations to back up your climate-change denial views?

              My prediction is, No, you do not. Because they don’t exist.

              • Oh I think the comments speak for themselves Frank. This is a gigantic gravy train.

                “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
                Former Canadian Minister of the Environment.

                “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
                Former President Jacques Chirac of Franc

                • Oh I think the comments speak for themselves Frank. This is a gigantic gravy train.

                  How does the global scientific conspiracy work?
                  It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
                  Kinda hard to hide or distribute that amount of gravy.
                  There’s no mechanism.
                  Paranoia will only get you so far.

                  • Wow, Frank’s bringing in the reinforcements! Great stuff!

                    “How does the global scientific conspiracy work?”

                    Wouldn’t have a clue. Haven’t said there is one.

                    “It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the plane ”

                    Ah no. It is a substantial, and growing, body of opinion challenging the alarmist consensus. If you want to play here, you’ll need to better than that.

                    • It is a substantial, and growing, body of opinion challenging the alarmist consensus.

                      Name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus.
                      It’s you versus NASA and all the rest.

              • Hang on, I don’t “deny” global warming either, but have doubts about the role of CO2.

                Does that mean I am not a denier”?

                It is all so confusing getting used to all the name-calling.

                • Yes climate alarmists try to confuse the issue. The climate is changing. It always has. And we have very little to do with it.

                  • Bloody hell, it is you two noddies who are trying to confuse the issue.

                    This argument serves to distract from a basic and very simple idea.

                    What ever you ‘believe’ re climate change the fact remains quite simple: Do we want to keep pushing toxins into our environment or do we want to do as much as we can to minimize such?

                    ‘Shit in our nest’ or keep it as clean and non-toxic as possible?

                    Simple

                    Try confusing that, A.S & I

                    • Are you now going to pursue an argument that oil and it’s products and byproducts are not toxic?

                      What? Has the Heartland Institute funded ‘studies’ on that wee doozy?

                      I would take great care here if I were you, Andy S – the AGW debate allows room for doubt because the science is beyond most peoples’ genuine understanding and the climate system is extremely complex and not entirely understood yet.

                      Your masters can therefore apply their courtroom strategies of creating small amounts of doubt in peoples’ minds on the matter.

                      There is no room for doubt re the toxicity of oil.

                      If you plan to attempt such an argument – against the toxicity of oil – your disingenuity and sheer ignorance will be profoundly more stark for all to see.

                      You can pretend to be knowledgable about climate change with your cutting and pasting – however, you will only be seen for what you are if you are going to claim that oil does not produce toxicity in the environment

                  • Yes climate alarmists try to confuse the issue.

                    NASA are not “climate alarmists”.

                    And we have very little to do with it.

                    Not according to NASA.
                    They have a website. Written in plain English. They are very clear on the matter.

                • You have “doubts” about CO2?

                  Do you have doubts about gravity as well? Let’s put it to the test, shall we? Try jumping off a ten story building and see what happens. You jump, I’ll take notes. Meet you back in ten.

                  • “Are you now going to pursue an argument that oil and it’s products and byproducts are not toxic? -”

                    No, i was asking you for some examples of these toxic compounds. For example, are plastic toys (a by product of oil) toxic?

                    Or is the keyboard at your computer toxic?

                    If not, what is?

                    • @ AndyS

                      I really don’t know why you don’t do a google search on the matter, if you are that unaware of the toxicity of oil products.

                      There are the direct toxic effects on the environment with oil spills killing birds, ruining their feeding grounds, killing fish etc

                      There are toxic effects from the use of petrol such as carbon monoxide coming from our cars

                      There are toxic effects of pesticides and fertilisers directly for workers working around these products and also getting into our food chain.

                      There are somewhat indirect effects such as created by industrial food production ripping off top soil and making our soil and food less nutritious

                      Then there are also things such as plastic bags getting into our oceans and killing marine life such as turtles and dolphins

                      Just a few examples off the top of my head – please do your own google search if you require more – this list is not comprehensive – there are plenty more examples.

                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0046817793902348

                      http://www.naturalpureorganics.com/petrochemicals.htm

                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

        • You are referring to the so-calledNongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, set up by climate-change denier, Fred Singer.

          His “report” has been rubbished by those who know better;

          “Singer prepared an NIPCC report called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” published in March 2008 by The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank. ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as “fabricated nonsense.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Criticism_of_the_IPCC

          I repeat; do you have anything from CREDIBLE sources?

          Answer: still no.

          • Oh the NIPCC IS credible Frank. You might not agree with the people who support them, but try arguing the science.

          • “unnamed climate scientists”? That’s hardly credible Frank.

            And here’s the full quote from your cite:

            “ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as “fabricated nonsense.” In a letter of complaint to ABC News, Singer said their piece used “prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears.”[61]”

            Your source for these ‘unnamed climate scientists’ was ABC news? Come on Frank. Surely you can do better than that.

          • Fred Singer is actually an Emeritus Professor in Atmospheric Physics

            Richard Lindzen is also another professor in a similar field.

            Yes, what do these guys know about climate, huh?

            • Fred Singer, although well qualified, has been involved in dubious activities. Citing his learning credentials without mentioning his other activities is misleading.

              “Last year I bought a copy of Merchants of Doubt by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

              It describes how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. I was very impressed by the content, detail and citations in the book.

              This posting is not intended to be a complete book review but an incident in commentary at the Globe and Mail provided incentive to deal with what I call one of the “delivery boys” for the Merchants of Doubt and to explore the involvement of one of the main merchants, S. Fred Singer. “

              link:
              http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/editorial/merchant-of-doubt-s-fred-singer/

              • Yes I am aware of the smear job done by Oreskes et al

                As far as I know, Singer did some work on second hand smoke and found no statistically significant link between second hand smoke and cancer,

                His work has now been confirmed by recent studies.

                So much for “dubious” work.

            • @ Andy S 11.49pm

              Did you read the article I linked to?

              You must have missed this bit:

              In 1990 Singer had created his SEPP to “promote ‘sound science’ in environmental policy” which meant in part to defend the tobacco industry in collaboration with APCO Associates, the public relations firm hired by Philip Morris for their secondhand smoke campaign. Singer launched a full-frontal assault claiming that the science done at the EPA was “junk”, taking “extreme positions not supported by science” and claiming that they “could not rule out other factors … such as diet, outdoor air pollution, genetics, prior lung disease, etc.”. Why would the EPA “rig” the statistics for a 90% confidence level instead of 95%? Singer’s answer: Controlling smoke would lead to greater regulation in general. [Remember those Commies under the bed? ]

              The EPA had considered and ruled out other factors and recognized that some of them contributed to cancers but the statistical evidence was overwhelming the secondhand smoke was an added risk. Singer must have understood this but he was not practicing science, he was attacking it, apparently with ideological motivation, that regulating smoke was the foot in the door for more regulation, putting individual liberty at stake. The tobacco industry published a book titled “Bad Science: A Resource Book” based in part on Singer’s work. Nearly all quotes in the book were unsubstantiated assertions presented as fact. The Bad Science strategy was to plant complaints in op-ed pieces, in letters to the editor and in articles in mainstream journals (not scientific journals) to whom they’d supplied the “facts” and then quote them as if they really were facts.

              The fact that Singer was recycling arguments from earlier debates about nuclear power and pesticides, and his defense of acid rain and CFCs suggests that none of this was about secondhand smoke but was rather about his hostility to regulation, the road to Socialism, the very thing the Cold War was fought to defeat. At the root was free market fundamentalism.”

              [My emphasis added]

            • Yes it was the Breitbart link, which I just went back to from your previous comment and the “We Recommend” link to the mocked paster is still there.

          • Smart people get their science from scientists. Not the mechanical engineers at the IPCC. I’ve posted loads of quotes and links to scientists who question your alleged ‘consensus’. Spend some time researching, you may just learn something

            • Smart people take note of the global scientific consensus as distilled in the reports of the IPCC.

              Have you a point to make about mechanical engineers?

              If so, make it clearly.

              Don’t keep us guessing.
              Don’t speak in half measures and insinuations, it makes you look stupid.

              • “Have you a point to make about mechanical engineers?
                If so, make it clearly.”

                I thought the idea was for you to read the content of the blog? Anyhow, it goes like this…Frank dismissed the NIPCC because it a mechanical engineer heads it up. Then I pointed out that a mechanical engineer also heads up the IPCC.

                I have nothing against mechanical engineers. Just hypocrisy.

    • and has been aided and abetted by not a small amount of deceit (the hockey stick for example).

      Climate change denier PRATT alert.

      Michael Mann’s groundbreaking “Hockey Stick” temperature reconstruction has been verified and strengthened by multiple consequent studies. It remains in the IPCC reports.

          • So far your links lead to right-wing conspiracy websites.

            Nothing from credible scientific organisations, then?

            I look forward to your links proving that Grey aliens and the Illuminatii worked together to instigate 9/11… 😀

          • wattsupwiththat and opinions on science denial websites as your sources.

            LOL

            Credibility, none.

            Stick to the science. Try NASA or IPCC surveys.

            • The science? IPCC? The IPCC is a political organisation made up of people whose incomes are dependent on promulgating the myth of climate alarmism. It’s called vested interest. There are many documented cases of scientists who have submitted work to the IPCC and then dissented from the conclusions reached.

              • The IPCC is a political organisation made up of blah blah

                NASA and every scientific community on the planet are happy the work of the IPCC.

                They cite it all the time.

                Check out NASA’s website.

                It’s still you against NASA and every scientific community on the planet.

          • Oh look. More no-name blog links.
            That’s all you have.
            On the other hand, there’s NASA.
            NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
            Tough choice, eh?
            In science, only the work counts.

            • “In science, only the work counts.”

              Absolutely! NIPCC have done some excellent work. So have a large number of scientists, including many contributors to the IPCC, who agree with me!

              • Absolutely! NIPCC have done some excellent work.

                really? if it’s peer reviewed original scientific research then you have nothing to worry or complain about, it will be considered by the IPCC along with all the other state of the art evidence.

                a large number of scientists, including many contributors to the IPCC, who agree with me!

                Yes, yes, yes, Contrary opinion, dissident opinion, great grist for the mill.

                The IPCC considers it all.

                Even Mad Monckton has a say. And retired octogenarian mining industry scientists/shills from NZ.

                Then the IPCC weighs the evidence to report on current state of the scientific community’s understanding of the science.

                So far you’ve been having trouble with this concept. Are you beginning to understand it yet?

                • No Richard, I understand it very well. The IPCC works to a predetermined agenda, and dissent is discouraged. You know that, at least you should. The IPCC is a corrupt, political forum for people who want enjoy a tremendous gravy train. And most at the top aren’t even scientists.

                  • The IPCC works to a predetermined agenda, and dissent is discouraged. You know that, at least you should. The IPCC is a corrupt, political forum for people who want enjoy a tremendous gravy train. And most at the top aren’t even scientists.

                    Behold, the conspiracy theory.

                    Given enough time and rope every science denier of every flavour will proffer it: Creationists, antivaxers, HIV causes AIDS deniers, AGW deniers, anti-fluoridationists chem trail nutters.

                    It’s predictable.

                    It’s inevitable.

                  • The IPCC works to a predetermined agenda, and dissent is discouraged.

                    Sounds very spooky.
                    How does this global scientific conspiracy work? Give us the details. Pretty please.

          • Well if NASA are still using the hockey stick, that just blows their (and your) credibility completely. The IPCC have dumped it. Come to think of it, I suspect NASA are fairly dependent on promulgating this religion for funding these days?

            • The IPCC have dumped it.

              Don’t be a simpleton.

              Mann’s original is over 15 years old.

              Its salient findings have since been supported and strengthened by multiple independent studies.

              Its findings are very much part of the current understanding of climate science as found in the AR5.

  6. Martyn Bradbury had a list of front-organisations that’ve been funded by the fossil-fuel industry (published on Tumeke a couple of years ago). I lost the link to it, but would love to see it re-published.

    Intrinsicvalue posted a link to a media article (https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/10/keeping-the-black-riders-at-bay-a-response-to-john-mintos-posting-on-economic-self-reliance/#comment-188188) supporting his climate change denial belief.

    The link was to the “Washington Examiner”. (http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-age-of-climate-alarmism-is-coming-to-an-end/article/2537417#sthash.1XaQr4ms.dpuf)

    A few minutes of research revealed that the “Examiner” was a right wing online-media owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz.

    Mr Anschutz is also heavily connected to the oil industry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz#Rail_and_petroleum_businesses

    As I wrote on John’s blogpost, in response to IV; The oil industry is well know for funding anti-climate change groups, for obvious, self-serving reasons.

    Ironically, the second link he posted (http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/fossil_fuel.htm#sthash.2PAN9wpR.dpuf) actually supported global warming as undeniably real. 😀

    Meanwhile, polar ice caps and the Green ice shelf continue to melt and extreme weather patterns continue to happen… Climate change waits for no Denier.

        • Oh good sidestep Frank, but Andy’s point is simple. Do you support research that supports your viewpoint if it is funded by the oil industry? If so, isn’t that hypocrisy?

        • So you prefer scientists to suck off the public teat rather than take money from an Oil company?

          That cuts out an awful lot of research then

          • You actually have to get around the idea that there is some kind of conspiracy by oil companies to undermine climate science.

            It simply isn’t true. Most of the oil companies support research into this area. It isn’t in there interests to raise heckles with the environmental lobby, and most of them have carbon trading offices too.

            • This will come as a shock to you, Andy, but the people that were responsible for the successful tobacco disinformation campaign didn’t just disappear after the lawsuits of the 90’s. Nor did their tactics. They just switched to the fossil fuel industry.

              Most of the oil companies support research into this area.

              Sure. So did the tobacco companies. It’s the standard M.O.

    • So it’s the word of a right wing blogger associated with the oil industry against the word of politicians and other fellow travellers whose livelihood is reliant on the compliant acceptance of this nonsense by the masses.

      The cat is out of the bag, Frank. Whoever funds it, the truth will out!

    • “Meanwhile, polar ice caps and the Green ice shelf continue to melt and extreme weather patterns continue to happen… ”

      …and have happened for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more.

      • Hmmmm

        There are still some left.

        You can’t deny they’re here

        400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and climbing

        Oceans warming steadily and acidifying

        But nothing is happening

        Except denials.

        Not credible.

