Member log in

Sanity prevails on climate change policy

OPENING SALVO: Choosing Tim Groser and Simon Bridges as his new climate change ministers creates hope that sanity will prevail over the emissions-trading-scheme (ETS) fanatics who have controlled policy for six years.

The new team combines National’s most worldly minister, given Mr Groser’s 30 years as a top trade negotiator, with perhaps its brightest, given Mr Bridges’ background at Oxford University and the London School of Economics.

They will need all their wits to outmanoeuvre zealous climate change officials displaying the worst traits of different departments – the environment ministry’s belief that the end is nigh, the Treasury’s religious faith in its general equilibrium model and the foreign ministry’s conviction New Zealand must provide global leadership, whether or not anyone follows.

Officials can be trusted to propose complex technical changes to the ETS, apparently reflecting ministers’ wishes but in practice having no effect.

Mr Key has made clear that, given Mr Groser’s travel commitments, Mr Bridges must be all over the detail and able to step up whenever required.

Modest believers
Make no mistake, both ministers believe climate change is real and that humans contribute to it. But both are more level-headed than their predecessors.

First, they know that claims of 22-metre sea rises are warmist nonsense, not supported even by the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which at the peak of climate change hysteria suggested maximum sea rises this century of just 59 centimetres. IPCC forecasts keep falling.

Second, both understand that the extent of climate change is entirely independent of anything New Zealand does. If human-induced climate change is real, the world’s future depends on China, India and the US. We will freeze, fry, drown or carry on just as we are regardless of our policies.

Most importantly, both ministers understand that their personal views on such matters are irrelevant – climate change policy is about the nexus of international diplomacy, domestic politics and, to a limited extent, export branding opportunities.

Policy must benefit us in these spheres, or at least reduce risks, and preferably deliver wider gains.

ETS now irrelevant
The ETS fails these tests entirely. As Mr Groser advised Mr Key before the fateful decision to confirm Labour’s ETS just before the UN’s Copenhagen fiasco, there was never any prospect of a Kyoto-type international carbon-trading agreement when current arrangements expire on January 1, 2013.

That, along with domestic politics, means Australia will never implement an ETS. Nor will China, the US, Japan or Korea.

The EU’s ETS may stumble on but it is much narrower than New Zealand’s. Over 70% of the EU economy is services, for which its ETS is largely irrelevant, 28% is manufacturing and 2% is agriculture. Less than half of the EU’s electricity sources are covered by its scheme and agriculture is completely excluded.

Prices reaching zero
Despite New Zealand’s ETS being a global anomaly, of which both new ministers were sceptical, both accept it has created too many property rights to be abandoned in the foreseeable future – which is why it was so reckless to launch it in the first place.

They are also unlikely to expand it but it now barely matters anyway. From around $20 in 2011, New Zealand carbon units, following international trends, have reached $7. With the Kyoto system set to expire, they will continue their march to zero, perhaps not quite making it depending on policy decisions in the EU.

Which businesses care if they are part of the ETS, if the carbon price is close to zero?

Consequently, neither minister sees the ETS as the priority.

More important is the Global Research Alliance that Mr Groser launched at Copenhagen against Nick Smith’s wishes but with Mr Key’s support. Over 30 countries are now involved in developing technologies to reduce agricultural emissions. Not only would that reduce global emissions 70 times more than the ETS ever could, it would also provide New Zealand with intellectual property for export.

A former conservation minister, Mr Groser may also look to low-value conversation scrub land that could be used to plant native trees, helping meet climate change goals as well as promoting biodiversity and tourism.

Businesspeople or environmentalists expecting immediate policy reversals will be disappointed or relieved. But both will find the new ministers respond to reasoned arguments. The days of relying on histrionic claims of environmental or economic catastrophe are over. 

Comments and questions
102

Calling the IPCC alarmist is where you slipped up. Alarmist is 22 meter predictions. The IPCC represents Consensus amongst essentially all scientists, and Denial is calling the IPCC alarmist or saying there is nothing to worry about.
Meanwhile the IPCC sea rise and temperature predictions are rising.

This stuff isn't hard to find out - several top climate change scientists are kiwis and live here.

LW

Wrong. Since it was established, the IPCC's sea level forecasts have fallen.

There are 2 main CO2 global temperature effects

Slight warming due to increased ground pressure ? -- CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas - only removes the effects of a lesser mass of H2O -- but heat capacity ?

CO2 has a cooling effect, as evidenced by -- To maximize cooling CO2 moves to Warmth

In the current state if the saturated greenhouse atmosphere -- partial cloud cove -- We do not know if CO2 will force Warming or Cooling

"The IPCC represents Consensus amongst essentially all scientists".
Absolute nonsense. The IPCC is a political organization and the conclusions of it reports are written behind closed doors by a handful of politicians, not scientists. In fact several scientist have sued the IPCC to have their names taken off alarmist conclusions they had no part in drafting and strongly disagree with. In fact thousands of scientists have signed various petitions stating their disagreement with the theory of man made global warming and its dire consequences. And all of this information is very easy to find. The good news is that as Hooton says, the whole load of bollocks is on its last legs and will soon be consigned to the history bin of silly ideas.

