Climate change: Rodney Hide ignores main findings of IPCC report

Kennedy Graham

Rodney Hide’s depiction of me and my colleagues (‘Zombie Greens chant false science mantra’) makes selective use of facts and conclusions.

I have, of course, read the IPCC report; in fact I convened a parliamentary briefing on it with leading NZ scientists. Green and Labour MPs attended but not one from National or ACT.

Mr Hide seeks to take me to task and cites the report’s findings on droughts and storms. But he selectively quotes. The report  states, for example, that “It is very likely that increases in Arctic, Northern European, North American and southern hemisphere winter precipitation by the end of the century (2081-2100) will result from more precipitation in extra-tropical cyclones associated with enhanced extremes of storm-related precipitation [Ch. 14, p.5]."

Little is achieved when politicians collide over science; best simply to acknowledge the primary findings in the report, which is available for anyone to read.  

They are:

1. “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010. There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea-level, and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century. (SPM, P10)

2. “Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest.  … in the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983 – 2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).” (p.3)

3. “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases would cause further warming. Emissions at or above current rates would induce changes in all components in the climate system, some of which would very likely be unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years… Many of these changes would persist for many centuries. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions of CO emissions.” (P12)

4. “It is virtually certain that, in most places, there will be more hot and fewer cold temperature extremes on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase. (P13)

5. “It is very likely that more than 20% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years after anthropogenic emissions have stopped... A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.” (P17)

The day the report was released (Sept 27), the UN Secretary-General said he was deeply concerned by its conclusions and that climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

In September 2009 the Secretary-General submitted a report on Climate Change: Its Security Implications to the General Assembly (UN doc A/64/350), including concern over the likelihood of storms (para 25).  In July 2011, he advised the Security Council that climate change is a threat to international peace and security.  The council expressed concern that the possible adverse effects of climate change could, in the long-run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security. (SC/10332, July 20, 2010)

The Alliance of Small Island States warned then that their very survival was threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change. Australia noted that sea-level rise could reach one metre by the end of the century, resulting in more severe storm surges, coastal inundation and loss of territory. 

New Zealand said that, for low-lying small island States, climate change posed the ultimate security risk – ceasing to exist as states. The Asia-Pacific region had faced a devastating series of natural disasters, and in the coming years such events would become even more frequent and severe. Those forecasts were "deeply worrying."

In September 2008, Mr Hide advised the NZ Parliament " that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phony and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.” [Scoop. Hide, Rodney (Sept 3, 2008) Emissions Trading Bill Speech. ACT Press Release: Speech to Parliament]

The Insurance Council of New Zealand recently estimated that the cost of storms in 2013 to date (primarily those of April, May, June and September) was $157 million. In response to the IPCC report, executive director Tim Grafton observed that “the real risk is that nothing is done, assuming insurance will be there to pick up all the pieces when weather disasters strike. The IPCC’s analysis is the most compelling to date of the risk posed by severe weather events. Improving community resilience to extreme weather events is the responsibility of government, local authorities, policymakers, businesses and the public alike especially if we are to ensure the on-going availability and affordability of insurance in the future."

I can humbly accept being likened to a zombie by Mr Hide – it comes with the terrain. The only thing that is important is that members of Parliament, past and present, do justice the findings of the scientific community, and work in the interests of our children’s generation.  

Kennedy Graham is a Green Party MP


53 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.


This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

53 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

"Extremely likely, high confidence and medium confidence" are only emotive platitudes and aren't capable of being measured by any plausible, peer-reviewed, scientific measure.

Why can't the IPCC's models claim "100% absolute certainty"?

Because their models are flawed and don't have enough reliable data - so no one can extrapolate an absolute result for the decades to come from flawed in put data. Rubbish in = rubbish out.

...and if the climate scientists were so "reliable" and certain, able to proclaim climate and weather decades into the future... Why can't they get next week's weather forecast 100% correct?

Could it be that there are just too many variables, feed backs and insufficient understanding of known data... Let alone unknown data, to be able to make any kind of reliable prediction?