        • John I suggest you do a bit more homework. The changes in temperature preceed changes in CO2 levels. No-ones denying the climate is changing. We just aren’t driving it.

          • So the 48% rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during the period of human exploitation of fossil fuels is irrelevant?

              • It’s only relevant if the sensitivity of the climate to a small change in forcing due to the down welling IR radiation due to increased co2 has any significant effect on the climatic system.

          • John I suggest you do a bit more homework.

            NASA does their homework. So do all the other scientific communities on the planet.

            We just aren’t driving it.

            Not according to NASA. They have a website. It’s all there in plain English. Reality is not your friend.

          • Climate is not static but understanding likely drivers of change is what climate science is about.

            To shift CO2 concentration as much as 48% in such a short period appears to be unique event surrounding preset levels.

            The rate of change correlates with the fossil fuel consumption through burning.

            The unprecedented rapid change is highly significant when other atmospheric changes are also observed

            Any change has consequences.

          • Now you’re just telling lies, Intrinsicallystupid.

            Honestly, you are either a troll or just a crackpot. Your commernts here are laughable and Frank, John, Dedric and others have been wiping the floor with you.

            You’re either not as clever as you think, or you have some cunning plan to discredit climate change deniers by posting all these ridiculous assertions.

            What you don’t seem to realise, my dimwitted friend, is that it’s very easy to look up the links you post and then search for validation or rejection as “junk science”.

            So far, you’ve been 10/10 for failing to prove your case.

          • Nasa accept that climate has been changing for all of history.

            You need to read simple English. Lying by omission will not help you.

            …and have happened for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more.

            That’s not how NASA explains it. You are being misleading. Anyone can go to the NASA website and find this out for themselves.

  7. Tired of personality politics? Yearning for an issues based election in which the two main groupings are sharply delineated?

    You couldn’t go far wrong campaigning on climate change

    From the BBC:

    ‘Exceptional’

    Speaking ahead of the launch of a Met Office report – produced by the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology – into recent climatic events, Dame Julia said the UK had seen the “most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years”.

    Unsettled weather at this time of year was not unexpected – but the prolonged spell of rain, as well as the intensity and height of coastal waves, was “very unusual”.

    “We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this,” she said. “We have seen some exceptional weather. We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”

    The report links the recent extreme weather in Europe and North America to “perturbations” in the North Atlantic and Pacific jet streams, partly emanating from changing weather patterns in South East Asia and “associated with higher than normal ocean temperatures in that region”.

    BBC News January 9, 2014

    British floods become political:

    At Prime Minister’s Questions last month, Mr Cameron said he “suspected” that the recent storms to batter the UK and the extreme weather in North America were connected to global temperature changes – an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers.

    He subsequently clarified the remarks, saying that although “you can’t point to one weather event and say that is climate change”, many scientists were talking of a link between the two.

    “The point I was really trying to make is, whatever you think – even if you think that (climate change) is mumbo-jumbo – because these things are happening more often, it makes sense to do all you can to… prevent these floods affecting so many people and that is exactly what we are doing.”

    Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Guy Shrubsole said this assessment was a “warning sign that cannot be ignored”.

    “By appointing an environment secretary who doesn’t take climate change seriously this government has turned its back on the science and cut flood defence spending when it should be cutting emissions.”

    BBC News January 9, 2014

    “an argument challenged by some Conservative MPs and peers”

    The term ‘Conservative MPs and peers’, should be replaced with the term ‘Right Wing loonies’.

    As John Key prepares to bring Right Wing climate change denier, Colin Craig into his government. The sensible thing would be to make climate change a political issue here too.

    Will it happen?

    Climate change is the government’s weak point.

    For National government their record on climate change is a “disgrace” and arguably their worst performing portfolio.

    If David Cunliffe got up and said that a government led by him, will consider canceling all deep sea oil drilling, and all planned new coal mines on climate change grounds, it would blow the whole election campaign wide apart.

    The government would be left gasping like landed guppies out of water, flapping their mouths speechless and without answers.

    60% of the population want the government to do more on climate change.

    80% oppose deep sea oil drilling.

    Can Labour and the other opposition parties continue to afford ignoring this huge constituency?

    Or, will they do a repeat of 2011?

    Will it be Deja vue all over again.

    “You know what really strikes me about climate change in the election? It’s the absence.”
    Simon Johnson at Hot Topic November 16, 2011

    • David Cameron’s remarks about the floods were directly contradicted by the Met Office.
      Also, as I pointed out upthread, the flooding of the Somerset Levels is a result of government policy that no longer dredges the drainage canals

    • “We can’t say it is unprecedented but it is exceptional.”

      248 years of records. On a planet billions of years old. And you believe we caused this? And yet even the author can’t confirm these events are unprecedented.

      Seriously can you not see through this nonsense?

      • The Met Office directly contradicted David Cameron, but for some reason Jenny prefers the opinion of an Oxford and Eton educated Tory toff to a scientific body

        • And therein lies much of the problem. Many of the people writing about climate science are politicians, not scientists, which is why there is so much published dissent about the IPCC work.

          The claims about ‘climate refugees’ (supposedly 50 million by 2010) is just one example of the lunacy we have to put up with.

          • I think you may live to put up with a lot more than that. if we don’t run out of food.

            1987 peak production of grain per capita, Production per capita has fallen since globally.

            Over the last three years we have consumed the stored reserves.

            Last season in the Northern hemisphere grain production was adversely affected by weather pattern change.

            Fish stocks declining rapidly with over fishing and die off.

            Fertile arable land steadily diminishing.

            No where to go in a hurry.

            Denying it all just won’t make it go away.

            • Actually there are huge benefits to be derived from global ‘warming’. And as there is b. all we can do about it, let’s just enjoy the ride.

              • Perhaps you may be guided a little by coming to grips with what warming will mean.

                In your research I guess you have come across the scenario of runaway change and likely drivers of that.

                Immediate reduction or cessation of CO2 emissions, stopping deforestation, reducing population and facilitating a wide range of changes to how we live; appears to be a likely path to slowing warming but a 20 year lag can be expected before the rising temperature would level off. By then runaway may have progressed beyond our control.

                Economics don’t come into it except if we argue economics as a reason for doing nothing.

                Survival trumps economics.

                The main barriers to effective action are ignorance and denial.

          • And therein lies much of the problem. Many of the people writing about climate science are politicians, not scientists

            NASA has scientists. Lots of them. So do all the other scientific communities on the planet. They not only do research and write about it, they helpfully write about their conclusions and methodology on their website in plain English for all to see. No need to just meekly accept what some anonymous person says on the internet. Go direct to the source. NASA.

      • Indeed, Earth is billions of years old.

        And in that time, organic life has affected the atmosphere twice.

        First time, cyanobacteria changing the atmosphere from methane, to oxygen-nitrogen. 3.5billion years ago;

        “The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth’s history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria photosynthesizing during the Archaean and Proterozoic Era. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today. “http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

        Second time, when humans nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer with chloroflourocarbons.

        Thanks for reminding me!

        • …and climate has been changing for billions of years on earth. We had nothing to do with it then, and we have virtually nothing to do with it now.

          • IV – as usual, you’ve studiously ignored the point; life has changed/altered the atmosphere on at least two occassions.

            First time, cyanobacteria changing the atmosphere from methane, to oxygen-nitrogen. 3.5billion years ago. Not just increasing gas a few parts-per-million – we’re talking about transitioning the entire atmosphere from poisonous (to us) methane and CO2, to free oxygen and nitrogen.

            Busy little buggers, that cyanobacteria, huh?

          • We had nothing to do with it then, and we have virtually nothing to do with it now.

            Not according to NASA.
            There’s not a single scientific community that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

        • Humans didn’t “destroy” the ozone layer

          CFCs may have had a part in the thinning of ozone, but the ozone “hole” is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and goes in cycles.

          (Much like the climate)

          The CFC scare was driven largely around some patent issues in the chemical industry rather than any actual environmental problem

            • (* rolls eyes *)

              Yes it did occur a couple of decades ago. We have moved on, but we didn’t “destroy” the ozone layer.

              The thinning of the ozone layer was around a long time before CFCs

          • ..Humans didn’t blah, blah, blah…

            No Andy. Only the stupid would care about your personal version of events. Don’t tell people what to think. Show them how to think for themselves.

            Anybody here curious about what happend with the ozone layer? Just believing some anonymous person on the internet is probably not the best way to get your science information.
            However, there is NASA. They’re pretty good since they do the work needed to find out this kind of stuff. And yes, they have a website on this very topic.
            Primary sources. No need to get your science information second-hand.

      • “Global warming advocates went to Antarctica to prove that Antarctic sea ice had disappeared because of man. They got stuck in ten foot thick sea ice they knew wasn’t there. The rescue ship was also stuck for a while, but it was eventually able to back out to safer water.
        This all happens in the heat of summer. A hundred years ago, the entire region, right up to the shore, was completely clear of ice. “

          • It was organic life that took CO2 out of the atmosphere and then laid it down in sedimentary basins to form oil, gas and coal.

            • And It is organic life that is taking that stored carbon out and burning it to release CO2.

              Far too much of it and the balance of climate is being changed as a result.

              Koch brothers spend a billion a year keeping deniers where they are.

                • Yes fear can be used to control.

                  Terrorism and many other myths are used everyday. Political devices.

                  The rapid ocean temperature rise is not something that can be invented overnight.

                  Understanding can help alleviate fear.

          • Well as Andy said, you’re just plain wrong on the ozone layer. As to changes to the earth’s atmosphere…so what? The issue is the correlation between CO2 and atmospheric change, not cyanobacteria millions of years ago.

      • Seriously can you not see through this nonsense?

        Argument from Incredulity.

        NASA doesn’t think it’s nonsense. Neither does any other scientific community on the planet.
        Reality is not your friend.

          • How long has NIPCC been in existence?

            It is a lobby group, surveying literature for support for a pre determined conclusion. The antithesis of science.

            It’s a joke. Not credible.

            • Funnily enough, your definition of the NIPCC charter describes the IPCC to a tee.

              It is a political organisation formed to determine the science behind a pre-determined conclusion.

              Their mission is to determine anthropogenic influence on the climate

    • I don’t know why you keep linking to that pressure-group’s website, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

      It’s a lobby group. Not a credible science-organisation.

      Tom Harris is a Canadian mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

      Is that really all you’ve got?

      • You could argue that the NIPCC is a lobby group, as you could with the IPCC

        The IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It is a political one

        • @ Andy S
          One could argue that you have a perverse inclination of enjoying ‘shitting in your own nest’; that for some strange reason you are ideologically opposed to having a clean environment and would argue the point – no matter what.

          • See Donna Laframboise’s book “The Delinquent Teenager who thought it was the world’s top climate expert” for an insight into IPCC life

            By the way, I don’t believe in “shitting in my own nest”. However, currently the world runs on hydrocarbons. Until we find a credible alternative such as Thorium or Fusion power) then we are stuck with it.

            I believe in the creativity of the human spirit to overcome these hurdles. (as did Karl Marx, I am advised)

            • See Donna Laframboise’s book

              No let’s not.

              Let’s do what smart people do.

              You want information on climate change, go ask the scientists and their representatives.
              Forget blogs, opinion pieces, books, newspapers.

              As a pal of mine says NASA is a good start. they’ve spent billions on sophisticated climate and atmospheric research.

              climate.nasa.gov/

              you don’t even need to type www. 🙂

            • @ Andy S

              “I believe in the creativity of the human spirit to overcome these hurdles. ” – Andy S

              Yes, how very well put; so do I.

              So I firmly and politely request that you look at your argumentativeness, realise that the arguments you are supplying only serve to slow this process of ‘overcoming these hurdles’ down and please desist in this obstructing of the creativity of the human spirit.

              Please step out of humanities’ way.

              I thank you, in advance, for doing so.

              • That’s fine.
                I have a few suggestions then

                (1) Crush your car
                (2) Have your children sterilised
                (3) Destroy your computer/phone/tablet.
                (4) Do not eat any food that comes from a shop
                (5) Demand that the government imposes a $20 surcharge per litre on petrol
                (6) Ban all flights., domestic and international

                If you think this is crazy, then maybe you can come up with some other suggestions, because that is why I find the “ideas” of the climate activists so unappealing.

                They simply don’t have any ideas

                • You appear to have spent rather a lot of time thinking up all the arguments you can against the excellent idea for NZ to aim at being less oil dependent – largely scoffing at people because you are so committed to our oil dependence – and then you make some suggestions that indicate that you completely lack understanding as to what ‘being oil dependent’ really means.

                • Andy if there were better ways of dealing with the situation and turning things around then intelligent action would have had to been instigated back in the 70s,

                  Instead the business / financial leaders rubbished the scientific analysis, and spread many lies which are still circulating today.

                  Greed for the moment and no responsibility long term.

                  We all suffer that loss of opportunity as will generations ahead if some survival eventuates.

                  That 1972 analysis has been reviewed regularly and the worst scenario predicted in 1972 still holds.

                  Today the Lies and denial has shifted but the graphs keep on track.

                  A basic intro

                  http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/labs/limits.html

          • Not according to NASA.
            (shrug)
            They quote the IPCC on their website all the time.
            Again and again and again.
            They have nothing but nice things to say about it.
            Check out the NASA website on climate change.
            References to the IPCC are everywhere.

              • Don’t be a simpleton.

                Mann’s original is over 15 years old.

                Its salient findings have since been supported and strengthened by multiple independent studies.

                Its findings are very much part of the current understanding of climate science as found in the AR5.

            • The IPCC predictions are almost universally too conservative and often very misleading as to the scope of hazards.

              Methane release is mentioned but not really dealt with.

              Consensus controls validity.

              Each report is well behind in tracking events.

        • …but based on legitimate, credible scientific groups; NASA, Royal Society, climate/weather organisations, etc, etc…

          *sighs*

          C’mon, you two. You must know all this, surely?! You’re only displaying your own partisanship to the exclusion of science.

            • In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

              Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”

              • Then, in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal, 265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.” Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.

                  • But there have been some survey’s done:

                    A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

                    A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

                    A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

                    A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.”

                • Point 1.

                  Your posts at;

                  February 12, 2014 at 11:57 pm

                  February 12, 2014 at 11:58 pm

                  February 13, 2014 at 12:01 am

                  – have been cut & pasted almost verbatim from http://www.forbes.com.

                  Specifically, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/3/.

                  You have been plagiarising other people’s writing without attribution. That is grossly dishonest.