More humans, more warming. And vice versa.

We are heading into an Ice Age -- 60 200 1470 100,000 year cycles have peaked -- 1050 year cycle will peak at the end of the century -- will we recover from the coming little Ice Age, before plunging into the 100,000 year Ice Age ?

LW
James Bremner has got it absolutely right.
Since when did "consensus" have anything to do with science? If that weasel word ever gate crashes a discussion, it is no longer a scientific one ; but will often be political.
For some science read Prof Carter's excellent book "Counter Consensus"

Anyone (with an open mind) doubting that climate change policy is purely political posturing, and that such policy has nothing whatsoever to do with attempts to alter the climate, can follow this link:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/climate_coup.pdf

This article and some of the comments reflects this continuing agenda of denial which is not backed up by evidence. The science is now done. Those who are experts in this sector now reflect a consensus level (around 90%) similar to the consensus of evolution as the correct scientific biological theory. Only crackpots and religious fundamentalists disagree. I have no problem with the other issues raised in this article about what is the best response but don't wreck your credibility by questioning the science and cherry picking some unscientific claims and somehow claim they undermine the science of climate change.

What drivel, the science most certainly NOT "done".
Hootons post today is a worthy read and I take issue only on the point that I am not enamoured by Groser and the others and have very little faith in them undoing in any substantive way the fraud, deceit and profit for the eco green parasites that litter central and local government.

Complete tosh. Obviously you are not a scientist but a ideological politician - otherwise you would be interested in the facts and complexities instead of air-head "consensus" nonsense.

Alan and Anonymous
Not tosh and I am not a politician or anyone vaguely interested in an agenda other than one of science. Consensus has its place in science as all scientific theories have counter theories and science is the robust and informed specialised debate leading to a prevailing theory as to which stands up to the best and most rigorous analysis. Yes I am wrong saying in the sense all science on this area has been done as there is always science to do to refine and further our knowledge. But the fundamental principle that there is climate change and it is attributable to human activity is generally accepted by scientists who are specialists in the area. There is a growing fear that the same thinking and techniques that try to sneak in "intelligent design" as valid scientific theory against biological evolution is also at play here in climate science. Keep funding science in all areas! Only evidence matters.

"there is climate change and it is attributable to human activity is generally accepted by scientists who are specialists in the area"

You are certainly not a scientist. There has always been climate change. There are many causes, some human. CO2 is one of the human factors. The complexities of the system and feedbacks are such that accurate analysis or modelling is currently impossible. However, current trends of the data suggest that the rate of warming is neither alarming nor consistent with current climate models. Moreover, attempts to control CO2 emissions other than by efficiency gains are completely uneconomic and largely fraudulent.

That, I believe, is the current true consensus of informed and objective scientific and economic opinion.

Insofar as science can ever be "done", the IPCC is saying sea levels may rise by up to 59cm over the next century. I don't see how I can be accused, even by a warmist extremist, of being part of a "continuing agenda of denial which is not backed up by evidence" when I have based my article on the IPCC findings.

Actually, a significant number of NZ's (and the world's) most recognized and honest scientists, do not agree that human's are, in any significant way, contributing to global climate change... Check it out - start with a simple Google...
Like just about everything in life, the "Climate change industry" is business - big business! Marketing is the number one way in biz to create growth - so constantly filling the media (preferably through the social media and other forms of free media - like journalism) with propaganda and clever ways to prey on our basic human nature needs & fears - it's the game to swinging the masses - sadly we are all duped daily around all sorts of things...

Gus , you seem to be unaware that questioning is integral to science, especially in novel branches such as climate science. Why would anyone committed to the advancement of science want to stifle debate by calling into question the credibility of those who question the science?
Well, if they wanted to grant religious dogma status to their own particular view, they might well seek to close off the debate.

Where has the
ETS /TAX Moneys GONE ???
TAX-TAX - This is all NZ thinks off

Guy Royal
If the science is settled then I presume you would support stopping all funding
( most of which is Government funding around the world) of climate science research. It is done you say so there is no need for any more. There are certainly many other areas eg. health and education where the billions of dollars could be more wisely spent rather than on something that is completed in your view.

LW. I suggest you download a copy of Donna Laframboise's book ( "The Delinquent Teenager .." ) about the IPCC to get an alternative view of the organisation.

I think in the end it is irrelevant whether humans are contributing to climate change or not. The truth is many people believe they are, and if nothing else fashion and the fact that humans can it seems build anything they need eventually dictates that many are interested in things Green and sustainable. So whereas we really don;t need to do everything in NZ to reverse all pollution, there is every possibility that we can market such endeavours to a global society that are interested.

I agree the ETS was silly - just trying to set up a market system to control this is about as silly as trying to bring about social change with a tax system which needs to bring in revenue for the country. All that will happen is clever people with abuse it and it won't do what it is designed to do.

But looking forward to any new direction that may come out of these new guys.

An excellent article, Matthew. More common sense on the subject in one page than I have read in years of journalistic drivel from NZ's mass media.

"Less than half of the EU’s electricity sources are covered by its scheme and agriculture is completely excluded."

More importantly, all petrol, diesel, gas, and heating oil are also excluded. And the EU has no hidden windfall profits for hydro-power.

