Climate change.

[Pumbaa 9]

The other thing to bear in mind is that some people just like to argue, say 5% will accept whatever you say and 5% never will. Why? Who knows, there are some on this forum that are never wrong. It's the same for scientists, possibly more so. So 3,000 scientist worked on the ipcc paper at least, so 150 want to argue the opposing point of view to make a name for themselves. But if I had to choose between information provided to me from a scientist doing independent research and some one sponsored by the carbon energy industry I would listen to the scientist. The Koch brothers in the states have spent millions and millions of dollars selling the sceptics point of view using the same marketing think tank the tobacco industry used. They also started the blo*dy Tea party. I always have a little disbelief when the global warming argument is called a conspiracy by the deniers. Corporations of course are a pure art form of honest human expression.

[Guest]

Knotme,thats a very jaundiced view of poor Norman, you ought to at least give him some rope before you hang him.

He doesn't need more rope. Every second thing the guys says is an outright lie. He either knows that which means he's more than happy to pull the wool over peoples eyes to get what he wants or he doesn't know he's lieing in which case he doesn't have the knowledge or mental capability required to run a country. Personally I'm sure he's lieing knowing full well he'll never have to front up as his supporters are all still too stone to realise and he'll never be PM in his own right, even though he will be by using Shearer as his puppet. So anything he says which pans out bad will only be blamed on Shearer or Key. But what he does know is Labour can't do nothing unless Russell OK's it 1st, he has his hand so far up Shearers bum he's hanging onto his tonsils.

 

Anyway when the Govt gets voted out, NZ never votes in Govts, Russell will be the king maker and he will want his pound of flesh which will include subsidising the NZ power grid via that PowerNZ he tricked Shearer into saying out loud but he will also SLAM business with massive ETS taxes to cover the subsidies and the many billions of dollars of spending he's promised but has no money for.

 

Russell Norman is the biggest threat NZ faces in the short term and on so many levels it's beyond scary, and that included environmentally.

 

So I have no idea why you'd say that Steve

 

Nope, I'd use 100% petroleum based rope and then wrap him in un-recycled plastic bags

 

 

 

KM

 

I have sent a e-mail to Russell with a hyperlink to this page.

[Guest]

KM

 

I have sent a e-mail to Russell with a hyperlink to this page.

Excellent. I look forward to him jumping in. I hope he'll answer a few question on this and other subjects.

[Guest]

Retired from the ranks of the Political Scientists - the kings/queens of verbosity.

Interestingly, about the only source of popular news source in the U.S. that treats climate change (due to human activity) as established science is the Weather Channel. They have no patience at all for the deniers.

Many of the professional skeptics have sketchy credentials, and pecuniary motives.

 

 

 

Best Radar is your own eyes.

 

Lastest Satellite north Pole

 

Photo Not much ice visible. Where has it all gone and summer has only just started now with fast rising temperatures.

 

 

http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Satel ... on=hinpole

[wheels 543]

Darn! Come on Crayfish. I have been expectantly waiting for you to introduce Dr Norman to us.

 

Can anyone tell me if there is an avatar of "throwing a rotten tomatoe" available? No real reason, Just curious

[Guest]

Send him a e-mail and invite him on. Probably placed it in the hands of legal begals.

[Guest]

Km .

 

Read this and see what has happened in England when there is complete freedom with the dollar and no green opposition.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/u-turn-wind-turbines-planning-beauty-silent

 

Do you want this to happen here. National is well on the way and opening all doors for it to happen.

[Guest]

Km .

 

Read this and see what has happened in England when there is complete freedom with the dollar and no green opposition.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/u-turn-wind-turbines-planning-beauty-silent

 

Do you want this to happen here. National is well on the way and opening all doors for it to happen.

 

See http://crew.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=22237

[Guest]

Km .

 

Read this and see what has happened in England when there is complete freedom with the dollar and no green opposition.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/u-turn-wind-turbines-planning-beauty-silent

 

Do you want this to happen here. National is well on the way and opening all doors for it to happen.

 

See http://crew.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=22237

 

 

Whats your comment / point. The title is Climate Change not bagging politicians.

 

Crayfish

[Guest]

Sorry I just saw -

green opposition

freedom of the dollar

National

combined with your previous post

And saw 'Politics'.

 

So you don't like or do like Wind generation?

It's hard to work out just what your aiming at.

[wheels 543]

Send him a e-mail and invite him on.

But I thought you were doing that. Awwwwe, so looking forward to it too.

 

Probably placed it in the hands of legal begals.