                  Point 2.

                  Forbes is an online journal for capitalism. It is not a credible (or otherwise) scientific organisation.

                  Would you also use a financial website to seek medical information?

                  Point 3.

                  If you are going to cut & paste what others have written, that suggests you are simply parroting what others have said. No critical thought required.

                • …in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal,…

                  There was no “climategate email scandal”.
                  Eight independent inquiries all concluded:

                  No scientific fraud, no scientific malpractice.

                  It was all a beat up.

      • And Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, is a mechanical and electrical engineer, whose doctoral thesis was titled “A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.”

        His area of interest is railways.

      • And there are many many IPCC scientists who are turning on the IPCC:

        “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” “- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

        • “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”

          South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

          • “The quantity of CO2 we produce…. blah blah blah

            Yes, yes, yes, keep your pants dry.

            You’ll find all sorts of statements like this, even in AR5.

            Anomalies, dissenting opinion, science thrives on it!

            But its the consensus that counts.
            The weight of the evidence.

            That consensus is found in the IPCC reports.

            Sorry if you don’t like that but reality has no interest in making friends.

            It’s still you against NASA and every scientific community on the planet.

            • Again about your ‘consensus’

              “So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
              Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.”
              http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

                  • Intrinsicvalue says:
                    February 13, 2014 at 10:10 pm

                    A capitalist business website that you have STILL failed to refute Frank.

                    Because there is nothing to refute.

                    And the main point is, you stioll haven’t found a single credible science organisation to back up your beliefs.

                    Blogs and oil-company funded groups don’t count for much.

                    Your blindness to mounting, credible science is curious, to say the least. It verges on the religious.

                    • “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
                      Paul Watson, Founder Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace
                      (http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html)

                      To plagiarise Martyn, this ain’t my first rodeo on this topic, and it won’t be my last. Yet it still amazes me that after all of the posturing, the chest beating, the ad-hominem and plain ‘hot air’, none of you who subscribe to this climate alarmism can produce even a brief summary of any shred of evidence for your claims.
                      It seems that you are more fundamentalist sthan knowledgeable, more priests than proponents of real science.
                      My challenge to you was simple, that is to provide evidence for the following:
                      a> the current changes in temperature are unprecedented,
                      b> current extreme weather events are unprecedented, and
                      c> that these are being caused primarily by man.
                      These items are at the very core of anthropogenic climate change, and yet none of you can produce any evidence other than arguments from authority (authority you clearly cannot cite or even understand), and criticism of my sources.

                      There is no consensus. I have demonstrated with reputable cites.

                      There is no current unprecedented temperature variations. I have demonstrated that with graphical evidence and cites.

                      Can you not come back with something? Anything?

                    • …and for your smile lines…

                      A quote from July 1989, by UN Official Noel Brown

                      “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos.”
                      http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

                      That’s right. All of that by 2000!

                      It’s all a huge joke, really.

                    • You’re right, IV, it is a big joke.

                      But more so the rubbish that you post.

                      You really are a crank. A conspiracy-minded, data-denying, card-carrying, crank.

                      A dishonest one, at that.

                      There really is no point in debating anything with you. No amount of evidence will shift your closed mind. I can only surmnise you spend so much time on those dodgy websites that you’ve lost your grip on reality.

                    • “There is no consensus. I have demonstrated with reputable cites.”

                      Conspiracy websites do not constitute “reputable cites”.

                      “Can you not come back with something? Anything?”

                      Yup – a credible science-based organisation to back up your claims.

                      So far you’re copy & pasted (often without citing authors – plagiarist much?) but not much else.

                      You’re still a deluded crank.

                    • “Blogs and oil-company funded groups don’t count for much.”

                      That jut one post after you quoted a blog! Hypocrisy 101.

                      Frank, blogs do count if they point to verifiable data. Sometime blogs are the best way to cut through the propaganda. If it’s good enough for you to cite them, well it’s good enough for me.

                    • A “nerve”?! Gosh no. I find you amusing. 😀

                      “Caught me out three times”? No, you simply bullshit your way out of issues you can’t answer.

                      You have a penchant for posting mis-information and twisting facts – but not much else.

                      When a crank like you can’t come up with anything better than an 81 year old piece of writing – you’re desperate. The fact is, you had no other information to present; nothing recent; nothing relevant. All you had was one document and which you used out of context.

                      You are thoroughly dishonest in the way you present “information”.

                      Whatever dubious pleasure you get out of posting links and quotes from bogus conspiracy websites is only something you can understand.

                      Keep trying.

                      Next:

                      Frank, blogs do count if they point to verifiable data.

                      Really?!

                      In which case, present the source of that data – not the blog mouthpieces!!!

                      I challenge you: present the source of that data – not the blog mouthpieces!!!

                      I bet you can’t!

                      Gotcha!

              • It has been proven – all we have now are climate deniers trying to muddy the waters by claiming the building heat is caused by planetary movements. You are of course IV referring to the Milan-kovitch cycle which impacts the earth every 100 000 years because of the axis of the planet and its tilt to the sun, you will then of course be aware that in our current Milan-kovitch cycle we are supposed to be cooling for another 23000 years – we aren’t, something else outside sunspots and planet circulations are causing the planet’s temperature to rise dramatically since the industrial age – the same time we invented the combustion engine

                • 1. There is no consensus on whether or not mankind is significantly contributing to climate change.
                  2. There is a large body of scientific opinion that is challenging the IPCC assumptions on the anthropogenic component of climate change.
                  3. Climate alarmism is based on modelling, not historical data. The IPCC modelling has been wrong, very wrong, over a long period of time. As has a host of other claims climate catastrophism, including claims about climate refugees.
                  4. Climate alarmism is based on an assumption of an anthropogenic link which has not been proven. Very little research has been done into natural causes, suggesting an unhealthy and unscientific level of pre-supposition.
                  5. Current temperature variances are consistent with historical trends. We are not experiencing unprecedented warming, and indeed there is evidence of such warming well before the industrial age.

                  • 1. Yes there is. Climate Change caused by humans is as proven as evolution. Sure there are some missing links, but we’ve pretty much moved on from this climate denial 101 stuff.
                    2. Not really, you are holding up something funded by the Heritage Institute for Christ’s sake – they are corporate fascism, and using them as your ‘evidence’ is like citing Fox News. It’s a joke.
                    3. Sure there are some missing links, but we’ve pretty much moved on from this climate denial 102 stuff.
                    4. Not really, no.
                    5. Yawn, this is Climate Denial 103. This ain’t my first rodeo IV, I’ve read your style of Troll spin lines many a time. Of course the temperature fluctuates throughout the history of our planet – that’s not the issue, as you well know. The super heating of the planet is unprecedented, the shifts of temperature you refer to take tens of thousands of years to build up and that’s not what we are seeing here. We are seeing a heating of the planet outside its normal parameters, that’s why the worst case scenarios as modelled by IPCC are so extreme, the situation is extreme.

                    I get that you want to dazzle the others with your climate denial spin, but I’ve read the threads, I’ve seen the usual crap handed up as arguments to try and do everything to deny humans make an impact on the climate, and it’s mostly bullshit. You are a creationist at an evolution conference constantly claiming that there is no actual evidence that the earth is not being held up by 4 elephants standing on a giant turtle.

                    • 1. Repeating something endlessly is mantra, not science. Rhetoric such as ‘they’ve moved on’ is a desperate attempt to shut down debate. It isn’t working. The faulty methodology behind the claim is exposed here http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#sthash.NFeTu4xC.dpuf, and the wider claims of consensus here http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf. The fact that you have not even attempted to consider this material is alarmingly narrow minded, and typical of an attempt to shut down debate rather than foster it.
                      2. No, I have referred to the NIPCC. I have also referred to, and listed, many other scientists who question the consensus. There are many more, and the number is increasing.
                      3. The links are not ‘missing’, they don’t exist. The alarmism is based solely on forecasts which have been notoriously inaccurate in the past.
                      4.
                      5. You’re just plain wrong, and I note the absence of citations or factual support.

                      I too have been around the traps with this debate, Martyn, and I’ve read your type of left wing evasiveness many times. Produce some evidence, because without it your left with nothing but an opinion piece.

                    • Well done IV. But I think you are wasting time with warmists and their co-religionists. They are rather thick – bit like the Greens really.

                    • “The super heating of the planet is unprecedented, the shifts of temperature you refer to take tens of thousands of years to build up and that’s not what we are seeing here. We are seeing a heating of the planet outside its normal parameters”

                      Here http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php you will find a graph of proxy temperatures taken from the Vostok ice core going back over 400,000 years. It tells a different story to the one your spinning.

                      Nonsense, again.

                    • c3headlines.com is another anti-AGW group. It is also right-wing and openly hostile against President Obama and his healthcare programme.

                      It has also been caught out fudging figures, by cherry-picking data, by a very perceptive critic. (http://thesnufkin.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/how-to-cook-data-set.html)

                      The same critic says, “If any climate scientist had tried to use a trick liked this to ‘prove’ Climate Change, then it would have been all over for the discipline. C3 Headlines can get away with this stuff because it serves a particularly gullible and self interested client group. “

                      Fail.

                    • Andys,
                      I suspect you are being disingenuous by saying of Obamacare that even ” Jon Stewart has been saying what a crock it is”. Obviously I haven’t seen all the Jon Stewart’s Daily Shows so don’t know all his comments on Obamacare. I have heard him making jokes about the government rollout glitches and mocking Obama for changes made, however, I would be surprized to hear him dismissing the entire plan as a “crock”.
                      Here’s some of the comments voiced on his show …
                      “Glitches…First step doesn’t work…Wrong information…Confusing error messages…Broken calculators…So how are the Democrats going to spin this turd?”
                      But Stewart then tied that entrepreneurial spirit into Obamacare, which is being met with the same resistance as other historical changes, such as seat belt laws or the emancipation of slaves, the comedian’s comparisons.
                      Of course, there are loopholes around the new healthcare laws. Companies can pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee instead of providing benefits, which would save them a boatload of money over actual insurance costs.
                      “So if you’re a corporation, you could do the right thing — the moral thing — and spend about $10,000 to give your employees health insurance,” Stewart said. ” Or you could save eight grand and tell your employees to go f— themselves.”

                    • You know, “Intrinsic”, your arguments are unconvincing. You convince me that you climate change deniers are a crock.

                      You still haven’t given any good solid evidence that contradicts findings from the science community.

                      What “evidence” you have presented is dodgy shit from dodgy websites.

                      Well at least you’ve helped me make up my mind. Congrats I’m now convinced that global warming is real, caused by human industrialisation, and that you climate deniers have your heads buried in the sand.

                      Have a nice day.

                    • “Here http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php you will find a graph of proxy temperatures taken from the Vostok ice core going back over 400,000 years. It
                      tells a different story to the one your spinning.”

                      Never mind “spinning”. Let’s address your propaganda;

                      That website is run by the anti-AGW group, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change).

                      None of it’s three members – family members Craig D Idso, Sherwood B Idso, his father, or Keith E Idso – have training in climate science.

                      As well, in 2000, they received funding of US$15,000 from oil company, ExxonMobil Foundation.

                      See also: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Foes-of-global-warming-theory-have-energy-ties-1116097.php

                      Fail.

                    • “None of it’s three members – family members Craig D Idso, Sherwood B Idso, his father, or Keith E Idso – have training in climate science. ”

                      …and the Chair of the IPCC is a mechanical engineer.

                  • !) The global scientific community disagrees.

                    2) Duh. There is an overwhelmingly higher volume of work supporting the IPCC synthesis (not “assumptions” ). You’ve been informed of this over and over again, you dimwit

                    3) As with your evidenced understanding of the scientific method and scientific communities you really haven’t a clue about scientific modelling, what it can and can’t say. The rest of 3) is pure handwaving.

                    3) More bluster and pathetic posturing.

                    4) https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/11/guest-blog-gareth-hughes-deep-sea-oil-drilling-national-labour-are-ignoring-the-facts/#comment-189043

                    5) Not what the current state of understanding of the science indicates. You idiot.

                    • Richard do you actually have anything of note to add to the discussion, or is ad hominem all you have. Produce evidence that the current climatic conditions are unprecedented, and that man is causing it. I challenge you.

                    • Produce evidence that the current climatic conditions are unprecedented, and that man is causing it. I challenge you.

                      IV, produce evidence that NASA’s evidence is incorrect. I challenge you.

                    • http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html
                      “Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.
                      Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.”
                      …and another one…
                      http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/07/28/nasa-satellite-data-refutes-alarmist-climate-model-predictions/
                      NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

                    • I challenge you.

                      Idiot.

                      Q: Am I qualified to know all the literature?

                      ans: Of course not.

                      I do the intelligent thing and accept the conclusions of NASA and the world’s scientific community.

                      But you, you seem to think you are so qualified. Despite your failure to grasp basic scientific principles. You reject the consensus position of the scientific community and rest your position on the authority of a handful of cranks, advocacy organisations, no name blogs and financial journalists.

                      I simply put the position of the overwhelming majority of world’s finest scientific minds.

                      It’s not me versus you, you moron.

                      It’s you versus NASA and the entire scientific community on the planet.

                    • http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html
                      “Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.
                      Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.”
                      …and another one…
                      http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/07/28/nasa-satellite-data-refutes-alarmist-climate-model-predictions/
                      NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

                  • You seem to have missed my February 13, 2014 at 8:13 am post above, to whit,

                    Point 1.

                    Your posts at;

                    February 12, 2014 at 11:57 pm

                    February 12, 2014 at 11:58 pm

                    February 13, 2014 at 12:01 am

                    – have been cut & pasted almost verbatim from http://www.forbes.com.

                    Specifically, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/3/.

                    You have been plagiarising other people’s writing without attribution. That is grossly dishonest.

                    If you are going to re-post from other sources, use citations.

                    Point 2.

                    You quoted anti-climate change material from various sources such as Forbes. com. Forbes is an online journal for capitalism. It is not a credible (or otherwise) scientific organisation.

                    Would you also use a financial website to seek medical information?

                    Point 3.

                    If you are going to cut & paste what others have written, that suggests you are simply parroting what others have said. No critical thought required.

                    Point 4. You are quoting from conspiracy websites; climate-change-denying websites; and various business websites. (Only one appeared to publish two article from opposing viewpoints, which you don’t seem to have noticed.)

                    Point 5. On at least two occasions, you posted selective information, ignoring other material which put your C&P comments into a different context.

