Ragged right caught in reality’s shit sandwich

95
0

10151868_10152336634020775_1466265566_n
Last week, the IPCC released the second part of its fifth report (AR5), covering the current and expected future impacts of climate change. It emphasised the need to get on with adapting to the climate changes that are now inevitable — like substantial sea level rise, increased droughts and more flooding rains. The reaction from those who’d prefer we take no action to address climate change was straightforward: all we need to do is adapt – and (by selective quotation of the report and considerable wishful thinking) it isn’t going to be too difficult to adapt, because it’s all a long way off. For a prime example of the latter, all you have to do is listen to climate change minister Tim Groser’s insouciant dismissal of the urgency of adapting to climate change when interviewed on RNZ National’s Sunday Morning programme last weekend, or new ACT leader Jamie Whyte’s silly assertion that adaptation is all the action required.

You’d think they might have looked at the IPCC’s calendar. Next week, the organisation releases the third part of AR5, the bit that deals with the importance of reducing emissions. All those who argued that adaptation is all we need to do are going to have the inconvenient task of acknowledging that we are a long way from meeting any kind of sensible target to reduce emissions, and that the task of preventing really dangerous climate change — a world that warms more than 2ºC — is getting more and more difficult with each passing year. Staying under two degrees of warming now looks as though it will involve sucking CO2 out of the air — a hugely expensive and unproven process once you get beyond planting trees.

The simple truth is that we (as in the entire global community) have to adapt to the changes that are inevitable, and reduce emissions as fast as possible to prevent climate change going far beyond adaptive capacity and into the realms of real catastrophe. Sensible risk management would involved planning to cope with four degrees, while reducing emissions steeply in an attempt to stay under two degrees.

Reducing emissions is, if anything, more urgent than adaptation, because every tonne of carbon saved now is a tonne we don’t have to extract from the atmosphere later in the century, and future extreme damage avoided. But we can’t sit on our hands and ignore the need to adapt. Groser’s government needs to recognise that it has to coordinate the adaptive efforts of local authorities, not by issuing edicts from Wellington, but by providing a legislative and knowledge framework, rooted in the work of the IPCC but also using local scientific resources, that allows local communities to make sensible plans for a future where the sea is rising rapidly, floods are broaching drainage systems and droughts are testing water supplies.

Unfortunately, a climate change minister who can haughtily describe sea level rise over the next century as something we can easily adapt isn’t likely to take the IPCC report findings as a basis for policy development. Perhaps urgent reality will be able to do the trick. It now looks very likely that a big El Niño event is brewing up in the Pacific. This year and next could become the hottest years in recorded history, and bring weather extremes that might force politicians take warming seriously. It’s a sad thing to have to say, but it will take disasters to force reluctant politicians to act. We can only hope they pull their fingers out before the toll becomes unavoidably catastrophic.

95 COMMENTS

  1. Will Obama sign off on the XL Keystone pipeline? The answer to that question will give us an idea of how the future of our planet is going to pan out. Looking at his past record, and reading the article pasted below, isn’t very encouraging.
    http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/08/new-optimism-gripping-canadas-energy-patch-as-industry-looks-beyond-keystone-xl/?__lsa=0a1b-50d1
    Returning to our own backyard, I haven’t heard any news about Bathhurst’s stated intention to stripe the soil off Denniston Plateau even though they have suspended plans for coal extraction until world prices improve.

  2. The capitalist ruling classes will never agree to reducing their profits to save humanity. That is the irrational anarchy of the bourgeois individual who preaches common interest but observes it only as the particular interest of the possessing class.
    Whyte is a sick joke who gives philosophy a bad name. He interprets reality so as not to change it.
    It’s high time that people re-assessed the sort of social change necessary to avoid human extinction.
    First requirement is the expropriation of the 1% and their drive to planetary destruction.
    Second requirement is that this is done by the politically conscious collective will of the vast planetary majority – those who work.
    Third requirement is the conscious planning of production that reverses global warming and produces for human need not personal profit.
    There is only one name for this that captures this process both in thought and action – the Commune.