Ya really thin k so???. Don't think he would really give a flying hoot. He's a politician. All Politicians get fitted with asbestos insult insulation. It gets done under the same operation as their Frontal labotomy.

[Guest]

Finally found some numbers that do seem to stand up to an initial check. They are well referenced, all from US Govt Depts, so I'm thinking it is highly probably they are correct or as close as. This is just what the US Govt has pumped in, no others.

 

Over 7 billion US$ a year now. That's more than NZ in it's entirety spends on Education or twice what we spend on roads, comms and police combined.

 

 

The attached blurb

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

 

- The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

- Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

- Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.

- Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

- The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

 

The references

References:

 

Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp ... 2009-8.pdf

Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... s/spec.pdf

1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.

OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislati ... change.pdf

Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf

 

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Donald Rokkan and to Brad Jensen for editing help and suggestions. Any errors left are all mine, but you both helped improve this report.

 

Where I found it - http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

[idlerboat 116]

http://skepticalscience.com/

......I match your internet site, designed to debunk your debunking...

[Guest]

Twasn't a debunking Idler...... nor a conformation either.

 

Just some numbers at what is being spent by just one country. That's 22 Million US dollars PER DAY they are spending. Certainly knot a number that would make any do 'interesting stuff'...... or is it?

 

Skepticalscience isn't a good call Idler. It's very recently been busted being a little too creative with numbers. For the Pro team it's becoming a liability.

[idlerboat 116]

...perhaps the website is a liability (by your account). I dont know. All I did was a 30 second google search, it is called google sword fighting !

Given your reluctance to except the infomation provided by the other side on the internet, what makes the varacity of sites you quote , any more real ? Except for your own belife structure...

How many scientists involved with climate change have you talked to face to face ? Have you asked the questions you pose here directly to them ?

If not why not ?

Your assertions implie that a vast number of scientist are going to work each day to lie or fiddle numbers in order to continue grant money.

I simply cant buy that !

An alternative is that they are all so blinded and deluded as to not do .....science. That is attempt in all ways to disprove a theory.

I also dont buy that either.

Your quest for the truth is interesting in that even if you where right, and proven to be so, it would make bugger all differance to anything but a flow of money. It may also have major implications for the well being of impoverished nations. The slackeneing of polution controls, the relaxing of population numbers, and a whole lot more.

If you cant make the leap of faith in what I have just said above, then I find it difficult to understand how you can have a belife in a global scientist brotherhood of scam.

[rigger 47]

Why did they suddenly change it from Global warming to Climate Change?

 

Not taking a position but there has to be a better way to control pollution.

 

Carbon trading - Passing on all ETS costs to the consumer whilst business still coins the same or greater profits hence doing nothing to really reduce pollution and allowing the currency / carbon traders to profit from a smoke and mirrors game.

[idlerboat 116]

... I Understand the question, rigger.

The change in statement as far as I can understand was so most people could better understand the ramifications. Global warming is still a fact, but only one of the realities of climate change.

I think this has been stated much more clearly in recent times.

Weather you belive it is due to human activity or a natural cycle is up to you. Only the most hard bitten sceptics are suggesting that nothing is happenening.

Carbon trading is an interesting economic experiment.

Again, I understand what you are saying, but if you except that we need to do something, what would you propose ?

Who do you tax and why ?

Taxing big business, (they would argue) is the same thing, as they would say that it is taxing their shareholders..(and they would say that is "mum and dad investors and their super anuation).

A direct tax to the most poluting industries has been proven to be extremely difficult here in Australia.

A further point is that carbon taxes also are meant to change habbits....in much the same way, and I might add very sucsessfuly decrease the amount of water use here in Melbourne.

The simple but perhaps simplistic idea that if you use more you pay more.

Another example of this kind of fiscal stick is Londons congestion tax, to try and force cars out of its CBD.

There is always massive grey areas in this kind of govermental policy, but it is hardly new. Its precedence goes back to the middle ages.

The first question should be "does something need to be done" ?

If you dont belive so then there realy is no point is any kind of debate.

How it is done after that point is then well worth a serious and strong debate.

It is hard though, say and electrical company is a brown coal fired plant. They supply X people. The carbon tax causes ( all companies pass on costs to consumers to protect share prices)

This company to pass on "costs"...

By virtue those people pay a higher price only due to their local supply. They of course get pissed off.

The only other way is to enact a law saying they cant pass this on.......

In some cases it may make the company finacialy unviable.

Huge bun fight.

This last is the real bottom line. The true balance sheet of ANY company or business.

Again a difficult business. The third bottom line should apply to most things, after all, using finite resources, or polluting dosnt just effect the business involved.