When National came to power, they were faced by Court proceedings by the forestry industry, which was understandably seeking compensation for the Labour Government's confiscation of all its carbon credits. The Government (not the forest owners) had obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The solution was an ETS which would raise $1.7 billion of credits for the foresters.

Well, that's all been done and the forest owners generally paid out. So why keep the ETS any longer?

Under the Act, the tax is due to double in January. Nick Smith said this would be spread over three years. It is imperative that Groser/Bridges cancel the doubling.

(I'm LW)

1: The new IPCC projections will show increasing temperature and sea height projections. Pick up the phone and call scientists working in the area at any NZ university. Try Professor Lionel Carter at Victoria University or Rob Murdoch at NIWA or Professor Gary Wilson at Otago. They don't bite.

2: Alternatively call Gareth Morgan - he does bite.

3: Calling the IPCC a non consensus organisation is code for "you are in denial". It's actually a pretty amazing institution and process, incredibly inclusive, very considered and absolutely consensus driven. It gathers and uses only peer-reviewed scientific data-driven evidence as inputs.

4: The forecasts of sea level rise all hinge on assumptions about the future of CO2e emissions. If we lower the emissions (Kyoto, 350.org etc) and we have more chance of lessening the impact. However by denying that sea levels will rise materially and at the same time trying to disembowel programs to reduce emissions it becomes obvious that the real driver is short term selfishness.

We all need to accept that sea levels will rise (consensus is at least a meter by the end of the century), that this will cause quite large changes in ecology, current locations, and potentially to sea ice melting rates. The consensus is in, and the real debate is what to do about it.

Thank you Lance. Much more effectively put than myself.

Except, Guy, the consensus he and you talk about isn't even supported by the IPCC.

We all need to accept that sea levels will rise (consensus is at least a meter by the end of the century)

Sea levels are rising modestly and fairly consistently though with a recent slow down:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png

The reasonable conclusion is that they will probably rise about 300mm in 100 years. Nothing to worry about at all.

Or maybe the Pacific plate will drop 300mm over the next 100 years.Alternatively one only has to see where the shipbuilding in the UK took place (inland) at the time of the Mary Rose to see a bit of a high tide is hardly cause for panic.

Lance - you say the IPCC reflects a consensus, and I read that consensus as expressed in the latest IPCC assessment published in 2007 as saying the maximum sea level rise is 59cm over the next century (see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2-1.html#table-3-1) which is less than the 88cm maximum the IPCC forecast in its previous assessment in 2001, which in turn was less than the maximum it forecast in the assessment before that in 1995, which had a maximum forecast sea level rise of 94 cm (see http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar).

But then you go to say that the consensus is "at least a meter (sic) by the end of the century", and that the next IPCC report (which is not due until 2014 and is therefore presumably not finished yet - unless you know something about UN processes that I don't) will "show increasing temperature and sea height projections."

THE FACTS ARE that the for the last 20 years at least, the UN IPCC has NEVER forecast even a MAXIMUM sea rise of more than a metre. Its models, at least those published, suggest a sea level rise of between 20 and 45 cm OVER A CENTURY.

So, given, its home page tends to talk about "extreme events" and "disasters" when its own reports talk about school-ruler levels of sea rise (would we notice this on any beach in New Zealand?) I think it is fair comment to call them "alarmist."

As for you, I am mystified why you want to allege a consensus of "at least a metre" when so such consensus exists outside the Greenpeace and Green Party PR departments.

I cry foul Lance Wiggs. That is hardly fair. Here were we empiricists observing accelerating CO2 emissions, NO acceleration in sea -level rise, and NO acceleration in rise of global av. temperature (in fact no rise for 15 years), and NOW you reveal that , far from being a mere High Priest of the CAGW cult, you are in fact a prophet, no less. Nay more, a prophet of prophets, able to prophesy what the IPCC itself will in due course prophesy.
Mea culpa , mea culpa , mea maxima culpa , for daring to question the veracity of your prophesy.

Good article, Matthew.
It's about time that people started recognising, and saying out loud, that the "Climate Change Emperor has no clothes".

Indeed David. I hope that Matthew will not mind a little cut and paste to bring some readers up to date:

"The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about."

Financial Post

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

""Climate Change Emperor has no clothes"

Vampire l Gore travels with an entire fridgeful of blood"

"But what is less well known is that the British royals also had a taste for human flesh"

In the current Saturated Greenhouse effect of the atmosphere,
no one knows if a little extra CO2 will Cool or Warm
To be noted, atmosphere Moves CO2 to Warmth, to maximize Cooling

Lance
Since you have raised the sea level rises as an example --at least get the figures right. In 2007 the IPCC said sea levels would rise by 26-59cm by the end of the century. What the Argo bouy sytem has measured since 2004 is o.33mm/yr or 3.3cm/100yrs. ( As Alan W stated )
BTW I don't disagree with the fact that the climate is changing ( it always has and always will ) . Equally I accept the climate has warmed slightly since the early/mid 1800's when we had a mini " ice age". What I strongly disagree with is the AGW theory.