                    Point 6. Organisations such as NASA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Alliance of Research Universities, International Arctic Science Committee, International Association for Great Lakes Research, International Council for Science, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, International Research Institute for Climate and Society, International Union for Quaternary Research
                    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics , etc, etc, etc have all accepted the conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.

                    Point 7. You have not produced a single credible, science organisation to back up your position.

                    Point 8. Earth has experience at least two periods of atmospheric change, caused by terrestrial organisms;

                    First time, cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere from methane, to releasing oxygen, (approx) 3.5 billion years ago;

                    “The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth’s history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria photosynthesizing during the Archaean and Proterozoic Era. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today. “ – http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

                    More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/first_life

                    Second time, during the 2oth Century, when humans nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer by the release of chloroflourocarbons into the atmosphere. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

                    Point 9. There is no evidence whatsoever that scientists; professional organisations and science groups such as NASA and the American Geophysical Union are engaged in any Grand Conspiracy at all.

                    It is delusional nonsense – verging on paranoia – to maintain such fantasies.

                    Point 10. As human induced pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxide, and CO2 have increased – so has temperatures and extreme weather conditions.

                    Point 11. We post data from scientists – you post quotes from politicians and businesspeople. Who do you think is better qualified to understand the science?

                    Point 12. You have no background in science. Any opinions you are parroting is not based on science, but on any old source your can locate on the internet.

                    Have I missed anything out?

                    • 1. Yes they have. I almost always cite, sometimes I just use “”. Your evasion of the key points is noted.
                      2. If it contained medical information, yes. Again you attack the source, but your avoidance of the issues is noted.
                      3. Further evasion noted, and the fact that you frequently cut and paste yourself Frank.
                      4. Ah, no I’m not. I am quoting scientists, far more qualified than your mechanical engineer.
                      5. No, I didn’t.
                      6. So? Provide your evidence that all of their members support the IPCC consensus. You might be surprised.
                      7. Yes, I have. And I have cited several credible scientists, some from within
                      the IPCC who have blown the whistle on this mythology.
                      8. So?
                      9. Relevance?
                      10. Nonsense. These ‘Extreme’ weather events you speak of have in many, many cases occurred before. You are just parroting IPCC political paranoia.
                      11. I post from reputable scientists. The fact that there are so many must be upsetting for you.
                      12. And the head of your church, the IPCC? And his executive? Engineers and fellow travellers.

                      Yes you’ve forgotten a number of things.

                      I’ve asked you to provide evidence that:

                      a> the current changes in temperature are unprecedented, and
                      b> that these are being caused primarily by man.

                      You have failed to produce a shred of evidence for either. If this is so cut and dried, where is your evidence?

                    • Finally Frank, I have to admit to spitting out my dilmah when I read your accusations of plagiarism. Now I really know you’ve lost the plot. This, coming from the man who:

                      1. claimed there was no unemployment in soviet russia, lied about what he had posted to cover it up (https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/08/this-is-what-inequality-looks-like-in-nz-beneficiaries-vs-ceos/#comment-188132), ( I have detailed this at another post, and I appreciate the democracy of the moderators for allowing the post to pass moderation)
                      2. Denied that the 2010 tax cuts benefitted the low and middle income earners (https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/05/how-on-earth-can-key-claim-the-asset-sale-program-is-a-success/#comment-186249)
                      3. Claimed that parents who send their children to private schools don;t pay higher fees (https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/05/how-on-earth-can-key-claim-the-asset-sale-program-is-a-success/#comment-186249).

                      Really Frank, you are looking sillier by the day.

                    • I know I’ve touched a nerve with you Frank. Three times already I’ve caught you out. Oh and btw, if I want to demonstrate there was a war going on between 1939 and 1945, I would use material from the period. Makes sense, don’t you think?

                    • Reading your comments here Intrinsicallypathetic, you come across as quite a dishonest person. Passing off cut&paste work from other websites? That’s dishonest.

                    • Oooooh, it looks like you’re a bit hot under the collar, Intrinsicallydumb?

                      I read the bit about that 1933 report you tried to use. C’mon, I mean, REALLY??? 1933???

                      How far back do you have to go to prove a point???

                      Anyway, you foolish little troll, the 1930s in the USSR weren’t marked by unemployment They were marked by mass starvation. Any “unemployment” was a consequence of millions slowly dying and society in anarchy. It wasn’t an economic consequence.

                      Tell me, what was the reason for the GFC and recession that caused millions to loose their jobs? Was it mass starvation? Or economic factors?

                      Don’t bother answering. It’ll be crap.

                      So yeah, your 1933 piece of shit is useless.

                    • 1. Yes they have. I almost always cite, sometimes I just use “”. Your evasion of the key points is noted.

                      Citing is not using “”.

                      Citing is citing.

                      Try using it to credible science organisations, and not to business websites, rightwing blogs, conspiracy groups, and other anti-AGW groups.

                      Because, so far that’s all you’ve given us.

                    • Using “” indicates it is not my work Frank. That is very common practise in the real world.

                      The onus is on you to provide the evidence. So far you have failed.

                  • 1. There is no consensus on whether or not mankind is significantly contributing to climate change.

                    Oh yes there is;

                    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft7

                    http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf

                    2. There is a large body of scientific opinion that is challenging the IPCC assumptions on the anthropogenic component of climate change.

                    Evidence?

                    3. Climate alarmism is based on modelling, not historical data.

                    Incorrect.

                    The National Climatic Data Centre: The World’s Ice Cores
                    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/

                    #4 and #5 – outright lies.

              • The hypothesis is we are causing it and that it is changing the climate. Now prove it.

                Boy, you really don’t understand science.

                Proof is for logicians and mathematicians.

                Science relies on evidence.

                The weight of evidence.

                Scientific consensus

                Hello?

      • “Tom Harris is a Canadian mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.”

        And Rajendra Pachauri, the Chair of the IPCC since 2002, is what Frank?

        A mechanical engineer, who studied at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering.

      • I don’t know why you[intrinsicvalue] keep linking to that pressure-group’s website, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

        I do. It’s because he is scientifically illiterate.

        He truly doesn’t know the difference between science and spin.

          • The NIPCC receives submissions from scientists. Don’t be so lazy and do some research.

            So what? It’s remains a lobby group surveying literature in order to support a pre determined conclusion: the antithesis of scientific method.

            I prefer getting my science from NASA, IPCC and scientific communities on the planet.

            • I don’t. I prefer my science from independent scientists who are not being paid to recycle a predetermined result.

              • I prefer my science from independent scientists who are not being paid to recycle a predetermined result.

                Conspiracy theory

                “The scientists and research outcomes are being controlled by funding”

                • Yes, it appears that Intrinsicallysick Values only believes in ‘conspiracy’ theories when the they are conducted against poor wee massively wealthy and enormously powerful global corporations

                  It appears from IV
                  s comments that such corporations behave entirely ethically when it comes to accusations of their skewing science (and laws and anything else you care to think of ) to their advantage – that profit is not the be all and end all (despite being written into their founding documents that profit is indeed their bottom-line.

                  How very plausible – not.

    • Something on the IPCC for you:

      http://e360.yale.edu/feature/major_change_is_needed_if_the_ipcc_hopes_to_survive/2244/

      Written by a Professor in Environmental Studies:

      “In its 2007 report, the IPCC included a graph that showed a smoothed line representing increasing global temperatures since 1970 on top of a smoothed line showing the increasing costs of weather-related disasters. The implication of the graph is not difficult to discern — the increasing costs of catastrophes are related to rising temperatures.

      Unfortunately, not only is this implication contrary to all peer-reviewed science on this subject, but the IPCC created this misleading graph from whole cloth, intentionally mis-cited it, and when questioned by an expert reviewer of a draft of the report, falsified information in its much-touted peer review process. ”

      There’s more to come.

      • From the same website,

        “Recently, the UK Royal Society, the National Environment Research Council and the UK Meteorological Office issued a joint statement not only supporting the findings of the 2007 IPCC report, but showing that recent scientific information further strengthens those conclusions.

        The statement concluded that these agencies could not emphasize enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now. Also, a statement from 11 science academies in developed and developing countries concluded that climate change is real, and that we need to prepare for the consequences, and urged all nations to take prompt action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.” – http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2245

          • Garbage. PRATT after PRATT after PRATT

            In addition the consensus on scientific confidence in regard to AGW is getting stronger, year by year.

            Read the IPCC reports.

            • I did read the IPCC reports and there is no consensus and lots of disagreement, particularly with the key metric of climate sensitivity

      • @ Intricallysick Values

        What exactly are you quibbling about here?

        It seems that you and AndyS are really distracting from the issue here.

        We are polluting the environment
        Using oil creates toxicity in the environment
        Drilling for oil risks creating severe damage to the environment
        Do we know whether drilling this deep on an earthquake fault line will exacerbate the earthquakes?

        If there is an alternative cleaner energy and pursuing that alternative actually will create a cleaner environment, more jobs and money for New Zealanders as the Green Party is suggesting it will.

        What is your problem?

        What the hell is there not to like about the Green’s plan??

        • “If there is an alternative cleaner energy and pursuing that alternative actually will create a cleaner environment, more jobs and money for New Zealanders as the Green Party is suggesting it will.”

          Oh it would be wonderful. Truly. And if you can point to a country that has abandoned the use of fossil fuels and adopted this green utopia you speak of, then I’ll climb on that wagon. But I’m not going along because a bunch of nutters lie to me about the risks of deep sea drilling and the effect we are having on the environment.

          • Yes it will be – can’t wait

            What? Point to a country? Oh how boring, you need someone to follow -that is not a very courageous or entrepreneurial attitude – altogether more sheep-like if you asked me.

            • So I take it you have no example of where this has worked? None? Zilch?

              For heavens sake you are arguing to completely transform our way of life, to the potential detriment of a great number of people, on some whim?

              • @ Intrinsic Values

                Firstly, I wish to convey that I think it was very good of you to respond to your real name a few comments ago.

                Secondly, I have responded to your very similar comment below – however will pick up on your “… to the potential detriment of a great number of people, on some whim? “ concern.

                No, not a whim, you need to weigh up what the detrimental effects of not attempting to transition from oil dependency will be as compared to continuing with no alternative forms of energy.

                I thought this balancing of pros and cons was a no brainer, apparently for some it is not.

                I have great belief in humans’ capacity for intelligence, resourcefulness and creativity; I feel no concern that decent alternatives can’t be developed –however– I do feel concern that such attempts at developing alternatives have been retarded by the private interests of those profiting from the current state of affairs.

                These self interested people and those arguing in their interests really need to step out of humanities’ way and stop slowing this process down with their horribly small minded self-interest-infested fallacious arguments and behaviour.

                • There is considerable self interest on both sides of this debate. Alarmism is an industry that employs thousands of people, funds huge numbers of grants, and supports entire organisations. It is an ideology that has been birthed by self interest, nourished by lies, and matured by bullying dissent.

                  I’ll support any effort to improve the environment, but only when it is supported by sound science.

              • IV,
                If the “whim” is correct we are screwed but you seem perfectly prepared to take this chance.
                Unfortunately none of us may be around to hear your apology if you are wrong.

        • “Using oil creates toxicity in the environment”

          So, you are advocating we stop using oil? For anything?

          • No need to be an ultraist Trinsy, I would imagine we could manage a big reduction pretty quickly first – I imagine when the ball gets rolling and people are actually encouraged to invent – and those inventions are developed rather than bought off and put in a back room somewhere – who knows how quickly we might manage to become completely non oil dependent. Guess we will never find out in our lifetimes if we don’t start soon.

            • Well when you can point to a society that has successfully negotiated such a change without total collapse, I’ll check it out.

              • @ IntrinsicallySick Values

                Is that all you have?

                You are supplying the type of reasoning that people would have supplied against:

                Abolishing the Slave Trade
                Introducing the Printing Press
                Translating the Bible into English
                Introducing Democracy and moving away from the absolute rule of monarch/Catholicism

                These along with many other new developments that have occurred historically that you now directly benefit from.

                I daresay that different forms of energy would be more in use by now than they are if it wasn’t for the negative activities of the current oil industry big wigs – suppressing the development of any competition in this regard.

                Had this monopolistic behaviour not occurred, you would not even be objecting – because the transition would have occurred gradually and wouldn’t have required a major conscious push against the suppression of technological advancement that the oil industry has conducted.

                Really, I am amazed that every time I ‘scratch the surface’ of a right-wing argument the only response I get is something extremely lacking in substance – such as yours.

                We are in near total financial collapse now – with our financial system – and my guess is you would be supporting the ‘accepted and traditional ‘ way of doing things in economics despite the reality blatantly showing these approaches are failing severely.

                Now, there is conservatism and then there is what you are displaying for all to see: rabbit-frozen-in-headlights-in-the-path-of-approaching-car.

                • Hi Blue…I invite you to attempt to answer the challenge I have set out below. If you can’t, you really are just posturing.

                  • Hi Intrinsicvalue

                    Considering you are clearly an expert on scientific experiments you will understand that an experiment has to be designed carefully in order to derive ‘proof’ from it.

                    Asking someone who has not been arguing the point either for or against climate change to prove this muddied subject one way or another -and if they do not then this proves they are ‘just posturing’ really doesn’t prove anything other that you have not been reading my comments very well at all!

                    • Heh heh heh… Leopard, I suspect that IV has done more to push folk away from the ‘Denier’ camp, and to accept the realities of anthropogenic global warming, than he realises…

                      😀

            • Oh oil is for LOTS of things. Including burning. But I assume the Greens are now happy to extract oil providing it is for, say, plastic seating?

              • You possibly have not got a bigger picture.

                The emissions from fossil fuel are only a part of the problem but all parts are important and interdependent.

                Population
                Energy use
                Use of non renewable natural resources
                industrialisation
                Pollution
                Food.

                We have massive problems ahead in all of the above.

                Our future is limited by all of these not just one.

      • By the way, IV, in case you failed to notice; that reference you linked to wasn’t dismissive of global warming per se. It was a critique of the IPCC, nothing more.

        In fact, the same website posted a rebuttal which acknowledged global warming as a reality based on hard science and good data…

        (As such, it was probably one of the better websites you linked to. At least it was current. Ie, this century. Not the last. Or the 19th.)

        … and the ice caps are still melting; Greenland’s ice sheets are retreating; and humanity is still polluting the atmosphere with CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.