  3. When the most important motive is making a profit even at the expense of the environment I guess big business will never voluntarily cut back on greenhouse emissions. That’s the simple reality of life. And there will always be those narrow-minded people who refuse to accept what is happening because it would shatter their own personal worldview.

    What a world we’ll be leaving our children and future generations!

    • All very good points Shar. Given your concern about companies making profit at the expense of the environment what were the environmental policies of National that convinced you to vote for them in the past?

      • Asking what are National’s policies to protect the environment is like asking Phillip Morris what are their policies to reduce smoking.

        • Quite possibly but Shar voted for National at least twice apparently yet has quite a good connection with environmental issues. I was wondering what policies National promoted in the past in relation to the environment that she liked.

          • I think we should congratulate Shar for escaping from an abusive relationship. Many, such as Gosmann, never do. The first step is realising it’s not your fault, Gossy, then and only then can you start doing something about it.

            • I think you have picked up my point about Shar. As a leftist like you can’t comprehend how anyone could support a right leaning party beyond someone being ignorant the fact she hasn’t articulated her reasons for voting for National in the past are indicative that maybe she is not in fact a swing voter. However I might be wrong and are willing to be put right.

              • Geez, glozzy, have you some thing against punctuation? It can make a difference you know.
                Consider these two sentences for example:
                My wife doesn’t understand me.
                My wife doesn’t; understand me?

  4. Tim Grosers climate scepticism is unwise, and isn’t supported by the weight of evidence, and he underestimates how severe climate change could be.

    Groser is wrong to suggest adaptation is sufficient because there is a risk of dangerous climate change if emissions get too high, and there is a narrow window to resolve this.

    Groser is also wrong to be sceptical of regulation including things like the ETS. Free markets have a terrible history of dealing with environmental problems, and only government legislation has ever pushed things in the right direction.

    Groser is captive to unproven ideological beliefs on the economy, and is putting these above science.

    • Ditch the ETS, it was always just a sop from the cheerleaders of the market economy who never had any sincere intention of making it work.

      Enact a carbon tax. Make it steep. Do it before it’s too late.

      • In fact a carbon tax is in itself a neo-liberal measure.

        These Pigovian mechanisms are likely to slow or halt any actual progress on emissions. The cap and no trade model is better than a carbon tax because major offenders already evade most other taxes.

        Taxing emissions makes governments want to allow them to continue. Cut the revenue stream and you may get actual change.

  5. The simple fact is that there is no definitive proof that human action either contributes significantly to climate change or to it’s mitigation. We need to focus on genuine environmental concerns, not the sham that is AGW.

    • The simple fact is that there is no definitive proof that human action either contributes significantly to climate change

      Of course there isn’t, you idiot. You’ve been corrected on this nonsense before.

      There is overwhelming evidence that human action contributes significantly to climate change.

      It’s scientific evidence, i.e. evidence gathered, published and collated according to modern scientific methodology…

      …by outfits like NASA; who spend billions of dollars in sophisticated state-of-the-art atmospheric research.
      Everyone of them much smarter than you and collectively they share a consensus position on the state of the science.

      Your “there is no proof” arguments are effective only on the scientifically illiterate and dim of wit, people such as yourself, who have no clue how science works or how it comes to a consensus position.

      Scientific consensus on the efficacy of vaccinations.
      Scientific consensus on evolution
      Scientific consensus on causes of anthropogenic climate change.
      Scientific consensus on the safety of water fluoridation.
      Scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and plate tectonics.

      All based on evidence.

      Proof is for logicians, mathematicians.

      In science it is the evidence that counts.

      • That’s a very poor use of so many words, Richard. There is not overwhelming evidence that human action contributes significantly to climate change. There we are, happy now?

        • <iThat’s a very poor use of so many words, Richard. There is not overwhelming evidence that human action contributes significantly to climate change. There we are, happy now?

          Now, that’s a proof!

          Right there, in your response.