Ross

Some history:

By the late 1980s people were already talking about global warming. At that point in history, there were quite a few people who remembered various articles that even included cover stories in "Time" and "Newsweek" magazine. One of the most prominent global warming advocates James Hansen warned in 1971 that if the world did not cut emissions within the next 50 years, we would have another ice age. Obviously there was a lot of skepticism about global warming a few years after some of the same people warned of global cooling.

Going into the early 1990s, it was clear that the earth was warming. Just about everyone who was technically inclined and paid attention in high school science classes had heard something about the Greenhouse effect. Therefore belief in global warming was growing.

By the mid-1990s, most scientifically inclined people were starting to become believers in global warming as temperature trend data became stronger and the information about it was disseminated.

By the late 1990s, some science based skeptics began to emerge opposing the growing global warming concensus. Those were the people who were looking at the IPCC report and had noticed that the global warming projections and dire warnings of sea level rises depended on there being large amounts of positive feedback. These scientists believed that yes, the world was warming and yes, CO2 caused some of the warming. But they were not sure how much of the warming was caused by CO2 and how much was due to other factors. The science based skeptical views were slow to get out into general publication and early on there were not very many skeptics.

After the year 2000, global warming was on a roll. This is partly due to it becoming apparent to most people that the earth had warmed over the last 50 years. Add in the greenhouse theory and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory seemed to be a slam dunk. Most people had not realized that there was anything controversial about the theory. Most people were unaware that direct warming from CO2 ( the greenhouse effect) was a small part of the future warming predicted by the IPCC. The Greenhouse effect due to CO2 would add about 1 degree C to the world temperature if CO2 doubled. Yet the IPCC was talking about a mid-range estimate of 4.5 degrees C to 6.0 degrees C. In the last 100 years, the average world temperature increased by maybe about 0.7 degree C. Most people had assumed that the majority of the future warming that the IPCC was projecting came from direct greenhouse effects and was well supported by science.

By 2005, much of the skepticism about global warming was gone from the mainstream press.

The AGW movement continued to grow after 2005 but the AGW skeptics were starting to organize and get the word out that there were problems with the AGW alarmist predictions. The skeptics were pointing out that there was a lot of uncertainty within the the IPCC models! Those models required significant positive feedback to have the type of warming and climatic effect that the UN IPCC is claiming will happen. Additionally, most of the models were not based on any peer reviewed science. In fact, the algorithms and code for most of the models was not even published so no scientists outside of the group of modelers could even seen why the model worked the way it did.

More and more mainstream scientists began to pay some attention to the skeptics. This worried the more leftist politically biased AGW scientists who were the type who opposed industrialization for many reasons not just CO2 emissions. These became the most strident global warming "alarmists" or AGW alarmists who linked every storm, every hurricane or blizzard, every drought or flood to global warming. They also predicted more and more dire outcomes of global warming.

Prior to the skeptic movement starting to organize, there was very little effective opposition to the AGW steam roller. But as AGW skeptics started getting better organized, the AGW alarmists worked together to prevent skeptics from being heard or from publishing. This included getting people on the editorial boards of science magazines and journals to block AGW skeptics from getting published. They also were active in getting a like minded group of "peer reviewers" to review every article. Essentially, they reviewed each others articles and blocked publication of anything that didn't agree with them. They also decided to work in ways to diminish the scientific accomplishments of skeptics and to never debate them in public. Part of the reason for this is that there are tens of billions of dollars in UN money at stake. The UN and various nations are spending billions of dollars on AGW research. Another reason is many of the scientists involved have staked their reputation on AGW alarmist views. They can hardly back down.

But the problem for the AGW alarmist movement was that the IPCC predicted sea level rises and temperature increase were not happening or happening as fast as predicted. This is probably why people like James Hansen of NOAA (part of NASA) and the CRU got heavily involved in manipulating temperature data. The temperature data was not showing the predicted warming. Therefore, they needed to adjust the temperatures to show more warming than there was to try to get the data to match the global warming predictions. They do this by making "adjustments" to "fix" problems in the data even going as far back as 1880 in some cases and 1850 in others. Earlier temperature measurements are being adjusted down and later temperatures adjusted up so that they can show a greater slope or increase in temperature.

But science and technology has continued to progress and more reliable temperature measurements are available from satellites for a long enough period to be significant. Satellite data is not as easy to manipulate. Temperature trends as measured by satellites continued to level off and continue to gradually diverge more and more from the manipulated temperatures measurements from ground stations. Another problem for the AGW alarmists was that satellites measurements of ocean levels are now both reliable and available. Prior to satellite data, there were always people claiming that the ocean sea level was increasing at an accelerated rate. Measuring ocean level changes is actually quite difficult given that some land areas are subsiding and others are moving upwards. But the satellite data provides a more accurate world view of sea level data and is therefore much more accurate.

Currently, since 2010, the skeptic movement is growing faster than the AGW Alarmist movement mainly due to the scientific evidence disputing that there is a large amount of positive feedback. Most scientific evidence contrary to what AGW alarmists say does not support there being positive feedback. Without such feedback, there won't be any warming climatic problems and instead, any warming from CO2 will be entirely beneficial. Additionally, there is the simple fact that sea level increases and temperature increases are not keeping up with the IPCC predictions creates skepticism.