        And all you can link to are dodgy fossil-fuel-linked conspiracy websites?!

        Let me offer you one from NASA (the guys who landed men on the Moon*);

        “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.” – http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

        Note the VERY LONG LIST of organisations that accept anthropogenic climate change as a reality…

        American Association for the Advancement of Science

        American Chemical Society

        American Geophysical Union

        American Medical Association

        American Meteorological Society

        American Physical Society

        The Geological Society of America

        U.S. National Academy of Sciences

        U.S. Global Change Research Program

        Plus a few hundred more, here;

        (Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

        Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
        Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
        Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
        Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
        Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
        Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
        Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
        Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
        Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
        Académie des Sciences, France
        Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
        Academy of Athens
        Academy of Science of Mozambique
        Academy of Science of South Africa
        Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
        Academy of Sciences Malaysia
        Academy of Sciences of Moldova
        Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
        Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
        Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
        Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
        Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
        Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
        African Academy of Sciences
        Albanian Academy of Sciences
        Amazon Environmental Research Institute
        American Academy of Pediatrics
        American Anthropological Association
        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
        American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
        American Astronomical Society
        American Chemical Society
        American College of Preventive Medicine
        American Fisheries Society
        American Geophysical Union
        American Institute of Biological Sciences
        American Institute of Physics
        American Meteorological Society
        American Physical Society
        American Public Health Association
        American Quaternary Association
        American Society for Microbiology
        American Society of Agronomy
        American Society of Civil Engineers
        American Society of Plant Biologists
        American Statistical Association
        Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
        Australian Academy of Science
        Australian Bureau of Meteorology
        Australian Coral Reef Society
        Australian Institute of Marine Science
        Australian Institute of Physics
        Australian Marine Sciences Association
        Australian Medical Association
        Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
        Botanical Society of America
        Brazilian Academy of Sciences
        British Antarctic Survey
        Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
        California Academy of Sciences
        Cameroon Academy of Sciences
        Canadian Association of Physicists
        Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
        Canadian Geophysical Union
        Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
        Canadian Society of Soil Science
        Canadian Society of Zoologists
        Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
        Center for International Forestry Research
        Chinese Academy of Sciences
        Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
        Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
        Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
        Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
        Crop Science Society of America
        Cuban Academy of Sciences
        Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
        Ecological Society of America
        Ecological Society of Australia
        Environmental Protection Agency
        European Academy of Sciences and Arts
        European Federation of Geologists
        European Geosciences Union
        European Physical Society
        European Science Foundation
        Federation of American Scientists
        French Academy of Sciences
        Geological Society of America
        Geological Society of Australia
        Geological Society of London
        Georgian Academy of Sciences
        German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
        Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
        Indian National Science Academy
        Indonesian Academy of Sciences
        Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
        Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
        Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
        Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
        InterAcademy Council
        International Alliance of Research Universities
        International Arctic Science Committee
        International Association for Great Lakes Research
        International Council for Science
        International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
        International Research Institute for Climate and Society
        International Union for Quaternary Research
        International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
        International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
        Islamic World Academy of Sciences
        Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
        Kenya National Academy of Sciences
        Korean Academy of Science and Technology
        Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
        l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
        Latin American Academy of Sciences
        Latvian Academy of Sciences
        Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
        Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
        Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
        Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
        National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
        National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
        National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
        National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
        National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        National Association of Geoscience Teachers
        National Association of State Foresters
        National Center for Atmospheric Research
        National Council of Engineers Australia
        National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        National Research Council
        National Science Foundation
        Natural England
        Natural Environment Research Council, UK
        Natural Science Collections Alliance
        Network of African Science Academies
        New York Academy of Sciences
        Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
        Nigerian Academy of Sciences
        Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
        Oklahoma Climatological Survey
        Organization of Biological Field Stations
        Pakistan Academy of Sciences
        Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
        Pew Center on Global Climate Change
        Polish Academy of Sciences
        Romanian Academy
        Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
        Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
        Royal Astronomical Society, UK
        Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
        Royal Irish Academy
        Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
        Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
        Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
        Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
        Royal Society of Canada
        Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
        Royal Society of the United Kingdom
        Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
        Russian Academy of Sciences
        Science and Technology, Australia
        Science Council of Japan
        Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
        Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
        Scripps Institution of Oceanography
        Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
        Slovak Academy of Sciences
        Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
        Society for Ecological Restoration International
        Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
        Society of American Foresters
        Society of Biology (UK)
        Society of Systematic Biologists
        Soil Science Society of America
        Sudan Academy of Sciences
        Sudanese National Academy of Science
        Tanzania Academy of Sciences
        The Wildlife Society (international)
        Turkish Academy of Sciences
        Uganda National Academy of Sciences
        Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
        United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
        University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
        Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
        World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
        World Federation of Public Health Associations
        World Forestry Congress
        World Health Organization
        World Meteorological Organization
        Zambia Academy of Sciences
        Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

        http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

        Are all these organisations conspiring to create a “global warming hoax”?!

        That’s one helluva “conspiracy” if it’s true!?

        (* You DO accept the moon landing happened, don’t you??)

        • “That’s one helluva “conspiracy” if it’s true!?”

          What consipracy? Are you suggesting everyone involved with everyone of these organisations accepts that mankind is materially contributing to climate change? Gee I’d like to see you back that up.

          “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities ”

          Firstly this is crap. There has never been a survey done of the worlds climate scientists. Secondly, even if true, so what? Science isn’t done by vote, Frank. It’s done by observing, hypothesis, testing and re testing. Not models, and certainly not by studying trains.

          • The truth is, Frank, scientists do get things wrong. That’s part of the process. And sometimes MOST get it wrong. History is littered with examples. And then we discover more and better science, and the we remove the deceit and lies that sometimes accompanies scientific vanity, and the truth comes out.

            • Intrinsicvalue, name a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the consensus as outlined by the IPCC?

              (waiting…)

              • Already have. The NIPCC. And a growing number of other scientists, some of whom I have already referenced.

                • “The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

                  “The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC’s positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

                  • The NIPCC is not a scientific community.
                    Nor for that matter is the IPCC.

                    You can’t name a scientific community, or it’s representative body, that rejects the global consensus on climate change as reported by the IPCC.

                    • The NIPCC has refuted the IPCC. There, now you have it. Not only the NIPCC but many, many other scientists, including a significant number of submitters to the IPCC.

                  • Your February 12, 2014 at 9:28 pm is an unattributed C&P from a climate-change denying website.

                    Have you been copying and pasting from other websites and passing material of as your own?

                    How long have you been plagiarising?

                • The NIPCC is not a scientific community. It’s a lobby group.

                  And a growing number of other scientists…

                  Is English your second language or something?
                  Scientific community.
                  Name one.

                  NASA, for example, is a scientific community. So is the Royal Society. As is the CSIRO. And the British Antarctic Survey etc.
                  Lots and lots and lots out there.
                  All over the planet.

                  So you’re back to square one.
                  Name a single scientific community that rejects the consensus on climate change.

          • “By the way, IV, in case you failed to notice; that reference you linked to wasn’t dismissive of global warming per se. It was a critique of the IPCC, nothing more.
            In fact, the same website posted a rebuttal which acknowledged global warming as a reality based on hard science and good data…”

            Yes. And? We aren’t debating climate change, we’re debating man’s role in it. The NIPCC have exposed the IPCC and the exaggerated claims of man’s culpability.

          • ““Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities ”

            Firstly this is crap.

            Well, not according to NASA. They mention this on their website.
            See for yourself.

            It’s done by observing, hypothesis, testing and re testing. Not models, and certainly not by studying trains.

            That’s how science creates a scientific consensus, you simpleton. It doesn’t just somehow magically happen. A scientific consensus is the result of all the work done.
            A scientific consensus happens the boring, old-fashioned way.
            There’s a scientific consensus on evolution too.

            • “Well, not according to NASA. They mention this on their website. ”

              Well more fool them. Even the IPCC have rejected it.

              “That’s how science creates a scientific consensus, you simpleton.”

              What? Science creates a consensus by bringing together all of the work performed. That’s what the NIPCC do. That’s what a large number of scientists have done that refute your consensus.

              Name calling may be popular, but it does make you look a little silly.

                • It’s not a question of denial, it’s a question of evidence. There is no evidence of an overwhelming consensus as claimed. None. Yet there is plenty of evidence of dissent.

        • “By the way, IV, in case you failed to notice; that reference you linked to wasn’t dismissive of global warming per se. It was a critique of the IPCC, nothing more.
          In fact, the same website posted a rebuttal which acknowledged global warming as a reality based on hard science and good data…”

          Yes. And? We aren’t debating climate change, we’re debating man’s role in it. The NIPCC have exposed the IPCC and the exaggerated claims of man’s culpability.

          • “… and the ice caps are still melting; Greenland’s ice sheets are retreating; and humanity is still polluting the atmosphere with CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

            No Frank, CO2 is not a pollutant. That is another one of your myths.

            And changes to the arctic ice (such as the current and massive expansion of the arctic sea ice) are nothing more than cyclical changes. You have no evidence, none, that these are being caused by man’s activities.

            • “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain – literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is an abuse of language, logic and science.” – Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

                • Oh your devotion to NASA is endearing, if misguided.

                  When an organisation in 2014 is still relying on the hockey stick, even alarmists know they’ve lost the plot.

                  • NASA is chock full of smart people.

                    Did you know NASA landed a car on Mars, suspended from a platform in the sky? Perhaps you are unaware of what NASA can do. Visit their website at http://www.NASA.gov/

                    Smart people recognise that NASA do the scientific work and can be relied upon for the very best in scientific information.

                    You, on the other hand, are now (in your own mind only) attempting to smear NASA. Of course, informed people, like those who work at NASA, understand that the “hockey stick” has been verified and strengthened by multiple subsequent studies.

                  • “Oh your devotion to NASA is endearing, if misguided.
                    When an organisation in 2014 is still relying on the hockey stick, even alarmists know they’ve lost the plot.”
                    Intrinsicvalue Feb. 13, At 9:18 AM

                    “So if NASA are still using the hockey stick, that just blows their (and your) credibility completely.

                    …..Come to think of it, I suspect NASA are fairly dependent on promulgating this religion for funding these days?

                    Intrinsicvalue Feb. 13, At 2:41 PM

                    Why all the hate on NASA?

                    According to you Intrinsickvalues, NASA are poor naive deluded or mistaken dupes, who can’t do sciency stuff.

                    Or:

                    NASA are incredibly clever, but evil super villains engaged in a global criminal conspiracy to convince the collective governments of the world of the hoax of climate change.

                    I think we can rule out the first premise, that NASA are naive dupes who don’t know their science.
                    As Richard Christie points out NASA just landed a car sized semi-autonomous rover on Mars.
                    (Or, maybe they didn’t???)

                    New Zealand’s most famous climate change denier, Colin bashakid Craig believes that conspiracy on this scale would be a piece of cake for NASA, them having faked the moon landings and all.

                    So why not go the whole hog Sickvalues? and argue that as well as faking the moon landings and the climate change hoax, NASA also faked the Martian rover program in the same top secret Hollywood backlot.

                    Don’t tell anyone, but maybe, just maybe, the shuttle program has been wound up because it never existed!!!!!????? The shuttles were all fake plastic scale models, made to look real with trick photography.

                    The super criminal masterminds at NASA instead of using their multi $billion budgets for the space program, have all along been funneling these $billions into their own private bank accounts making them the richest super villains in the history of the world.

                    The truth is out there

                    The chem trails, that ol’ Bashakid was warning us about? They were mind control drugs to help NASA cloud our perception of the truth and accept the delusion.

                    Sickvalues, now that you have revealed to the world that NASA are gang of treacherous super villain criminal masterminds, bent on world domination. I have just one question: When is the screen play coming out?

                    • I saw Gavin Schmidt of NASA interviewed by John Stossel, in a bizarre TV show where Schmidt refused to be on at the same times the “evil denier” Roy Spencer.

                    • “Why all the hate on NASA?”

                      Huh? No hate here, NASA do some great work. I’m just pointing out that NASA scientists don’t all follow the party line, just so Richard can learn something.

                    • <blockquote.“Why all the hate on NASA?”
                      Huh? No hate here, NASA do some great work.
                      Intrinsicvalue

                      Scientific genius and climate change denier Colin Craig thinks so too.

                      As well as faking climate change, Colin Craig thinks NASA did a bang up job of faking the moon landings as well.

                      Successfully convincing the world that you put men on the moon must be on par with convincing the world that climate change is real. Wouldn’t you agree? Or is this where you two part company?

        • I love my consensus sorted in ascending alphabetical.
          Bad for the “Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences” but they maybe have other issues to deal with

            • Or the “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”…using an organisation to support the ‘consensus’ established by that same organisation. lol.

      • Something on the IPCC for you:…

        Intrinsicvalue found something on the webs that he agrees with.

        Hellooo?

        Scientific consensus.

        • Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by observation, experimentation and testing. There was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. Not any more.

          • Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by observation, experimentation and testing. There was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. Not any more.

            Hello? anyone home?

            Now that you’ve confirmed that scientific consensus exists in the shape of the Earth you will of course agree that scientific consensus exists on many subjects,

            Gravity, evolution, dangers of tobacco, the age of the Earth (and its shape!) and on goes the list.

            And so it is with climate science and AGW..

            Of course science is not “done” by consensus, dummy.

            It’s still you against NASA and every scientific community on the planet.

          • …and here is an excellent analysis of just how meaningless that consensus claim is:

            “So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

            Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.”

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

            Lies, damn lies and statistics!

          • ” Science is done by observation, experimentation and testing.”

            Ah, you’re getting it, IV.

            That is precisely the method employed by climatologists to build up the climate change picture and arrive at the conclusion that it is caused by human activity on Earth.

            Thus far, deniers of climate change (especially anthropogenic) have yet to use the scientific method to debunk the data and conclusion.

            • Thus far there is no evidence to directly link man’s activity with any significant impact on the climate. That’s why this alarmism is waning.

            • The problem here is that the AGW hypothesis relies on positive feedbacks from water vapour to amplify the direct warming effects of CO2.

              The hypothetical direct warming effect of CO2 is 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (i.e climate sensitivity) . Negative feedbacks would reduce this, positive feedbacks would increase the value.

              There is very little evidence, if any, that humidity is increasing as a result of increased CO2.
              Furthermore, we know very little about cloud and aerosol feedbacks

              In IPCC AR4, the value of climate sensitivity was estimated to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees with a central estimate of 3 degrees.
              In the more recent AR5 report, CS is given between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees, with no central estimate given, “because of disagreement” (their words)

              That is the extent of this so-called consensus

      • Yet it’s still just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
        Hunting for anomolies, looking for isolated quotes and linking to blogs doesn’t really amount to much. Any nutter can do that.