I aint offering solutions but do think that this is an important direction for discussion.

[rigger 47]

Thank IB.

 

Yes we - as in the human race - needs to clean up our act.

 

The carbon trading deal is a way for businesses to make money - call me cynical.

 

The solution.... ?????

A problem with any solution is that currently the solutions tend to be based on the false belief that all industries can be as 'clean' as each other. Some industries are considered big polluters, but the alternatives are worse.

An example is international shipping - but the options are worse. In shipping (like most businesses) cost drives everything, so by countries enforcing their pollution standards the shipping companies have to improve the equipment - ships. But it takes time when a ship is built for a 25-30year life for change to flow through. Making old equipment use less fuel can have unintended consequences - The recent trend of slow steaming to reduce fuel burn has had some unintended consequences - engine breakdowns / failures - is the resulting environmental damage from the groundings / collisions / sinking's, additional tug use worth it?

 

On the pollution prevention laws - since the US (State of Cali) enacted the reduction in sulphur content in fuel laws there has been a huge increase in ship main engine failures. The problem is that the existing machinery cannot just be put onto the 'cleaner' fuels there have to be (in many cases) work done to allow long term running on these fuels.

 

My solution is to reduce the amount of waste we generate, recycle everything we can, reduce power consumption, rehabilitate the damaged land on our property - generally avoid wasting resources.

 

One thing we could do with in NZ is a coordinated nationwide recycling plan - where we live only Plastics 1 & 2 can be sent off for recycling.

[Guest]

A further point is that carbon taxes also are meant to change habbits...

Why, should this be so man made and plainly evident to all and sundry should anyone need to impose taxes to get people to tidy their shite up? Or hasn't science proven itself well enough for the vast majority to believe they need get their shite together? Judging by the way a small few are trying to impose all these taxes on to a basically unwilling public I'd say does suggest the majority do knot or have knot been convince the science is correct.

 

There is no doubt the climate is changing, it has done continually for 14 billion years so far so why would it stop now or in another million years.

 

The question is only how much input are humans having on that change. Some say a lot due to all the CO2 but that argument does seem to be falling apart of late, even one of the very dudes who wrote one or more of the IPCC reports said that publicly recently.

 

Idler, just yesterday while following a trail to that costs bit I posted I found we have a hub of climate scientist like dudes who do play in all this on a international level, base themselves 3-4 km up the road from where I sit right now. I may pop in and see if they are up form a chat. I'm knot sure what side of the fence they are on, if any at all. Any questions you want asked if I get the chance?

 

No I don't think all scientists go to work to distort numbers each day, no mater what side of the fence they sit BUT some have been proven that they do and have fiddled for the coin. Also places like the Skepticalsciense website, which has been in a news a lot lately and even tweated by President Obama, has and does fiddle with numbers in a way it would make the boss of any marketing company proud. The very numbers tweated by Omama were bullshit and seriously misleading but now those are fact or being used as so, even by yourself unwittingly in this case though. Why if they are so correct and believe what they say are they doing that for?

 

Yes vested interests have given the antis a lot of coin also. Which makes what they say subject to a raise eyebrow. Interesting to see the Pros continually knock the antis using 'funded by big oil so dodgy', which I totally agree with by the way, yet the pros have way way more coin heading at them. Why would money corrupt one side but knot the other?

 

The antis are a bit like John Key, it's hard to pull them up on stuff they say as they say feck all and seem to be letting the Pros (Labreens in JK's case) shoot themselves in the foot. It's an interesting and probably smart tactic. Mind you they do have the advantage of knot trying to hook into people wallets so can keep a lower profile.

 

Quite frankly the deeper you suss the more bullshit ridden the whole shoot match seems to be. A huge amount seems to be being banged out there hoping the lazy masses will just suck it up and do what the powers that be want i.e. pay money to someone, which a LOT just do.

 

I do totally agree be this GCC man made or knot that is no reason knot to practice green. It just makes sense, whether your dog and cat farts too much or knot.

 

Oh well, now off to add more batteries to our solar storage. I scored a big pile of lithium-ions for bugger all

Crap it's persisting down, everyone start their car so the weather clears up please

[Guest]

A further point is that carbon taxes also are meant to change habbits...

Why, should this be so man made and plainly evident to all and sundry should anyone need to impose taxes to get people to tidy their shite up? Or hasn't science proven itself well enough for the vast majority to believe they need get their shite together? Judging by the way a small few are trying to impose all these taxes on to a basically unwilling public I'd say does suggest the majority do knot or have knot been convince the science is correct.

 

Or they are ignoring the science out of plain old fashioned greed.