          Proof that Intrinsicvalue is an idiot.

          • …proof that you STILL do not have the evidence to support your religious conviction to AGW.

        • Intrinsicvalue, actually there is overwhelming evidence humans are contributing to climate change. Obviously the IPCC review team think so, and they have reviewed over 12,000 peer reviewed papers.

          Also John Cooke has done an extensive review of the literature and found very few peer reviewed science disputing that we are altering the climate.

          You might also google greenhouse signatures or fingerprints. There are dozens of patterns in the climate recently that point at carbon dioxide.

          You won’t get complete certainty as you can’t put the planet in a laboratory and science deals in evidence not mathematical proof, but we are 95% sure.

          Your only option is to cast doubt on what I have said like a tobacco company. You have got nothing else.

      • Richard how do you feel about the scientific consensus that biotech crops are ‘safe for humans and the environment’? Do you consider there is hypocrisy between the green movements acclaim of an alleged consensus on AGW and their rejection of the consensus on biotech crops?

        How do you feel about the scientific consensus in 1979 that saccaharine caused cancer?

        Or from the 1960’s that cancers were caused by viruses?

        “After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done. And yet. One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask. And one should always worry about to what degree supporters of any given scientific consensus risk succumbing to confirmation bias. In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality.”

        http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

        • What drugs are you on?

          Are you trying to impress by linking to right wing political think tanks?

          From your nonsensical statement you know nothing about saccharine, nothing about link between cancer and viruses and, above all, nothing about scientific consensus.

          Your idiotic position is “there is no scientific consensus on the causes of recent climate change”.

          That’s not even arguable. It’s stupid. It is utterly and demonstrably wrong, see NASA, see IPCC publications, see statements by Royal Society and US National Academy of Science etc. Not a single scientific community on the planet rejects the IPCC conclusions. None argue that they do not represent the current state of scientific knowledge on the climate.

          If you want to argue that scientific consensus occasionally changes , be my guest. Only fools will dispute that. That’s how people in science win Nobel Prizes. It’s every scientist’s dream to make new discoveries that turn the scientific world on its head.

          Consensus is real. The global scientific consensus on AGW is effectively complete.

          One should always keep in mind that a scientific consensus crucially determines and limits the questions researchers ask.

          lol – Konspiracy 101

          • Again, you do not respond to the point. Evasion noted. The fact is there have been alleged scientific consensus on many issues in the past that have subsequently been shown to be false.

            Now as to the scientific consensus on AGW, I have a question for you. What is that consensus? Define what the consensus is.

          • Were you aware that NASA climate scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013?

                • What Zwally said was not “scientists” predicting “ice-free” summers by 2013. The context was the massive drop in summer ice from 2006 to 2007, and if that had continues at the same rate Zwally would have been right. But that was not his prediction, nor NASAs.

                  • Bollocks. Zwalley is a NASA climate scientist. He predicted that the Arctic could be ice free by the summer of 2013. That is the rhetoric of the so called ‘consensus’. It’s alarmist, exaggerated and wrong.

                    • You misrepresent what Zwalley said, what the consensus says, and have the brass neck to complain about being censored.

                      Go and read the evidence you’ve been supplied, then come back here and talk about it. Until then, you’re just another windbag with nothing worth saying.

                • IV, your April 10, 2014 at 2:12 pm post and April 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm shows the blatant dishonesty of your style of presenting “facts”.

                  You first stated;

                  Intrinsicvalue says:
                  April 10, 2014 at 2:12 pm

                  Were you aware that NASA climate scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013?

                  Then you said,

                  Intrinsicvalue says:
                  April 10, 2014 at 10:47 pm

                  […]

                  “NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.””

                  You deliberately misrepresented Jay Zwally’s comment, “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean
                  could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”

                  with,

                  …NASA climate scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013?

                  You are such a dishonest, lying Tory propagandist that nothing you say can be taken at face value.

                  Your own words discredit you.

            • No, I wasn’t aware of that.