Currently in 2012, we are right about at the point where a few early AGW skeptics began predicting in the late 1990s that the world temperature would level off around now and over the next few years, the world would begin to cool slightly.

That puts us at an interesting point in history. The IPCC has predicted that the average world temperature will continue to go up due to increased CO2. On the other hand, many skeptics have indicated that they believe the average world temperature will level off and some believe will even begin to decline over the next 30 years. Only one of these two predictions can be true. The current temperature is already well below that predicted by the IPCC but is still within the potential "error" of the model but soon if the current trend continues, the world temperature will fall below the temperature predicted by the IPCC. Without the CRU and NOAA manipulation of temperature data, we already would be below the error bars.

If the world's temperature levels off and especially if it declines as predicted years ago by some skeptics, I think AGW alarmism will be dead or dying. If on the other hand, temperatures start rapidly to increase again (it will take a large rebound in temperature to get back within the IPCC's predicted temperature increase) then the Skeptical movement will be in trouble.

Well that was a particularly good read but far too long for most who scan these blogs.

For those who want to see why the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory fails, check out the article below.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-9-the-heart-of-the-matter-and-the-coloring-in-trick/

For those who are interested in further reading try here:

http://joannenova.com.au/tag/hot-spot/

It's a con job for sure & you & I are paying for it. There's a name for this and it's called extortion - for our government to be a party to it is something akin to treasonous.

"earth had warmed over the last 50 years"

US temperature records indicate the 1930 decade was warmest -- 1990 decade was second warmest

60 200 1470 100,000 year cycles have peaked -- 1050 cycle will peak at the end of the century -- will we recover from the 30 year mini ice age, or will the 200 year cycle dominate into Big Ice Age Decline ??

A much smaller post

“A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind”

-John Maynard Keynes

Why quote a fascist elitist ?

In response to Guy Royal

There are facts and there is consensus. Galileo is testament to this. Spent the last few years of his life under house arrest due to the consensus of scientists and religious leaders for his theories on heliocentricism. If you want to believe just because most others believe we may as well pull the plug on civilization now. Stop worrying and enjoy life (there will be another potential disaster just around the corner if you miss this one!)

Well I hope you denialist get the chance to explain to your children why you were so, so wrong. You are mere pawns of the fossil energy promoters, minions of the Koch brothers, witless slaves to the oil and coal barons. Give it 10 years and your recantations will be a wonder to behold, but it will be too late by then and all you'll have to face is the accusatort stares of your children and your grandchildrem - and you'll deserve it.

and if the contrary is shown to be true, will you in your dotage have the good grace to admit to all around you that you got sucked big time. Somehow I think you will just forget and find some other cause to idle the mind.

It wont be, the planet will fry.

Without basic understanding,
You keep asserting something.

To set your panic at ease
Think of the Eocene
35% O2 12K warmer
Warm, but not Pizza owen

"explain to your children why you were so, so wrong."

Typical sociopath reasoning -- holding up children for emotional ransom - reminds me of the nurse delingpole video -- also Mann brought his daughter into the CNN article

The only sociopaths are the denialists who are selling the planet down the river off the back of the propaganda from the Heartland institute and its sponsors in the fossil fuel industries. What does it feel like to be the dupes of the descendents of the robber barons? You wont even get your 30 pieces of silver by way of reward, just the hatred of future generations.

"sociopaths are the denialists" ??

Realists see the Malthusian CO2 fraud
Asserting a falsehood, without knowing -- CO2 warms or Cools ??

These kinds of emotional/conspiracy type references to industries that the world currently relies upon for much of its wealth and the products that underpin our current standard of living show that you are not serious, and that your opinions on this subject should just be ignored.

Right on the button!!!

You cannot push on the rope law negates tipping point warming -- atmosphere self adjust to greenhouse factor =1/3 -- whatever the forcing, atmosphere will do acrobatics, before it is forced to warm -- Interesting is second law violation interpretation, resulting in endless motion

Pass the parcel to the Greens

CO2 haters realize not, that the atmosphere minimizes internal energy -- Similar to a stream flowing downhill -- Extra variable is used to Cool

Start thinking from here
"Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth
"

Energy industries - including renewable - are providing huge benefits to all of us each day.... they also provide hundreds of millions of jobs, which in turn provide for those folks families daily needs and they also provide a very large % of the trillions needed in tax to fund the social welfare, governance, education, health, research, etc that we have grown to expect from our governments around the globe. These industries are in the market to provide a profitable and sustainable service for their customers and shareholders - we need to understand that the strategists right at the very foundations of "Climate change" lobby have pulled off one of the greatest marketing successes in history. The trillions that have been diverted to their sector within of the energy industry in such a short time is nothing less than incredible! Very cleverly they have managed to get huge numbers of voters and therefore governments behind their new business intiatives - to their credit they have some great products and yes it would be great to be less dependent on middle east oil - but be very clear, it's all about marketing and getting customers and market share - they have used "science" to avalanche their social support and therefore advancements and profits - no issue that it all creates industry, jobs, tax and therefore funding for a better society - but please don't be duped, it's all about biz and marketing - climate change has been with us from the beginning - from the ice age to the great floods that captured the living organisms thereby creating the very oil, gas, coal, etc that we're continuing to harvest...