It's like the predictions of "peak oil" from the 70's. Every year and decade since then man kind has discovered and used more and more petrochemical/oil ...and in 2013 the World has more known energy sources available than ever before.

Rodney is right. It's a fraud, used as emotional blackmail to steal more taxes from the masses to be redistributed by the socialist UN from the developed countries to the developing.

Mr. Graham's use of selective portions as "facts" to hold Mr. Hide to account for using selective facts is just laughable. Hope he has a more solid career path planned for after 2014?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If you bothered to read the IPCC summary you would see how terms like "extremely likely", "medium confidence" etc are defined in a scientific, statistically valid way.

Then again, your questions about why scientists don't claim 100% certainty, and why climate scientists can't predict weather show you don't understand what science is anyway.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Again the devil is in the details. Almost all climate information from the CO2 is evil religionists starts sometime around AD1860 a year just after the end of the mini ice age when temperatures where at a abnormal low. If they had based their start from AD1300 or AD1 or BC2000 they would be predicting an impending ice age as all three of these periods were up to 5 degrees warmer than now (as exemplified by large scale wine production in Britain, something that can't happen now as it is too cold). So something other than anthropomorphic CO2 production is behind climate change, and all CO2 taxes and policies are just a monumental wank.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

(a) climate trends are recorded and published by "co2 is evil religionists" a.k.a. Climate scientists for millions of years.

(b) There doesn't have to be one reason for climate changing as you suggest. Climate has changed in the pst, often, as a result of several different events, e.g. Sun closer, volcanic activity, earth wobble. What is happening now with anthropomorphic climate change is just another way climate changes.

A parallel is fire. Fire can be started by lightening, volcanic eruption and by matches. One result, multiple causes.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

And exactly what is the statistical data-based derivation of the 95% certainty claimed by the IPCC?

Show us that and it will amount to nothing more than statistical codswallop.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You are asking questions to which you don't know the answer, but before you find out, you call it codswallop. Not very smart or scientific, just biased and illogical.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Almost certainly unlike you I have a background in science, maths and statistics. Prove me wrong and I'll applaud the IPCC - but you can't because it IS statistical hogwash.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I don't beat my chest on the internet about my qualifications or perceived accomplishments unlike some others with s.p. syndrome, in order to make a valid observation. Unless you are a published climate scientist your opinion is of no more interest than the next man.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Did you write the above comment -

". What is happening now with anthropomorphic climate change is just another way climate changes." ?

If you did then your inadequacy in understanding the English language speaks volumes for your " authority" . You have no reason to beat your chest ; the sentence is nonsense. The climate bears no resemblence to humanity ; neither will it ever do so.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Being a blind Rodney Hide supporter who sits in the 3% of scientific thought that man is not warming the planet, resigns your opinions as biased and unscientific, really, doesn't it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Four of the above five "findings" of the IPCC are not scientific findings at all. They are merely speculative claims about the future. The fifth is a political obfuscation of the simple fact that global warming stopped a decade and a half ago.

Insurance claims have increased because there is more insured property at risk, not because of more severe weather events.

The Greens are intent on throwing vast amounts of other people's money at a non-existent problem. They must not be allowed to do so.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Alan, more fiction I see. Try reading climate science, you will be surprised to learn that climate change aka global warming hasn't stopped, that there are many indicators of climate change in addition to global average surface temperature, and all show the data results one would expect with human climate change. Examples include ice sheets, ocean warming, nights warming more than days, ocean acidification, ....

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

There are lots of data indicators that can be used to confirm human -induced climate change.is happening. And these indocators - for example ice sheet extent, ocean warming, Ocean acidification, no of warm nights v warm days, stratosphere v troposphere warming, sea level rise, polar v tropical warming - all are producing data consistent with what is expected if human-induced warming is occurring in the context of natural variability.