              Now, you provide a link to the document, released by NASA making that explicit prediction, as one of NASA’s official positions.

              .

            • Intrinsicvalue says:
              April 10, 2014 at 2:12 pm

              Were you aware that NASA climate scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013?

              Do you have a citation for that?

              Or is this another one of your invented “facts”?

            • IV says “Were you aware that NASA climate scientists predicted that the arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013?”
              From reading the link he posted his sentence appears to be disingenuous. I think a more accurate statement would read…”One NASA scientist has speculated that the Article summer ice could be (N.B. Not would) nearly ice free by the end of summer 2012.”

              This doesn’t appear to be an official NASA report, IV, from your own link…
              “One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.”
              Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
              This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

              • The link Intrinsicvalue (lol, what a moniker) was snipped before I got to read it it but from Yogi’s comments it illustrates how clueless Intrinsicvalue is in evaluating science and how important the consensus is.

                For your benefit Intrinsicvalue:

                Single scientists opinions do not represent that of a scientific community.

                Single scientists opinions are worthless when weighed against a consensus. Science cares not what scientist “so and so” PhD thinks. That’s not how scientific consensus is evaluated.

                Science understanding advances subject to the collective weight of all evidence.

                Not understanding this, you are grasping for anomalies. Anomalies will always exist. Anomalies do not overrule consensus. Certainly they may challenge consensus, if opinion contrary to the consensus is supported and reproduced by further research the consensus will change. Often (usually) such challenges fail to overturn the consensus. Until they do, they remain anomalies not supported by scientific community or weight of scientific evidence. Your failure to grasp this illustrates your failure to understand how science works. It also illustrates the limitations of your ability to indulge in critical analysis – and not just scientific analysis.

    • The simple fact is you’re full of it, IV. You know as much about climate change and related sciences as I do about brain surgery.

      The more you deniers carry on with your nonsense, the more ridiculous you look to the rest of humanity which – thankfully – is starting to understand the reality that we’re facing a slowly-moving crisis.

      Ok, carry on.

      • The simple fact is you have been challenged several times to provide evidence that man is a significant contributor to climate change and you have failed. You have also failed to explain why the warming cycle is now in hiatus.

        • you have been challenged several times

          What’s your real name Mr “I challenge you”.?

          Stand behind your bullshit.

          I challenge you. Until you do, you are just another anonymous denier tool on the internet writing from his mother’s basement. Your opinions carry no weight except that they provide a platform for others to demonstrate the intellectual paucity of climate denier PRATTS.

          • You are the one who is promoting the AGW alarmism. I’m asking you to provide supporting evidence. That is entirely reasonable and thus far you have failed.

            • As an anonymous loudmouth on the internet you’ve been directed to the evidence for AWG over and over again. Here it is again: the IPCC reports supported by the position statements from over 200 scientific organisations worldwide : http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

              Now it’s time for you to stand behind your conviction and your insistence that it doesn’t exist.

              Put your name to your opinion or…

              …you are just another anonymous denier tool on the internet, writing from his mother’s basement. Your opinions carry no weight, except for that they provide a platform for others to demonstrate the intellectual paucity of climate denier PRATTS.

              PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times

        • I did present you with evidence. Several times.

          Eg; https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/11/guest-blog-gareth-hughes-deep-sea-oil-drilling-national-labour-are-ignoring-the-facts/#comment-189657

          You simply chose to ignore it. I guess it was just too damned inconvenient, eh?

          Your response? To quote a fucking FINANCIAL blogsite as science-based “evidence”?!

          Newsflash, IV – Forbes.com does not constitute peer-reviewed science. If that’s the best you can do, you Tory twat, then you’ve made another Epic Fail (again).

      • Well there is definitive proof because there is no absolute causal link between smoking and lung cancer. In other words not everyone who smokes contracts lung cancer. However most certainly increases the incidence of lung cancer, and we have definitive evidence for that. We do not, however, have definitive evidence that man’s activities is materially contributing to climate change. If we did, it would have been posted in response to my questioning, instead of the incessant appeals to authority, which are not evidence.