Based on fraud or honest misunderstanding, the alarmists deceive -- There is no truth, supporting their will to genocidal austerity

I resent the the use of logical fallacies, holding up future generations for emotional ransom.

There's a lot of strong "beliefs" and name calling on this board. This isn't helping the debate one iota.

First everyone should chill out and read a few, representative science articles on point, before starting to comment. And reading one book with an agenda, does not give you a representative sample, no.

What is decisive for me is that there is a chance that climate change is happening and this could mess up the future for all of us, and our descendants. A chance.

My understanding of the science is that this chance is likely.

In any case, we (as a planet) should be buying the insurance of moving away from carbon-based energy in case this chance is happening - as if it is, the downside is huge.

There is a much greater chance you will die before any climate change catastrophe eventuates. So perhaps you should concentrate on doing something useful before that happens.

If you are going to waste your life worrying about catastrophes that have an absolutely minimal chance of happening some time in the distant future, that is your choice. Don't expect us to respect it.

If we could only have Alan's comment displayed or recited when ever Climate Change is discussed because it unwittingly encapsulates the stunning, selfishness and shortsightedness of a certain rabble.
It also goes to show that if you just keep submitting enough posts you'll eventually hit on the truth.
Alan, thank you for posting it - it's a gem.

"In any case, we (as a planet) should be buying the insurance of moving away from carbon-based energy" ??

Both basic science and historical records indicate no need for panic to action.

Of concern is the looming Ice Age -- We are an Ice Age Planet

Jesus supports authority

Question not our IPCC father residing in the UN -- reward will be in heaven

Turn the other cheek, when the New World Order steals Opportunity

Give to Cesar Goracle what is $atan's

Well said!

Pavlovian education conditioning, reflex reaction to IPCC auhority submission

It is very simple -- pushing on the CO2 rope has little effect -- Indian Rope Trick needs IPCC magic

Blah Blah Blah
The real question is;
How could the thousands of scientist we train, who are useless for private employment, ever put a chop on their table if it were not for the "global warning" fashion.?

I think we should be told!!
John Morrison

Abel Danger is exposing the conspiracies and collusions

"McConnell Links Cameron Carbon Disclosure To Boeing Incendiary Bombs"

In your view Mathew, the new Ministers, (despite both claiming that they believe in the reality of climate change), will have to pit themselves against "fanatics" and "zealous climate change officials" in the following government departments.

1) "...the environment ministry’s belief that the end is nigh"

2) "....the Treasury' religious faith in its general equilibrium model"

3) "....the foreign ministry belief that New Zealand must provide global leadership.

I would dispute all the above claims of where these three government departments stand on climate change. I have seen no evidence of any such policy direction from these three bodies.

Due to the lack of any supporting evidence from you, (or from anywhere else), for where these government department's stand on climate change, it is of my opinion that your claims are an expression of a paranoid fear, based on a very real dread, that if sanity did indeed prevail, this is exactly where these departments should be.

Even if the claims made by you for these three government departments were true, your demand is that the new Ministers of Climate Change job is to overturn them.

To this end you have set out in writing the three most common denialist arguments that the new Ministers of Climate Change should use to advocate for doing nothing, or if anything is being done, to stop it.

They are;

First - "alarmist warmist" exaggeration of the effects climate change.

Second - "the extent of climate change is entirely independent of anything New Zealand does. If human-induced climate change is real, the world’s future depends on China, India and the US. We will freeze, fry, drown or carry on just as we are regardless of our policies."

Thirdly - "both ministers (should) understand that their personal views on such matters are irrelevant"

According to you the new Ministers for Climate Change, "will need all their wits to outmanoeuvre zealous climate change officials displaying the worst traits of different departments"

As the current government embodies to a large extent the political voice of business in parliament, then I suspect that you will get your way.
In this case in my opinion the government should go one further, and rename these Minister's new port folio as The 'Ministry for Continuing Climate Change', whose duties are to be tasked with reversing measures enacted to counter climate change, and also to be tasked with ignoring expert governmental department advice on the dangers of continuing with climate change.

"tasked with ignoring expert governmental department advice on the dangers of continuing with climate change"

Surely the most daft comment ever. Do you really believe NZ is capable of doing anything other than coping with whatever climate change happens? And if so, where do you keep your magic wand? Under the bed with your other delusions?

New Zealand's global warming footprint is indeed, relatively small.
As Mathew refers to in his article. However he also alludes to our greatest contribution for solving this global problem, with his imagined, "foreign ministry’s conviction New Zealand must provide global leadership". If the Foreign Ministry did believe this along with all other government ministries then this would indeed could be a magic wand to spur the rest of the world to act.

Some one has to be first. If not us, who?

It won't make the slightest difference. As I said above, there is nothing that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently to make the slightest difference that is currently economically feasible.

We are first. We are the only country in the world to have legislated for an all-gases, all-sectors emissions trading scheme. No one else has followed.