Your assertions, on the other hand, are based on fiction.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Hold tight to your teddy bear, Andrew. Lots of scary things in the dark. On the other hand, the climate models have blatantly failed; global temperature rise has stalled with no reasonable explanation on the basis of human causes; sea level rise remains very modest; Antarctic sea ice extent is at record levels; statistics show no increase in extreme weather events; the denied medieval warm period has been proven to exist, be global and be comparable to present temperatures; attempts to reduce carbon emissions have proven completely ineffectual or economic suicide or both; there is no doubt that adaptation to climate change is both essential and infinitely more practical than prevention with current technology; and the Stern Report was utter economic hogwash.

Apart from all that, what was your point?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

My point Alan is that you deal in fiction. Your last list of misrepresentation and cherry picking doesn't change that.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Your wrong, and its good to see the Green Party clearly refuting Mr Hide and his mindless followers like you. Mr Hide did indeed selectively report facts to suit his case from the IPCC report which is mischievous and unscientific. The column above clearly shows the inconvenient truth's Mr Hide omitted. To correct you, there is a new study out that explains the 'perceived' slowdown in warming, that was not produced in time to make it into the IPCC report. Furthermore 97% of scientists agree global warming is a real phenomena and at least some of which man most certainly is driving.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The Trenberth paper is self-evidently drivel. There is no explanation for why the deep ocean should suddenly have decided to hide the missing heat fifteen years ago. His claim that cooler oceans lose less heat fails the obvious refutation that according to the IPCC itself the last three decades have been successively hotter rather than cooler. Ludicrous nonsense.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The Trenberth findings seem far more credible than you. What are your qualifications to lambaste a respected and published scientist before the paper has been fully tested? Your approach seems rather ignorant.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Yes its complicated and not everything fully understood, yet. To discount these findings before proper scientific debate has taken place isn't smart; in fact to do so points to bias and some political objective.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I think you have hit the nail on the head Alan. Climate change will happen regardless of whether humans are involved or not. So rather than farting around stopping cows doing the same, aren't we better to adapt than fight something that can't be stopped?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

None of these indicators are connected with man-made global warming. All they tell us is that the climate is changing. And we all agree that it is.

What you carefully avoid mentioning is the fact that, in spite of the increase in carbon dioxide, the world is not warming. This proves that the climate models are worthless and that carbon dioxide and does not cause dangerous man-made global warming.

I strongly suggest that you read the scientific reports, not the political document produced for the summary for policy makers.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

For the avoidance of doubt Brian the world is warming. And continues to warm.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Mr Graham

It is very hard to take the IPCC report seriously when you look at how it is produced.

Putting aside the content for one moment. Here we have a report that the scientists spend an extraordinary amount of time writing. Then it is taken over by the politicians, bureaucrats, PR spin merchants and few activist scientists to Stockholm to be gone over it to write a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). Then , in this case, there are 10 pages of amendments to be taken back to the scientists main report for alterations so the main report fits the narrative of the SPM.

We also have the process spread out over 12 months. The Working Group II draft report has just been released to Governments and will be released to the public in March 2014 ( probably after many more politically inspired amendments , behind the scenes)

So this is a political spin report put out to fool the masses and especialy the MSM, who, because they are generally lazy take it" hook line and sinker".

So you'll have to excuse some of us who question such a report.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What a droll response to Mr Hides challenge.
After a careful read I am left totally underwhelmed.
I suggest those who follow the new age green religion need to stump up a few more logical and proven facts to counter those they believe are heretics rather than the tired old clichés re childrens generation and the overblown guilt, fear and shame tactics to cover up their participation in the biggest fraud in mankinds history.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

And when Nasa tells you an asteroid is going to hit earth you will deny it because your telescope isn't big enough. And incidentally, NASA are one of the 97% of scientific organisations saying man is warming the planet.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If Nasa tell you an asteriod is about to hit earth, I would suggest it has moved well beyond scientific and into physical fact.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

And if 97% of the worlds scientists say man is contributing to the warming of the earth... do you keep you head in the sand or listen?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Certainty terms used by the IPCC are defined in a "scientific way" as being the "expert judgment" of the hand-picked authors.