        In science, only the work counts.
        NASA and all the rest do the work.

  8. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri – Chairman of the IPCC
    Educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He joined the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

    • The Vice Chairs of the IPCC are:

      Ismail Abdel Rahim El Gizouli – BSc in Mathematics and Physics

      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele – Phd in Physics (and spent most of his professional life living off the gravy train of climate change)

      Hoesung Lee – well I can;t find any references with his qualifications.

      Where are the climate scientists, Frank?

      • Where are the climate scientists, Frank?

        The IPCC conducts a synthesis of the current state of understanding of the already conducted climate research, dummy.

        It reviews and summarises.

        It’s not a climate research team.

        Your insinuations are pathetic.

        • You clearly haven’t been following the discussion. Frank criticised the head of the NIPCC for being a mechanical engineer. What he failed to realise was that the Chair of the IPCC is also a mechanical engineer. From what I can gather none of the Vice Chairs are are climate scientists. So Frank’s argument against the NIPCC has just been turned around on the IPCC, the organisation he trusts for the ‘science’.

          • First

            “name a scientific community that rejects ..”

            Already have. The NIPCC.

            Here you are pretending (incorrectly) that the NIPPC is a scientific body representing a branch of science or working scientists.

            Next you try to draw an analogy between the NIPCC and the IPCC, which doesn’t represent any scientific organisation. It surveys the science:

            Frank criticised the head of the NIPCC for being a mechanical engineer. What he failed to realise was that the Chair of the IPCC is also a mechanical engineer.

            Certainly indicative of extreme confusion on your part.

            It’s still you against NASA and every scientific body on the planet.

          • You haven’t understood what Richard said;

            The IPCC conducts a synthesis of the current state of understanding of the already conducted climate research, dummy.

            It reviews and summarises.

            It’s not a climate research team.”

            Once again you are twisting what others say.

            That appears to be the modus operandi of climate change deniers.

          • Furthermore, as Richard stated above, “The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]

            Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a “Summary for Policymakers”, which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC

            • Don’t you think it is a bit of a concern that the Summary for Policymakers gets written before the scientific report?

        • “Your insinuations are pathetic.”

          No, they are supported by evidence. Feel free to try to debunk them.

            • Frank it is you asserting humans are causing CC. You need to provide the evidence and counter the rebuttal evidence. AGW is an hypothesis. That’s the way science works.

              • It has been proven – all we have now are climate deniers trying to muddy the waters by claiming the building heat is caused by planetary movements. You are of course IV referring to the Milan-kovitch cycle which impacts the earth every 100 000 years because of the axis of the planet and its tilt to the sun, you will then of course be aware that in our current Milan-kovitch cycle we are supposed to be cooling for another 23000 years – we aren’t, something else outside sunspots and planet circulations are causing the planet’s temperature to rise dramatically since the industrial age – the same time we invented the combustion engine

  9. Gareth says “Deep sea oil drilling is a defining environmental issue of our time”. What a load of sensationalist bollocks. Climate change and its effect on the lives of millions around the world; fresh water degradation and the impact on the health of millions around the world; desertification and the massive loss of subsistence agricultural land across the African and Asian continents and the impact and effect of this change on the lives and livelihoods of millions around the world; the over fishing of fragile stocks, even in our own waters, let alone across the globe, and the impact on the health and well-being of millions dependent upon the produce from the sea for food and a meager livelihood… Now they are just a few of the defining environmental issues of the 21st century. Take off your rich-man’s developed world tainted lenses and see the many environmental disasters that are impacting on billions around the world before you go to press with such naive statements.

    • @ Stuart Nash

      What sheer sophistry you write here.

      Gareth Hughes drew a clear connection between the use of oil and climate change – the effects of which you list in your comment as some of the [many] defining environmental issues of our time. You are, thereby effectively creating an argument where none exists.

      I really would like you to stop and think prior to writing anymore hostile comments toward members of the Green party, their writings or their policies.

      Who exactly are you hoping to win over by doing this?

      I am an undecided left voter – you pull more stunts like this and the likelihood is extemely high that I shall be voting either Greens or Mana for my party vote.

      This does not bother me too much, nor perhaps your self if you are attempting to appeal centrist Nat/Lab swing voters – which clearly I am not – however what bothers me is the question in my mind as to whether your displaying a baseless criticism toward the writing of a Green MP will achieve this aim. Do you really think this comment will appeal to a swing/centrist voter?

      Because I really think all it does is make it look like Labour/ Greens will not work very well together at all and might give people a feeling (albeit incorrect) that such a government would be unstable.

      I would prefer Labour attempted to be unapologetically left – however I don’t mind what the hell you do because I have other leftwing options to vote for- I don’t mind what the hell you do as long whatever that is leads to us getting rid of this National govt by the end of the year

      I wrote a comment on this thread putting in a good word for Labour’s stance on drilling; on reading your fallacious comment – I shall think twice about putting in a good word for Labour next time – especially if I see more of this unfounded hostility toward the Greens from you or any other Labour candidates.

      I will reassess my views on this matter if you can spell out to me reasoning for how your comment – that shows you are prepared to pick apart Gareth Hugh’s article on extremely tenuous grounds – helps to draw anyone to vote Labour from the Right – because it sure as hell won’t encourage any Left wing person to vote for Labour if my response is anything to go by.

      I would be very grateful if you did this – this would assure me that you thought about these issues prior to pushing ‘post comment’.

      Thank you

      • Blue lepoard, to be honest, I am tired of sensationalist headlines that are simply not matched by the facts. Now I know Gareth is passionate about his causes but in my view he doesn’t himself or his causes any good with falsehoods and sensationalism. If he simply used facts and evidence-based arguments, then I would be more tempted to take him seriously. Now, I know that no MP can be an expert on all areas they are expected to cover, however, what a parliamentarian needs to be able to do is research both sides of an argument and then come up with evidence-based policy; well, that’s the ideal.

        • I appreciate that you responded Stuart Nash, kudos to you for that.

          Having been a fairly regular observer of the parliament channel – it is clear to me that The Greens, notably above all other parties, cite a lot of research and clearly implement research in their policies. They take a lot of care to communicate the basis of their policies and views – i.e. research and reasoned, progressive thinking. I therefore disagree with your views on Green’s policy formulation.

          You appear to be confusing how a policy is formulated with how it is communicated to the public.

          I believe that Labour could learn a lot from The Greens’ disciplined and clearly research based policies, manner and especially their communication to the public. They are excellent at communicating complex issues in a manner that is easy to understand and I like the way they clearly spell out the ramifications of what will occur if we continue to follow the type of National-party-style ideology.

          There is so much in evidence with sensationalism and anti-left-wing propaganda in the media your comment comes across as disingenuous – sorry to be frank – I am not intending to be rude – just would really like to see a left wing government get elected (and assume you do too!) Yet, despite your response, I still do not see that Gareth’s criticisms of Labour in this article have been addressed in a way by you that serves this purpose – and I hope that by being frank with you, you might find a more effective way forward toward ensuring that my (and your hope) is positively realised by the end of the year. 🙂

    • Gareth says “Deep sea oil drilling is a defining environmental issue of our time”. What a load of sensationalist bollocks.”
      Stuart Nash

      Why am I not surprised at this invective inflected attack on the Greens for opposing Deep Sea Oil?

      Conservative Labour hopeful Stuart Nash may think he is being witty and insightful, but as the old saying goes; “There is nothing new under the sun”.

      Stuart, your tired old conservative, and narrow sectarian political line is so unoriginal.

      So much so, that, your latest nasty attack on Gareth Hughes and the Green Party for campaigning against Deep Sea Oil Drilling, strongly reminded me of the notorious attack on Bill McKibben and 350.org for campaigning against the Keystone Xl Pipeline, by prominent Liberal Democrat commentator and Obama supporter, Johnathon Chait.

      “— he (McKibben) has spent several years organizing activists to single-mindedly fight against approval of the Keystone pipeline — but Keystone is at best marginally relevant to the cause of stopping global warming. The whole crusade increasingly looks like a bizarre misallocation of political attention.”
      Johnathon Chait
      “Keystone fight a huge environmental mistake”

      Like Chait, Stuart you don’t like it that your party of choice has been called to take a moral stand, and you are wriggling to get off the hook.

      But it is not that easy.

      Like Chait your argument does not hold water.

      Joe Romm at Climate Progress goes to bat for McKibben and 350.org.

      ‘Jonathon Chait is Wrong: The Keystone Xl Fight Is An Excellent Strategy And Tactic”

      “Chait attacks Bill McKibben and the environmental movement for the decision to (supposedly) focus on Keystone rather than EPA regulations for power plants. His analysis suffers from several flaws:

      It assumes the environmental movement can do only one thing at a time.
      It assumes stopping Keystone has no strategic value.
      It assumes movement building has no intrinsic value (strategic or tactical).
      It assumes EPA regs are a stand-alone slam dunk — one that will achieve its ends without a protracted fight requiring a vibrant grassroots movement.

      To make a sweeping analogy, dismissing the Keystone fight simply because stopping Keystone won’t save the climate by itself, would be like dismissing the civil rights movement’s use of protests or boycotts or civil disobedience. Each individual action failed to achieve civil rights and yet somehow the movement triumphed.
      Joe Romm

      Climate Progress October 31, 2013

      To understand why Stuart Nash’s attack on Gareth Hughes and the Green Party misses the mark so badly, you just have to replace the words “EPA Regulations” with the words “Emissions Trading Scheme”, and the words, “XL Pipeline” with the words “Deep Sea Oil Drilling”.

      And for a deeper understanding of Joe Rom’s message; in the New Zealand context, replace his analogy of the US civil right’s movement with Kiwi analogy of the anti-nuclear, or anti-apartheid movement.

      Further understanding of where Stuart is going wrong is his claim that Deep Sea Oil Drilling as a defining issue is a load of old bollocks.

      From Joe Romm again:

      “Keystone isn’t the last chance for the environmental movement — it’s the last chance for Obama to show that he can stand up to the oil industry!”

      Just as Deep sea oil drilling is David Cunliffe’s last chance to show that he can stand up to the oil industry!

      I would strongly recommend that everyone read Jonathon Chait’s attack on 350.org for opposing the XL Pipeline, HERE. And Joe Romm’s rebuttal, HERE.

      Chait:

      “….environmental activist Bill McKibben writes in the Huffington Post, “Keystone looks like a last chance.”…

      — but Keystone is at best marginally relevant to the cause of stopping global warming. The whole crusade increasingly looks like a bizarre misallocation of political attention….

      How did they arrive at such a strange choice? The answer can be found in my friend Ryan Lizza’s deeply reported account in The New Yorker last month. Lizza’s fascinating story does not explicitly support the anti-Keystone movement, but it structures the narrative in a way that generally accepts the movement’s assumptions and casts them in a heroic light. Nonetheless, the facts in his account show how environmental activists stumbled onto the Keystone issue, then clung to it even as the rationale for their decision collapsed.
      In the spring of 2011, James Hansen wrote, in a brief blog post, that developing the Canadian tar sands would amount to “game over” in the fight to contain climate change. Hansen’s post came out in the wake of the collapse of cap-and-trade legislation*, when environmentalists were searching for an issue around which they could build a grassroots movement. McKibben read and was deeply influenced by Hansen’s conclusion, which helped inspire him to build an environmental movement centered around blocking the Keystone pipeline…..”

      “Oh! So developing the Canadian tar sands isn’t Game Over, or anything close to Game Over? While framed in the story as a minor detail, this seems like an enormously damning fact….”
      “….and had to stick with their strategy once they had rallied millions of followers to the cause, environmental activists appeared to have built a strategy upon what was at best a rickety factual premise.

      Nash:

      “….“Deep sea oil drilling is a defining environmental issue of our time”. What a load of sensationalist bollocks. Climate change and its effect on the lives of millions around the world; fresh water degradation and the impact on the health of millions around the world; desertification and the massive loss of subsistence agricultural land across the African and Asian continents and the impact and effect of this change on the lives and livelihoods of millions around the world; the over fishing of fragile stocks, even in our own waters, let alone across the globe, and the impact on the health and well-being of millions dependent upon the produce from the sea for food and a meager livelihood… Now they are just a few of the defining environmental issues of the 21st century.”

      Romm:

      “If the only choice for people is to support a climate bill or screw in compact fluorescent light bulbs, then how precisely do you sustain a movement for the times when you need them?
      We most certainly need a movement to avert catastrophic climate change. That’s why you must have fights for things at a level or scale below national legislation (or federal regulation). Certainly the civil rights movement understood that.”

      The campaign against deep sea oil drilling is a defining issue.
      And the fight has just begun, It looks like Stuart Nash has already decided to place himself on the wrong side of history. I wonder how long his other Labour colleagues will sit there with him?

      *My emphasis, the point I wanted to make here, is that you could, in the New Zealand context, write for “the collapse of cap and trade”, the collapse of Labour’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

    • Stuart Nash,
      I hope you take the time to read the devastating critiques of your comment that “Jenny” & “Blue Leopard” has posted above.
      Keep this up and, in my opinion, you’re sure to loss the next election.

  10. Watching the see-saw comments on this debate reminds me of arguing about whether Nero fiddling while Rome burned or not (or even whether Rome is actually burning and we need to call the fire brigade).
    Noam Chomsky may not be a scientist but much of what he says makes sense to simply-minded-me. He argues that we are in deep trouble if the dire warnings are true and we do nothing about climate change. On the other hand, we could be lucky and find the deniers are right but, even so, we would have lost nothing by changing from our reliance on fossil fuels to a more sustainable source as we will have to do so eventually anyway.

    “Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change.
    One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world’s major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues.
    The other side consists of skeptics, including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown – which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse.
    Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC’s regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately.” Noam Chomsky

      • IV,
        I really don’t care to debate about whether the climate models are right or wrong. The amount of information on the internet is so vast that people on both sides of the climate change argument can cherry pick any data they like.
        I’m more interested in knowing if your side of the argument agrees that at some stage we are going to have to start using different sources of energy. If the answer is “yes”, surely we should be developing these alternative sources right now.

        • “I’m more interested in knowing if your side of the argument agrees that at some stage we are going to have to start using different sources of energy.”