"t is of my opinion that your claims are an expression of a paranoid fear,"

It is based on financial Fraud -- Compartmentalized disinformers are employed to lie

False Flags are linked to Carbon lies -- search "The Abel Danger White House Group announced today it has linked ... to investments by fund managers for the Carbon Disclosure Project"

And so the argument rages on!
At least with Chief Wizard Smith gone some common sense should enter this debate.
Willie Getobwithit

Climate of False Flags
The climate fraud is is orchestrated by the Evil Malthusian Oligarchs.

Watch to understand
"Aaron Russo: Rockefeller knew about 9/11 well in advance - YouTube"

Congratulations to Alan Wilkinson who at least supplies a name.
There are far too many responders who use the cover of "Anonymous"
Peter Martin

I made the mistake of using my real name once when discussing how the science disproves AGW and they plastered it all over the net in the most slanderous way. When dealing with a pack of lying leftie greens, never give your real name - don't say you weren't warned. Their science

Surely NBR can organise comments to have distinguishable pseudonyms rather than all be from "Anonymous"?

If makes these threads completely farcical.

Not Brave are those
Why identify themselves

Invisible Crown Agents orchestrate Climate frauds -- nullify those who oppose.

"New Zealand's global warming footprint is indeed, relatively small" ??

Wow do you know that CO2 Warms ?
I say Cools !
CO2 correlates with Warmth, indicating that the atmosphere moves CO2 to Maximize Cooling !

I have long held that the earth is a closed system and will look after itself. We are inconsequential to the balancing of the earths systems. So like every other element of the earths inhabitants we are just here for the ride.
Seriously, the Earth is a self-balancing eco-system. It takes various adjustments in it's stride. Tectonic plates, massive volcanos, ice ages, asteroid collisions, and very hot and humid carboniferous forests, all come and go within the Earths efforts to remain in equilibrium. If there is AGW then the Earth will cope with or without me.
If we do have AGW, don't you think that the Earths balancing systems will deal with it in it's own way. The last time we had AGW in the Eocene period we had massive carbon forests, that spawned extra precipitation that washed the CO2 from the atmosphere, flooding the land and locking the carbonfrom air and vegetation into the carbon seams we are harvesting today. The Earth is self-balancing and nothing is wasted. We humans are of no consequence, we do not matter, get over it.

"Eocene period we had
massive carbon forests"

Ice Age desertification limits life

Eocene warming came from CO2 converted to 35% O2 -- increased atmosphere mass (ground pressure, heat capacity)

We could warm Earth, by releasing CO2 from chalk deposits

Entertaining topic diversion

Second Law is not a Law, but a Flat Earth Theory

Exploiting lapse differences allows not only perpetual motion, but also power generation

"Evolution of a Modified Feynman Ratchet "

How did we get into this mess, with policies which do nothing to alter climate even were that possible?
A short read about the worst aspects of so called climate "science":

April 7 2012:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climategate_heads_to_court.html

Depopulation is the 21 Agenda

If population reduction by Carbon Capping fails -- WW III Nuclear Ice Age will have to be employed

i note that arctic ice levels at at record levels and the polar bears are thriving. The world has not warmed in the last 15 years and sea levels have risen about 3mm per year, if at all. Ocean acididty is within normal fluctuations and the biosphere is blooming because of increasing atmospheric CO2. At this point then, I have no idea of what I am supposed to be terrified of. "Enviromentalists" demanding one world socialist government is of some concern but today I see that Florida has repealed it's ETS scheme due to disbelief in the communist scaremongering. Canada ain't playing ball no more and I doubt Kiwis are going to accept being ring-fenced into urban ghettos so if you are a global warmist rentseeker, I suggest you make urgent plans for alternative income.

LOL - so perfectly stated! That's the sadest thing here - those who refuse to understand that they've been totally sucked into one of the globe's most successful marketing campaign ever! The truth is that actually it's the Climate Change converts who have their head in the sand and are totallly unwilling to even consider any alternatives... Not than any of us disagree that renewable energy is awesome - it's just that we shouldn't all be forced into subsidizing these new businesses on the back of poor science, orchestrated hysteria and government policy that are motivated by trying to appease those huge numbers of voters who've been pulled into these super-impressive global marketing strategies.

"And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence.

A simple question......we have all, buggered and bewildered as we are by the EU mess, and more importantly by the devastation of Christchurch and the multi-billion dollar ruination of of the North Island's housing stock by the greedy and sloppy house construction 'industry' (with all its ill-health hooks and barbs) recently given over a few HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.....in this time of severe woe (to put it mildly).....to a wonderful community organisation, dedicated, as it is, to education.
The said organisation doesn't bother its mortar-board head about any of this discussion. It just takes our hard-earned cash. Possibly, gratefully.
Will it be doing anything to save our world from the horrors of surging sea-levels, the decimation of your favourite polar cap by doing anything? Like clearing indigenous vegetation, so as to plant exotic pine trees? Actually, we won't know, 'cos how do you measure that kind of stuff?
No, the Harvard Pension fund will probably extend the JFK School, or something to benefit the billionaire sons, to make their studies a little more interesting. (Horrible thought: the Gore progeny might be tripping through those halls on our loot.)
So, if this whole nonsense goes forward....and thank the Lord it would appear to finally dying its own frozen death.... do you thank the grateful Harvardians will ensure that all our ETS loot will get us the 'carbon credit' we deserve.....or will those sneaky buggers.....just keep them for Boston and the good'ole US of A.....SINCE THEY OWN THE RUDDY TREES .
Just a thought to make you realise what a stoopid, meaningless (but sadly, expensive) gesture this whole ETS lark is.
PS And they will get the same again next year unless someone pulls the plug.