I'm not sure what Dr Graham is seeking to achieve by reproducing screeds of bureaucratese. These summaries have been word-smithed to death by hordes of spin merchants and leave almost all the important points unanswered,

Why can't the IPCC explain the absence of global warming in the 21st century?

The whole report is based on an ensemble of models (CMIP5) which are now known to be wildly (like 300%) inaccurate regarding the past 20 years. How can their future estimates be taken seriously?

The key figure in the entire debate is the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases. This AR5 report admits that the authors cannot agree on a best estimate of sensitivity, but acknowledge that it is lower than previously thought.

Can you address these interesting issues, Dr Graham?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Reproducing the report in this article was to correct the misleading effects of Mr Hides article last week by his selective reporting of facts. the Green's article is a far more honest and informative approach which has put some serious holes in Rodney's credibility as a self accredited 'climate scientist'.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Dr Graham proves my point.

1. My reporting of the IPCC conclusions that there has been discernible no increase in storms or droughts is correct. The IPCC report directly contradicts Dr Graham’s claim that this year’s drought and storms were because of increased greenhouse gas emissions.

2. His quote of of the IPCC forecasting increased rain after the year 2081 hardly backs his claims. A projection of more rain in 68 years time doesn’t explain the 2013 drought and storms in New Zealand..

3. The quote he uses is from the The Final Draft Report that was made public 30 September, three days after Dr Graham’s press statement in which made his claims. He could hardly have been relying on that quote when making his claims.

I rest my case.

The Green’s practice zombie science, untroubled by facts and reason, and Dr Graham illustrates my point perfectly while claiming to counter it.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I'd like to see Rodney and Dr Graham critique each others work and then submit their critiques to an agreed upon authority for comment.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Lets not forget that global warming is a wonderful opportunity for socialists to extract cash from the masses. The biggest challenge is to get the masses to believe it. Thank you MSM.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Rodney, once again you are being disingenuous.

It is the intensity of storms and droughts, not the number of them, that is climate change driven.

You make up some different story about increasing number of storms.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Back to teaching economics at Lincoln College for you Rodney.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Here’s what the IPCC says, “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of (© Copyright Protected - The National Business Review 59) historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems [P60].”

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Ah Rodney, continuing with the mis-representation and selective quoting.

Here is a paragraph in full from the recent IPCC Summary for policymakers

t is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global-scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4} page 13

And this trend will continue

Extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century, as global mean surface temperature increases page 16

And

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8). {12.4, 14.3} page 16

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scienti...

97% of the worlds "scientists" say Rodney, an economics lecturer and former politician is wrong, while 3% say he is right. That's good enough for me both statistically and on matter of credibility and expertise in the field of climate science.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Andrew R, What a lot of tosh. Playing on the fact most folk have the attention span, education and recollection of a gnat. Just recently I listened to an otherwise intelligent yank bemoaning the worst storms in memory as justification for his green ideology. Problem is the records prove otherwise. Ancient history is littered with examples of extreme weather events and catastrophic floods that are mooted to have been the cause for entire tribes if not civilisations being destroyed. Its not just the bible with its story of Noah and the rain, but multiple records, archaeology and the ancient writings of many peoples long gone who blamed such tempests on the gods. The current inhabitants of this world are no more able to impact the worlds climate now than the washed away folk of the Indus 3000 years ago. A glass of vino as was grown once by the Romans in Provincia Britannia is the best way of coping with all this tedious zealotry.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Regarding the intensity of storms and droughts that is supposedly rising due to AGW. From the IPCC AR5:

'In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data...'

'In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.'

Try reading the IPCC reports instead of skepticalscience.conjob

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Let us not overlook the German politicians who appeared to have the final say on the wording of the IPCC report for politicians and strongly disagreed with other country's politicians draft.
This was in order to deal with the complete disaster of the green inspired efforts to avert global warming by Germany which has resulted in them having to buy their energy from other European countries and Russia
Indeed a small number of the coal fired power stations are being quietly
Brought back into service !