        • This is utter tosh. Go read Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming. It’s free, and gives a very good overview of how we know what we know, and how we got there.

          http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

          To put it in simple terms. We know CO2 acts as a global thermostat, from paleoclimate studies, and from radiation physics, understood down to the quantum level.

          We know that the 40% increase in CO2 level over the last 200 years has been caused by human actions – fossil fuel burning and deforestation, primarily.

          We observe the global surface temperature increasing, oceans warming, sea level rising, sea ice melting, land ice in every part of the globe shrinking, stratospheric temperatures cooling — all what we expect to see from warming from greenhouse gas increases.

          We also know where we’re heading. The last time CO2 stood at 400 ppm for any length of time (3-5 million years ago, in the Pliocene), sea levels were 10s of metres higher and the planet a lot hotter. It might takes us a while to get there, but if we don’t reduce CO2 levels below 400ppm that’s certainly where we’re heading.

          Now go away and do your homework. Weart’s book is 250,000 words but very accessible to a non-specialist. If you are not prepared to do the hard yards, and continue to spout rubbish, I will moderate your comments very strictly.

          • You will moderate my comments? For goodness sake get over yourself. I’ll respond to your misinformation above shortly, but in the meantime show some class and stop trying to bully people who challenge your ‘religious’ belief in this crap.

            • When you show some signs of responding to others comments in good faith, responding to the evidence presented, then I will pass your comments.

              You do not have a right to lie and misrepresent the facts.

              Get over it. Do some reading and then come back here for a reasonable discussion.

              • This is censorship, plain and simple. I am making no wild claims here, I am refuting alarmist beliefs being presented. You’re attempting to shutdown debate, which is perhaps why this blog has such a small following.

        • ffs. You don’t even know what an appeal to authority is.

          You have been directed to the evidence. Start with the IPCC reports.

          Go look at it. Therein are mountains of references to scientific research.

          That’s the evidence stupid, thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, from thousands of people actually doing hard scientific work in the field over decades.

          Complete tosser like Intrinsicvalue comes along and repeatedly complains it doesn’t exist because he refuses to read it. What a tool.

          • [Snipped. The IPCC reports are where the evidence resides. Go and read them then come back here. GR]

            • So, if I post counter evidence from sources other than the IPC, you will not accept them?

              [Quote from and link to extreme right wing web site removed. GR]

              • If you post material from the peer-reviewed literature or from mainstream science web sites to support your arguments, then I will pass them. Stuff from propaganda outfits like Forbes, Reason.com, or UK tabloids does not constitute evidence.

  6. As I said in earlier stories, the right are changing their tune. At first we had outright denial. Then they started conceding that it might be happening but it was too early to be sure. Next they conceded that humans may be contributing to climate change but most of it was still natural. Then they began to say it appears that we have contributed to the problem but we have plenty of time to think of a solution. Then it changed to “don’t worry, we can adapt, it will be good for us”. The next stage will be “how can we make money from it?”

    • You’re making this up. The position of most who challenge the alleged consensus has always been to accept that mankind may be contributing, but that it is at such an insignificant level that nothing we do will have any impact. And that is precisely what the science tells us.

      On the other hand, isn’t it convenient that when the planet stopped warming the alarmists began talking about ‘climate change’. It’s all about money.

        • Wrong.

          “If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.

          But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.”

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

          • Quoting Forbes.com is like me quoting the Bible for plate tectonic theory.

            Forbes.com is not a science-based group. They are a financial outfit and theirs is purely profit-driven to maintain a carbon economy.

            You’ve quoted that Forbes link before, IV.

            Which kind of suggests you have no credible, peer-reviewed science-based info to back up your cherished quasi-religious dogmatic beliefs?

            Pathetic.

            Meanwhile, the planet’s ice caps and glaciers continue to melt as CO2 rises commensurately with human industrial activity.