The fraud runs deep --regulators harass to bankrupt -- and opportunities are given to members of secret societies

Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral, Skull and Bones, Bullington, UN . .. ...

The climate models are useless, clever frauds based on incorrect physics.

(1) They assume IR emission from the earth's surface is at the Stefan-Boltzmann level of a black body in a vacuum. This is achieved by claiming incorrectly that Prevost Exchange Energy can do thermodynamic work. The upshot is that they exaggerate heating by a factor of 2.6.

(2) In 1981, Hansen assumed all '33 K' is present GHG warming when it's easy to show ~24 K is lapse rate warming.

Taken together, this is why the IPCC exaggerates possible CO2-AGW by a an order of magnitude. it's rally near net zero.

Here's an interesting analysis of the latest AGW scaremongering which purports to show historically CO2 driving temperature - but which actually omits to show that for the past 7500 years the temperature has been falling while CO2 has been rising. (Fig 2)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

I apologise for contributing to feeding the trolls.

I am also saddened and a little shocked at the climate change denial in this forum. The debate on whether it is happening or serious is long over. The debate should be on how best to reduce CO2 emissions.

We have a long way to go.

CO2 provides extra variables, which the atmosphere will try to use, to Maximize Cooling, minimize internal energy -- before it is forced to warm -- saturated greenhouse effect, indicated by partial cloud cover, near infinite supply of H2O -- there could be a slight CO2 cooling

oh - and the pseudo science by the deniers is amusingly silly, but deeply embarrassing for them and for our education system.

Having your own opinion on how the climate system works is ok - if you are actually have your own climate change model, are well informed on the state of play across the multiple dimensions of the model and are respected by your peers for your work.

Humorous you are !
No peers are required to note that water flows downhill -- minimizing internal energy -- additionally, saturation concept -- stand in the shower and note the condensation

Science advances via data, not models. Your claim that only modellers can have an opinion is simply silly and embarrassing to anyone with a scientific education.

Lance the science is far from conclusive that humans are having any major effect on climate change - there are thousands of highly recognized and well respected scientists who are strongly if this opinion - Google it. The climate has been constantly changing over the thousands of years we've been around - these huge changes (ice-age included) occured completely independently of anything humans were or weren't doing. Renewable energy is great - no issue - but it's the put down of all so called "nonbelievers" for the advancement of the renewables industry that many of us oppose.

Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it. I put a link to my site to here so other people can read it. pmp certification charlotte

Neither theory nor observation supports warming climate prediction -- The warmós arrogantly assert the Expertology Fallacy.

When the amount of comments on this article reaches 100 we can draw the percentage of consensus on who agrees with AGW & who doesn't. So far I'd say we're looking at around 97% of readers that think AGW is a load of trash. Using the alarmist tactics we can then apply that number to the entire world population and grandly state that 97% of the world's population think that AGW is unsubstantiated rubbish.

Don't you just love a consensus.

I'm siding with those hardnosed business-focused Germans at Munich Re
If it's good enough for them to say that climate change is real and bet their hard-earned $ and future on it, then it's good enough for me.
Paul

Paul: I'm betting those hardnosed business-focused Germans at Munich Re will repudiate climate change alarmism right about the time public opinion gives up on it and there are no more profit opportunities to be made from its political cult of followers.

"then it's good enough for me"77

Why abandon thinking,
declaring end to questioning ?

To be noted, Germany is under
EU banking cartel(criminals)

Carbon Capping derivatives
fraud drives the hype.

Alglo - American FinancialEmpire is broke
frauds ahve lost effectiveness - People
realize that assets have been stolen.

78 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project
motivates the global fraud -- search

"McConnell Links Cameron Carbon Disclosure
To Boeing Incendiary Bombs"

Matthew,
Good work on taking on this subject. About time some in the major media got after this load of nonsense. I am sick of reading Brian Fallows rubbish on AGW in the Herald. In NZ and around the world there are major public policies that are having a very negative impact on society, for example Auckland's urban metropolitan boundary which increases housing prices, that are based on nonsense such as the AGW and Peak Oil theories. We really need to shoot this shit down before it does the world even more harm.
These days it is almost a daily event that more evidence debunking the theory of AGW or the "settled science" lie comes up. In today's edition 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts go after NASA and the GISS for it role in “advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question” http://bit.ly/HqzJjI

Here is an absolute shocker from just a few days ago. A paper that allegedly supports AGW while the data the paper is based on actually debunks AGW, but the “scientists” manipulated some data out. http://bit.ly/HtHzYR I guess you have to keep the gravy train flowing somehow, even if it takes a bit of creative editing to generate the necessary “hockey sticks”. Remember this one the next time someone tells you “the science is settled, 90% of scientists support AGW, blah, blah, blah.

This climate change policy is about the nexus of international diplomacy, domestic politics and, to a limited extent, export branding opportunities which is good. pmp practice tests