          Not in my lifetime, nor probably in my children’s lifetime. I’m completely comfortable with developing alternatives that cost less, diversify supply, deliver energy to remote communities, etc etc. But when I’m told lies by alarmists, when I’m told 97% of scientists believe something and then i find out they don’t, when it is politicians who take up a cause as if it is a religion, and then when my own research tells a very different story to the one the public is generally being fed, I find myself healthily sceptical.

          • IV, you can be as ” healthily sceptical” as you like, but you may not be very healthy down the road apiece if some of those experts you disagree with are correct.
            Why wait? Why not try to break our dependence on fossil fuels now?

  11. For your benefit, Martyn, Richard, Frank, etc

    if the case is as strong as you say, you should have no problem providing a concise argument, with evidence to support the following:

    a> the current changes in global temperature are unprecedented,
    b> that current extreme weather events are unprecedented (that’s for Martyn), and
    c> that these are being caused primarily by man.

    Now put your money where your mouths are gentlemen.

  12. Now Cedric…still reading? I’m gong to have some fun with your favourite organisation, NASA. Remember NASA? The people you quoted ad-nauseum as being all in favour of climate alarmism? Well well well Cedric. Seems that wasn’t the full story. Because here is one Nasa scientist who is prepared to challenge the alarmist models:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html

    “Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.
    Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.”

  13. Now Cedric…still reading? I’m gong to have some fun with your favourite organisation, NASA. Remember NASA? The people you quoted ad-nauseum as being all in favour of climate alarmism? Well well well Cedric. Seems that wasn’t the full story. Because here is one Nasa scientist who is prepared to challenge the alarmist models:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html
    “Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said.
    Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.”

    • …and another one…

      http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/07/28/nasa-satellite-data-refutes-alarmist-climate-model-predictions/

      NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

      • Hotair.com is a rightwing blog. The article you’re referring to quotes a previous anti-AGW story published in Forbes.com, another anti-AGW website. Really? Is that your “evidence”?! One anti-AGW blogger quoting another anti-AGW website?!

        Jeez, you really are struggling IV…

        Fail.

    • Re, Dr Roy Spencer. You seem to have “accidentally” left out this quote; “However his study, published in the journal Remote Sensing, does conclude that the limited heating he has found remains an ‘unsolved problem’.”

      His figures also relate only to a decade; 2000 and 2011.

      I thought you climate change deniers claimed that global warming occurs “naturally” over thousands of years?! Contradictory much?

      Because Spencer was criticised precisely in that manner; “Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said: ‘It’s a
      simplistic theory and we will need to look very closely at these measurements as he is far from proving conclusively that this is the cause.

      ‘He has taken these measurements over a very short time during which the Earth has not heated as much as it did in the late 1990s, and scientists expect this heating to resume. “
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html

      Fail.

      • Frank why don’t you read for comprehension? The period used is comparing reality with modelling. For an alarmist, Ward’s critique is mild to say the least.

  14. IV, I wrote,

    Point 8. Earth has experience at least two periods of atmospheric change, caused by terrestrial organisms;

    First time, cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere from methane, to releasing oxygen, (approx) 3.5 billion years ago;

    “The cyanobacteria have also been tremendously important in shaping the course of evolution and ecological change throughout earth’s history. The oxygen atmosphere that we depend on was generated by numerous cyanobacteria photosynthesizing during the Archaean and Proterozoic Era. Before that time, the atmosphere had a very different chemistry, unsuitable for life as we know it today. “ – http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

    More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/first_life

    Second time, during the 2oth Century, when humans nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer by the release of chloroflourocarbons into the atmosphere. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

    Point 9. There is no evidence whatsoever that scientists; professional organisations and science groups such as NASA and the American Geophysical Union are engaged in any Grand Conspiracy at all.

    Your response at February 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm;

    8. So?
    9. Relevance?

    – indicates you have no answers to those two vital points.

    Hence why you ignore points raised with your misinformation; links to right wing conspiracy websites, and other inconsequential garbage.

    You have no credible science to back up your quasi-religious beliefs – which is why you fudged those two points.

    Now, try answering those two points. Can you?

    I challenge you!

    • 8. I would have thought the ‘so?’ was obvious. There is no link between cynobacteria and 20th/21st century man, other than in your assumptive and increasingly desperate alternate universe.

      9. The lack of relevance is that I haven’t accused them of such.

  15. Intrinsicvalue says:
    February 12, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    And there are many many IPCC scientists who are turning on the IPCC:

    “Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” “- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    Intrinsicvalue says:
    February 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”

    South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications

    Citation?

    Otherwise you’ve made it up.

  16. Intrinsicvalue says:
    February 13, 2014 at 9:51 am

    So? The hypothesis is we are causing it and that it is changing the climate. Now prove it.

    Why?

    What would be the point, IV? Your use of a pseudonym and your continuing reference to non-science source indicates to made that you’re not in the slightest interested in having anything “proved” to you. You’re only here to promote your conspiracies.

    You have a quasi-religious belief and you go to extraordinary lengths to validate them.

    So you’re not interested in evidence.

    You’d simply dismiss it with a “so?” as you did above to one of my points.

    In reality, if you were interested in any real evidential argument, you’d be looking at the issue impartially and reading the science. Not referring to capitalist business websites; conspiracy blogs; and other irrelevent bullshit.

    There is absolutely nothing to check out real science websites and peer-reviewed literature, instead of wasting hour after hour posting anti-AGW crap here.

    You have zero interest in proof. You prefer prejudice and a closed mind.

    • “So you’re not interested in evidence.”

      Oh but I am. I am spending a air amount of time here in the hope that for the first time someone can actually present the evidence for this myth that you claim 97% of scientists concur on. And still NOTHING!

  17. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson, Founder Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace

    To plagiarise Martyn, this ain’t my first rodeo on this topic, and it won’t be my last. Yet it still amazes me that after all of the posturing, the chest beating, the ad-hominem and plain ‘hot air’, none of you who subscribe to this climate alarmism can produce even a brief summary of any shred of evidence for your claims.

    It seems that you are more fundamentalist sthan knowledgeable, more priests than proponents of real science.

    My challenge to you was simple, that is to provide evidence for the following:

    a> the current changes in temperature are unprecedented,
    b> current extreme weather events are unprecedented, and
    c> that these are being caused primarily by man.

    These items are at the very core of anthropogenic climate change, and yet none of you can produce any evidence other than arguments from authority (authority you clearly cannot cite or even understand), and criticism of my sources.

    There is no consensus. I have demonstrated with reputable cites.
    There is no current unprecedented temperature variations. I have demonstrated that with graphical evidence and cites.

    Can you not come back with something? Anything?

    • Thanks Frank
      I am interested in particular in the Law Dome (Antarctic) ice core data that shows a strong mediaeval warm period in the area, yet gets omitted from all the paleoclimatic reconstructions for the Southern Hemisphere.

      It is a bit odd, don’t you think? Especially as ice core data is considered better than, say, tree ring data for these studies

    • No Frank, I’ve been around too long to fall for that.

      Here are my questions:

      a> the current changes in temperature are unprecedented,
      b> current extreme weather events are unprecedented, and
      c> that these are being caused primarily by man.

      You haven’t answered me. And I’m not interested in doing you work for you.

    • Frank, imo you are making an error engaging idiots like Iv in citation wars or debates over specifics of the science.

      It’s analogous to medically unqualified “debating” surgical procedures or school kids arguing the mathematics of the “new physics” and quantum theory.

      Denier trolls have done their homework and amassed a whole library of PRATTS and cherry picked misinformation. They’ll just keep changing them and trundling them out ad nauseum, no matter how comprehensively each is refuted.

      Unless one is arguing from a secure position trained in the relevant field, say as a climate or other Earth scientist, engaging in specific scientific argument is allowing imbeciles like Iv to choose the battleground, which will just be constantly shifted to suit their agenda. It allows them tofurther lay their PRATT eggs.

      Engaging them on their risible and primitive methodology is far better in my experience.

      Expose their argument methodology, their sources and who they dismiss. After all, smearing NASA (as IV tried here) just makes them look like pathetic fools in any reasonable reader’s eyes. As for their arguments, Cedric Katesby’s tactic of showing them to be identical to a whole parade of other nuttcase causes is very enlightening.

      Just my 2c.

      • Apologies Frank, I put that poorly. I should have opened my previous observation with

        “Frank, imo it is an error engaging”

        as your citations have been very helpful.

        • @ Richard – I think you’ve made a good point. “Intrinsicvalue” is obsessed with this issue and I’m wasting my time debating it with him. He’s not interested in questions, he’s interested in validating a viewpoint he seems to closely identify with.

          And it’s taken up more of my time than I should have allowed myself… 😀

          • No, I’m interested in discovering if you have any convincing evidence that mankind is materially increasing atmospheric Co2, that higher levels of Co2 drive climate change.

            I’m still waiting.

      • Here is Katesby in action, discussing an aspect of this thread over at the Open Parachute blog.

        In the space of a few remarks he and another commenter cut to the essence of IV’s pet authority, the NIPCC. To make it funnier they use material from the NIPCC’s own self aggrandising website.

        It’s a pity that it wasn’t included in this thread, but I’m sure the authors won’t object to me providing a link to it.

  18. Wow, eleven posts in a row from Iv and he didn’t realise the nesting function for comments wasn’t functioning.

    The resultant gibberish of out of context comment (plus the earlier Cut ‘n Paste plagiarism) is however perfectly apt, a perfect example of the science denial modus: essentially a one sided conversation and research methodology – the echo chamber of denial.

    • There are two trolls dredging denial diatribe.

      Rational discussion with trolls is pointless.

      This is shown above.

      They may be one person perhaps as the likelihood of finding more than one intransigent mind working with very similar rationale and responses to information presented, is low.

      Hardly any deviation in the paths taken across so many changes of perspective. The same irrationalities can be observed.

    • O I think anyone reading this exchange has got the point Richard. That’s why no-one has answered my challenge.

  19. Here they are again:

    a> the current changes in temperature are unprecedented,
    b> current extreme weather events are unprecedented, and
    c> that these are being caused primarily by man.

    Frank etc, it surely can’t be that hard. You’ve been beating your chests about this, yet you cannot present a single, definitive piece of evidence!

    WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??

  20. “CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
    The IPCC claim that “All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity” is impossible
    “Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels”
    Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
    96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
    Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
    Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
    Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable – CO2 – and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
    The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
    Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
    Climate models have no predictive value”

    Summary of lecture by Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia.

    Cite: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/10/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby-explains-why-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

  21. The problem for the alarmists is that you have to evidence that:

    1. Man is the primary drive of atmospheric Co2, and
    2. That Co2 is a primary drive of climate.

    You can’t, because the evidence doesn’t exist. That’s Dr Salby’s point.

  22. 2014/02/15 at 1:50 pm | In reply to YogiBare.

    But when I’m told lies by alarmists, when I’m told 97% of scientists believe something and then i find out they don’t

    Citation for that “97%” figure please.

    2014/02/15 at 2:32 pm

    Summary of lecture by Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia.

    Interesting.

    Macquarie University doesn’t have a Climate department. So what, exactly, was he a chair of?

    And is he still working for the University? Or was he sacked for wrongdoing? And why is he being investigated by the National Science Foundation in the United States? (You seem to have left these bits out of your hero-worship of the gentleman.)

    2014/02/15 at 2:14 pm | In reply to Frank Macskasy.

    8. I would have thought the ‘so?’ was obvious. There is no link between cynobacteria and 20th/21st century man, other than in your assumptive and increasingly desperate alternate
    universe.

    Never mind alternate universes, focus on this one.

    You seriously don’t see the connection? That if bacteria can change an entire planet’s atmosphere – what must humans be doing with their industrialised civilisation?! Had that thought not
    crossed your mind?

    Ponder it…

    2014/02/15 at 2:32 pm

    “CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales The IPCC claim that “All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity” is impossible
    “Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels”

    And yet, the evidence points to precisely that conclusion. The evidence you’ve been commenting on. (And you haven’t refuted.)

    And the evidence supported by the National Geographic article you, yourself presented; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

    The same article which stated;

    The Scripps team is led by Ralph Keeling, son of the late Charles David Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa measurements in 1958. Since then the “Keeling curve,” showing the steady
    climb in CO2 levels caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, has become an icon of climate change.

    2014/02/15 at 1:33 pm | In reply to Intrinsicvalue.

    … So, Co2 levels were higher before the industrial revolution, and before humans entered the picture.

    Correct.

    2014/02/15 at 1:42 pm | In reply to YogiBare.

    Cite 3:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/byrd/byrd_data.html#sthash.89LpKRF8.dpuf

    This graph clearly shows that atmospheric Co2 has been higher in the past.

    Indeed it has.

    Correct.

    2014/02/15 at 1:57 pm | In reply to Intrinsicvalue.

    Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ahn2008/ahn2008.html

    Oh dear Frank. Another graph that shows Co2 levels have been higher in the past.

    Again, correct.

    And that’s the point which you’ve missed, IV.

    It is true that CO2 levels have been higher in the past – over millenial periods.

    And that’s the point: over millenial periods.

    By contrast, the build-up of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide has increased dramatically since mid 20th century. Note the NASA graph here; http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

    The recent increase in CO2 and temperature has not occurred over millenial (http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/glossary_t.html ) time – but decades.

    And that is where the science gives the strongest correlation between human activity and the rise in CO2 and global temperatures.

    It’s not MILLENIAL time we’re looking at. It’s decades.

    Using the National Geographic link you kindly provided (and which you probably didn’t read in full);

    The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future…

    […]

    The Scripps team is led by Ralph Keeling, son of the late Charles David Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa measurements in 1958. Since then the “Keeling curve,” showing the steady climb in CO2 levels caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, has become an icon of climate change. When the elder Keeling started at Mauna Loa, the CO2 level was at 315 ppm. When he died in June 2005, it was at 382…

    […]

    It took between a thousand and a few thousand years, at the end of Stage 11, to melt all or most of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The whole interglacial lasted 30,000 years, nearly three times as long as ours has lasted so far. So the warming had a long time to build up. That’s the good news.

    But at 400 ppm, CO2 is much higher now, and it’s still climbing fast. And even if we could stop that rise tomorrow, the planet’s temperature would still climb for centuries.

    Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

    So there you have it.

    You’ve just proved it to yourself.