            As NASA showed for right wing simpletons like you; http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            Hey – here’s an idea you can use – NASA satellites are part of a vast Greenie conspiracy! They’re pre-programmed to beam back data that environmentalists have secretly installed in their onboard computers!! Wow! Whodathunk it?!

            Twat. 😀

            • Quite so, Draco, I and others have often made this point to IV, only to come up against PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times, as Richard would say.

      • sIntrinsicvalue says:
        April 10, 2014 at 9:24 am

        […]
        On the other hand, isn’t it convenient that when the planet stopped warming the alarmists began talking about ‘climate change’.

        It’s “stopped warming”?!

        But… but… but… you also said,

        Intrinsicvalue says:
        April 10, 2014 at 9:19 am

        Climate change is real. It is the human contribution to it that is very much in question.

        So, which is it?!

        Honestly, you can’t even keep your bullshit stories straight.

        Or are too many people using the “Intrinsicvalue” log-in to know what each is writing?!

      • Intrinsicvalue says:
        April 10, 2014 at 9:24 am

        You’re making this up. The position of most who challenge the alleged consensus has always been to accept that mankind may be contributing, but that it is at such an insignificant level that nothing we do will have any impact.

        Really?!

        Just as humanity’s impact on the Ozone Layer, with the release of CFCs, was “such an insignificant level that nothing we [did not] have any impact”?!

        Is that why industries globally had to phase them out? Because our polluting and damaging the Ozone Layer was at ” an insignificant level “?!

        Your arguments are so blatantly an exercise in sophistry that I sometimes wonder if you’re not conducting a secret campaign to undermine cherished right-wing notions by making outrageous, nonsensical statements.

        Because I can’t believe an educated person would say half the ignorant things you do.

        No wonder you insist on a pseudonym. I’d be embarrassed as well, to say the shit you do.

        • [Snipped. GR]

          What I find interesting is that despite several requests, no-one has put into words what the consensus on climate change actually is that you are claiming. I find that fascinating, because if you asked me to define the scientific consensus on evolution, for example, I could do it relatively concisely. Why can;t I get an answer on AGW?

          • Read the evidence supplied, not least in my long reply to you above. Simply asserting the evidence doesn’t exist when you’re obviously not prepared to read it when it’s supplied is not engaging in debate.

            You’re behaving like a spoilt child, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalala, I can’t hear you”.

            Come back when you’ve got something meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

          • Intrinsicvalue says:
            April 10, 2014 at 11:18 pm

            […]

            I find that fascinating, because if you asked me to define the scientific consensus on evolution, for example, I could do it relatively concisely

            Ok. Define “the scientific consensus on evolution”.

            • The scientific consensus on evolution is that all life forms on the planet share a single (or very small number) common ancestor(s), and that the diversity of life has arisen from that life form(s) via the primary mechanism of natural selection.

              I could expand, but here’s the point. I have asked several times for someone to define the consensus that 97% of scientists have signed up to on anthropogenic climate change. It’s telling that no-one has responded.

              • (adopting a Iv style whine)

                But there is no proof!

                /sarc

                It’s telling that no-one has responded.

                Don’t invent your own reality. They have responded, the consensus is in the IPCC reports.
                Sorry if those reports, being longer than an average sound-bite or Forbes article, challenge your ability to comprehend.

                • Then why can’t you just explain what the consensus is!! I’m not asking you to provide evidence, for it, just define it. You’ve been ranting on about this ‘consensus’ and you can;t even explain in words of one syllable what that consensus is!

                • “But there is no proof!”

                  For evolution? This discussion is about defining the scientific consensus, not about presenting evidence. You have repeatedly claimed there is a scientific consensus around the issue of man induced climate change. Before returning to discussing the evidence, I want someone, anyone, to describe in simple terms what that consensus is?

                  • but there is no proof

                    lol, I was imitating you, you buffoon.

                    Read it more carefully.

                    Before returning to discussing the evidence, I want someone, anyone, to describe in simple terms what that consensus is?

                    Behold, the workings of the mind of a denier.

                    Intrinsicvalue has been denying the existence of a scientific consensus for post after post. Flying around like a demented blowfly spraying the denier PRATTS that he read on blogs and in newspapers.

                    Yet he now wants to know what it is that he’s been denying.

                    (slow hand clap for Intrinsicvalue)

                    The comedy writes itself.

  7. Frank

    You quoted two comment I made that you allege were contradictory. These were:

    “On the other hand, isn’t it convenient that when the planet stopped warming the alarmists began talking about ‘climate change’.
    It’s “stopped warming”?!”

    “Climate change is real. It is the human contribution to it that is very much in question.”

    [Unreferenced counterfactual assertion snipped. GR]

    Now that really wasn’t that hard, was it?

  8. The consensus that we are the main factor altering the climate is very strong, and is supported by the IPCC, 95% of climate scientists, and almost all the published research, and most of the large science academies. Refer climate change consensus on Wikipedia or on sceptical science.com or realclimate.org.

    Not one “climate sceptic” review polling climate scientists, or the full range of the peer reviewed literature has found anything different.

  9. IntrinsicRWNJ, the author of that op-ed was Peter Ferrara, a right wing lawyer who worked for Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
    He has no scientific credentials at all. So that’s the source your quoting? A fellow RWNJ?

    “I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy, particularly concerning economics. The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. “

  10. What do Hurricane Sandy and Cyclone Ita have in common?

    When it came to New York and New Zealand meteorically both Ita and Sandy weren’t hurricanes when they struck!

    They were both Post Tropical Cyclones.

    “Sandy wasn’t the Big One”
    “Sandy wasn’t even a technically a hurricane when it made landfall: It had been downgraded to a post-tropical cyclone.”>
    Nicholas K. Coch Professor of coastal geology at Queens College NY

    Warnings issued as tail end of former Cyclone Ita strikes New Zealand

    “A deep low lying west of the North Island is expected to move slowly south tonight and Friday and gradually weaken,” the MetService says. “Severe easterly gales about western parts of central New Zealand, including Wellington, Nelson, Buller and Westland are expected to gradually ease from the north tonight and early Friday morning. Gusts of 110 to 140 km/h are likely in exposed parts of these areas until early Friday morning, which have the potential to damage trees, powerlines and unsecure structures, and make driving hazardous.”
    More heavy rain is also expected for northern and eastern parts of the South Island through Friday.

    “People in these areas are advised to watch out for rapidly rising streams and rivers, surface flooding, slips and hazardous driving condition
    New Zealand MetService

    Postscript:

    In the, ‘If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be funny’, category.
    In one of the most ironic events in the history of climate change,
    according toStuff.co.nz,
    Regional fire commander Brendan Nelly reported several buses were blown over transporting workers for Solid Energy’s Stockton Coal Mine, the biggest coal mine in the country. Luckilly there were no reports of injuries among the coal workers.

    That New Zealand’s Westcoast coal mining community of Greymouth has been hardest hit by Ita is ironic, but the irony completely escapes West Coast coal fanatic, Greymouth Mayor Tony Kokshoorn.


    Ita’s tail leaves a brutal sting

    Grey District Mayor Tony Kokshoorn said buildings have been pulled down in Greytown, and more were to come down today. About 60 houses were without roofs, he said.

    Oncoming rain was a worry, but most houses were temporarily watertight.

    “Today it’s a matter of people going to insurance companies, finding out how they can move forward from here,” he said.

    “For those who are uninsured it’s going to be difficult but we will try to help where we can and give advice.”

    He said “seven or eight” houses would not be occupied again, and those people would need to be accommodated elsewhere in the area.

    Power was returned to nearly all properties in Greymouth last night, but smaller townships within the district were still out, he said.

    “The CBD was not badly affected, and it’s back in business today.”

    So business as usual for Mayor Kokshoorn, till next time, that is. And next time the West Coast may not be so lucky. When the “Big one hits” which it will; Will climate change ignorer Kokshoorn be able to look the families of the dead and injured evenly in the eye with a clear conscience?

Comments are closed.