    Question is; what will you do with that information. Will you “connect the dots” and understand what you, yourself, have presented? Or fudge it; ignore it; and go off on another tanjeant to quote the Hickbilly family?

    Your call.

    (By the way – that National Georgraphic article was great. I’ve bookmarked it for future use.)

    • Thanks frank, you have convinced me that humans are parasitic vermin that needs to be eliminated.

      I am so excited by this blinding light you have shone into my life,
      Would you like to take action to the next level?

    • “Citation for that “97%” figure please.”
      You mean you’ve never seen this claim? Oh where have you been Frank. In the interests of space, I’ll cite this http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/06/21/new-study-finds-striking-level-of-agreement-among-climate-experts-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/, and this (my thanks to Cedric) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

      “Macquarie University doesn’t have a Climate department. So what, exactly, was he a chair of?
      And is he still working for the University? Or was he sacked for wrongdoing? And why is he being investigated by the National Science Foundation in the United States?”
      Oh I’m glad you raised this. First of all you’ll find Salby’s work has considerable support here http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html. Second, you’ll find an outline of Salby’s dispute with Macquarie here http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/.

      “You seriously don’t see the connection?”
      Oh I see the connection you are trying to make, but it is an incredible stretch. It is most certainly not evidence that man’s burning of fossil fuels is contributing enough to the Co2 balance, and, it is most certainly not evidence that Co2 has the impact on climate you claim.
      Keep trying Frank.

      ““Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels”
      And yet, the evidence points to precisely that conclusion.”
      No, not really. There is a very good summary of both sides of this argument here http://climatechange.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001445.
      At this cite http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm , which presents many arguments you would agree with, the author states this “Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved…”. There it is Frank. NOT BEEN PROVED.
      Plus, you have Murry Salby’s work, and finally there is this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658, which concludes the following:
      “► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

      “And the evidence supported by the National Geographic article you, yourself…”
      That data is since 1958 Frank. 1958. And here’s the quote… “the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.”
      PROBABLY. Even the alarmists aren’t convinced!

      “And that’s the point: over millenial periods. By contrast, the build-up of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide has increased dramatically since mid 20th century. Note the NASA graph here; http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
      The recent increase in CO2 and temperature has not occurred over millenial (http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/glossary_t.html ) time – but decades.”
      Look again Frank. Each of the 50,000 year periods includes a period of rapid increase in Co2 levels (the ‘spike’), and are equally as steep as the current trend. You’re just plain wrong!
      AND…you are still using the 400,000 year time scale. Why when trying to make their case do alarmists have to be dishonest? To get a better indication over geologic time, look here http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml.

      In summary, before you start beating on about melting glaciers, you need to answer the basic questions about the drivers of climate change. You’ve failed on number 1.

  23. IV, you are too buried in your belief structure to see the evidence I’ve presented. Or to assess the links logically. Your blindness is obsessive.

    In my February 15, 2014 at 1:32 am post above, I cited massive amounts of evidence to support the case for AGW, Very shortly thereafter you made several posts (February 15, 2014 at 1:33 pm, February 15, 2014 at 1:35 pm, February 15, 2014 at 1:57 pm, February 15, 2014 at 2:06 pm, February 15, 2014 at 2:32 pm, February 15, 2014 at 2:38 pm, February 15, 2014 at 11:44 pm) which is simply not sufficient time for you to have read the material.

    Your ignorance on this topic is well-established by now. You demand evidence but you don’t read it. In which case you’re wasting everyone’s time.

    Your worldview is redundant.

    Have a nice, warm day. 🙂

    • Frank that is a very poor excuse for a concession.

      1. The total time between your post of 1.32am and my responses was almost 12 hours. Have you misread the times?

      2. You seem to be of that view that calling ignorant somehow gets you off the hook. It doesn’t. You have made some unequivocal claims that, when challenged by someone who knows the subject, you cannot substantiate.

      3. I still await your responses to me comments above.

      4. I still await your evidence to support the whole ACC mythology.

      • Frank I am particularly interested in discussing you claim and my rebuttal:

        <>

        And the evidence that seems to be pointing to climate as a driver of Co2.

        These two items totally destroy your argument Frank.

        Is that why you have avoided answering them?

        • This was the specific claim I want to discuss:

          “And that’s the point: over millenial periods. By contrast, the build-up of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide has increased dramatically since mid 20th century. Note the NASA graph here; http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
          The recent increase in CO2 and temperature has not occurred over millenial (http://www.elic.ucl.ac.be/textbook/glossary_t.html ) time – but decades.”

          And my response:
          “Look again Frank. Each of the 50,000 year periods includes a period of rapid increase in Co2 levels (the ‘spike’), and are equally as steep as the current trend. You’re just plain wrong!”

      • IV,
        You may not be right about much but it looks as if you’re right about Frank confusing the times – unless he thinks you’re a late riser and wouldn’t have had time to read the mountains of material he sent you by early afternoon.
        I think he’s come to the logical realisation that it’s pointless debating this issue with you, hence the deafening silence.
        I’m still wondering why you haven’t responded to my earlier suggestion that now is the time we should be weaning ourselves of our dependence on fossil fuels.

        • Hi Yogi

          Sorry, I though I had responded to that somewhere…it’s an excellent question.

          Your question assumes something is wrong with fossil fuels, so let’s look at that aspect first.

          The primary arguments against fossil fuels seem to be the issues of climate change and sustainability. You know my views on climate change. As to sustainability, there appears to be no medium term shortage of fossil fuels.

          Having said all of that, I have no problem with us adopting alternative energy sources, providing they are commercially viable. By that I mean at worst the same cost as fossil fuels, and not requiring subsidy. The total cost, including capital set-up, extraction, processing, reticulation and delivery to market must be no more than the equivalent cost for fossil fuels.

          The problem for the supposed ‘green’ position is that two very efficient power generation methods, hydro and nuclear, are disliked on purely ideological grounds. Much the same reason for the opposition to fossil fuels.

          • The only form of energy that the Greens are interested in are wind and solar, both intermittent forms of power generation that requires backup from fossil fuels.

            So, in effect, their energy policies are locking us into a fossil fuel dependent future.

            • Yours is a very very strange comment, AndyS

              I very much question the premise on which your comment rests – that wind and solar might need backup from oil – they could back-up one another or be backed up from other forms of energy.

              Even if what you are suggesting were the case – (and that is a big if) – to move into alternative energy sources still makes us less dependant than what National are planning (Do you here that sucking noise? – it is National sucking up to the Oil Industry)

              Additionally, it appears that you wish to sit back and have everything laid out and delivered to you on a plate by the government of the day.

              Step one: We simply need governments to stop enabling the oppressive monopolising activities of powerful interests. The Greens offer that.

              Once that is achieved there is more likelihood – than the zero, zilch we have now – of moving away from being completely dependent on oil products.

              The Greens are clearing the way to making it easier to become less dependent on oil – this is very clear.

              What is the alternative on offer that you are promoting?

              Continue killing alternatives to the oil interests monopoly, squash diversity and continue dependence on oil and polluting?

              Now that doesn’t sound very inspiring or forward thinking.

              • It is a basic fact that I state. You can back up wind and solar with hydro, but then what is the point? All you are doing is replacing one renewable resource with another,

                In the UK, they have deployed large banks of diesel generators to back up wind which can cut out in 15 mins. This is known as “Short Term Operational Reserve”

                Needless to say, it is incredibly expensive, and very unfriendly towards the environment.

                The energy companies like ti though, because they can make huge profits by spiking the electricity spot price.

                These spikes are created by the intermittent nature of these renewables that the Greens love so much.,

                Green policy = record profits for energy companies, and massive power price hikes for consumers, as we see in all countries that have a high penetration of renewables
                (e.g Germany and Denmark)

                • By the way, this idea that wind and solar can back each other up has no basis in fact.

                  Large blocking anticyclones can render the country completely windless, and put one of these in winter and you have zero energy coming out of your wind and solar fleet at a time when energy demand is at its highest.
                  Then you find that you have to subsidise the gas generators just so that it is economic to stay in business, for their reduced role in backing up wind and solar.
                  This too has happened in Germany

                • @ AndyS

                  “You can back up wind and solar with hydro, but then what is the point?”– AndyS

                  The point is to become less dependant on one source of energy – oil – and to move toward more sustainable and cleaner forms of energy.

                  “Needless to say, it is incredibly expensive, and very unfriendly towards the environment.”

                  It is less unfriendly towards the environment than using oil for everything.

                  “The energy companies like it though, because they can make huge profits by spiking the electricity spot price. These spikes are created by the intermittent nature of these renewables that the Greens love so much.”

                  Now you are arguing the point on profiteering, not oil dependency. This is the type of thing that can be fixed by regulations that remove the incentives for acting dishonestly and unethically.

                  “Large blocking anticyclones can render the country completely windless, and put one of these in winter and you have zero energy coming out of your wind and solar fleet at a time when energy demand is at its highest “

                  I am no expert, however isn’t there a way to store energy?

                  Also, NZ has a different climate to Germany and the variety of climate conditions in NZ combined with having a grid that shares the energy might mean that this occurs less in NZ than Germany.

                  • We don’t use oil for generating electricity anyway.

                    However, if you think that using small scale diesel generators in short bursts is better for the environment that using a closed cycle gas turbine generator (CCGT) over a continuous period, then you are mistaken

                    Think for example how much petrol you go through in intermittent urban driving vs. open road

                  • I don’t want to give the impression that I am against any innovation in the energy sector, for that is simply not true

                    Bryan Leyland has recently written in the NBR that one of the big problems with electricity generation in NZ is the removal of the incentive for the ripple switch system
                    This system damps out peak demand by turning off hot water heating at these times

                    Most people don’t even notice these small outages in hot water – if you have a well lagged boiler, the heat is retained.

                    What is does for the system is remove the need for excess generation to be supplied by (for example) gas turbine generators.

                    I would support a party that introduced this kind of policy, which is very easy to implement and would decrease the cost of electricity, plus the need for excess generating plant.

                    • “I don’t want to give the impression that I am against any innovation in the energy sector, for that is simply not true”

                      Having spent a lot of time arguing over the details of climate change rather than writing some positive comments about what a good idea it is to start diversifying our energy sources you are sadly giving the impression that are saying you don’t want to give.

                      It is odd what you say re turning off hotwater systems because I had a plumber tell me a couple of years ago that they do that here in NZ – not sure if this is correct or not – I am merely passing on what he said. (So you might not have to support a party that pushes that idea !)

              • Also, “renewables” don’t replace oil
                We use oil for lots of things like plastics, and running our cars.

                Renewables are primarily used in electricity generation.

                There are alternatives to oil, however, in the form of biofuels

                These have big problems too, in that they require very large amounts of land to be taken away from food production and used for ethanol instead. This pushes up global food prices which affects the poor most.

                Also, some forests are being felled to make way to biofuel production.

                • This is becoming very circular – you are not actually acknowledging the point I am making – which is any pursuit of alternatives is better than what we have now.

                  It is very clear there are HUGE amounts of products we create from oil – we need to start diversifying. Any diversification is going to lead to less dependence – as this process starts taking off – do you really think that we won’t find other more savvy forms of energy and ways of making products that create less toxic effects? Humans are extremely good at creating and developing new things and new answers to problems when they are given half the chance. This is not occurring at present because there are powerful interests blocking this process.

                  You continue to put up obstacles to this process that we really need to start – sure there are issues – yet there are greater issues now from not diversifying – you appear to be ignoring these.

                  • Installing wind turbines isn’t moving away from oil, that is my point

                    If you want to get serious about moving away from Oil, join the Thorium energy advocates like me

                    • @ Andy S

                      “Installing wind turbines isn’t moving away from oil, that is my point”

                      O.k I have been arguing the point that developing alternative energy sources is a good idea – and you have been arguing that wind turbines lock us further into oil dependency and now you are saying that they don’t move us away from oil because they are used in electricity and we don’t use oil for electricity anyway….(We still use coal though don’t we ?)

                      Fine, let us go back to your original comment – it contains an error that lead us (you) down the track of focussing on wind turbines.

                      “The only form of energy that the Greens are interested in are wind and solar, both intermittent forms of power generation that requires backup from fossil fuels.”

                      Wrong the Greens are looking at many forms of alternative sources of energy:

                      “Our forests could become a major source of energy in the future, including eventually for transport fuel. Other biofuels have some promise on a limited scale. Where they can be made from waste, like biodiesel from tallow or used vegetable oil, or like ethanol from waste whey in the dairy industry, they are a sustainable alternative. Care is needed to ensure that crops grown especially for fuel produce more energy than is used in the process, and that they do not take land out of food production on a significant scale.”

                      And

                      “Examining the role of direct electric power, biofuels, and hydrogen from renewable energy for public transport and essential transport services;”

                      And, amongst many other things, they also discuss using the energy we do have as efficiently as possible.

                      All very sensible and forward thinking and all found on one page – their Energy policy page

                      ….And cheers for supplying me with the link re your alternative energy idea AndyS – I guess there is nothing like supplying no information in order to get your point across. 😐

                  • “…which is any pursuit of alternatives is better than what we have now.

                    No, I don’t accept your argument

                    If a person were bleeding on the side of the road, would you accept that doing anything is better than doing nothing, even if I showed you evidence that the actions you were taking were making the bleeding worse?

                    • No, I wouldn’t keep doing what I was doing in your scenario – if your idea about making the bleeding worse was infact corroborated by evidence.

                      I would not do nothing though, I would try something else.

                      If you changed your scenario to:

                      “If a person were bleeding on the side of the road, would you accept that attempting to curb the bleeding is better than doing nothing, even if I showed you evidence that the actions you were taking were making the bleeding worse and I suggested an effective way of stopping the bleeding?”

                      If you were making sense and convinced me about your idea I’d step aside and say ‘do it’ and if the bleeding stopped would be thankful you had an effective idea.

                      If you didn’t convince me your idea would work, yet the bleeding was continuing. For example; you might suggest that killing the person would stop the bleeding – that would stop the bleeding…

                      I would think you were a maniac . I would stop doing what I was doing and try something else while holding concerns for my own safety perhaps!

                      You would be hard pushed to convince me that doing nothing was better than attempting to curb the bleeding.

                      Your scenario does highlight the advantage of being more than a ‘one-trick pony’ though (like National is); if the technique one is using is not working – it is advantageous to have a number of techniques to employ – likewise, encouraging diversity is a very good idea with regard to our energy sources.

Comments are closed.