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The facts behind this claim are?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The German press is now openly referring to the green Energy Policy as a disaster. Costs to the public have skyrocketed. Big Industry has been exempt up until now, and is threatening (and in some cases is already) moving factories abroad.

6 NEW coal fired stations are being built. The declared intent for 5 of them is to make up for the problems of irregular supply from wind turbines. A number of older (more emissions) plants are being kept in service, even started up, with subsidies after being mothballed. This is because the wind farms and solar panels have disrupted the peak prices. Those plants depending on short term high prices (during shortfall in supply) have been shut down because wind and solar have taken some of that market. These are pumped storage and gas plants, with lower emissions.

20 new coal fired stations are or are being approved. Many are intended to replace those nuclear stations being shut down.

The net result in Germany of following the Green's policy on energy generation has been higher prices, less stable supply and HIGHER CO2 emissions.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The facts behind the claim that German politicians appeared to have the final say on wording of the IPCC report for politicians are?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

And after all of this, from Hide's original article to Graham's response to all the comments, and amidst all of the "scientific" "objective" emotion, hyperbole and personal attacks, I am as confused over it all as are most people. Shame on you all.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

There is no need to be confused. Just go and look at the source data for global temperatures, ice extent, sea level rise, CO2 emissions, extreme weather events etc yourself. Then you won't need anyone else to interpret, misinterpret or mislead you about what is happening and you can judge for yourself what is most likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

There are multitude of links to the official data sources grouped and linked from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

With all of the emotion and vindictiveness you use in your discussion Alan, I don't know that I trust your credibility. If you are right, why not talk objectively and scientifically without histrionics?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I couldn't care less whether you trust my credibility. And if you don't want to look at the source data and trust your own there is nothing anyone else can do for you. Nor do I know why you bother to comment.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Whether or not one believes the arguments in favour of human-induced climate change, there are (to my mind) more than enough reasons for reducing the use of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs. There's plenty of fact-based science that shows the deleterious effects of mining, processing and burning fossil fuels on the health of earth. Some of us may not give a toss about the world in which our grandkids will live, but I do.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

How many people will die if energy prices are raised by fossil fuel bans? Do you care enough to find out?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Since when have the IPCC ever got anything right? Seriously, not one of their predictions has ever come true - no tropospheric hot spot, no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, failure of all the computer models, no warming in 16-23 yrs (depending on the temperature record used), no accelerating sea level rises, no increased instances of storms, cyclones, hurricanes, tornados, fires, heat waves, droughts, floods, etc. The ice at both of the poles was supposed to melt as well, but only the Arctic has been decreasing and is now starting to grow again.

As the predictions of the IPCC fail more and more what do they do? They raise their confidence that they are correct:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Actually IPCC has got it right, consistently, in five reports over 20 plus years, in reporting the latest science on climate change, and in their predictions.

Try something novel and read the IPCC reports.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The IPCC have NOT got it right, and I have read their reports:

Here's what they predicted with the tropospheric hot spot vs. the empirical scientific evidence:

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/pics/hot-spot-fingerprint...

Here's what they predicted with their computer models vs. the empirical scientific evidence:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Ts...

No acceleration in sea level rise (page 13-92):

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_Final...

Extreme weather:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen...

And on and on it goes, failure after failure. You should try reading the reports yourself instead of taking the word of the Green Party and Kennedy. In addition, if I were you I would read the actual science instead of just the summary for policymakers. Alarmists can try to cover itl up all they like, but everyone can see the empirical data vs. the predictions and it obvious to all that do that the credibility of the IPCC is nil.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The hot spot graph has gone missing so here's another:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7004 -0.0042 -0.60%
AUD 0.9163 -0.0075 -0.81%
EUR 0.6478 -0.0009 -0.14%
GBP 0.5635 0.0024 0.43%
HKD 5.4407 -0.0321 -0.59%
JPY 77.8650 -0.1740 -0.22%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1255.6 -4.880 2017-03-28T00:
Oil Brent 51.4 0.570 2017-03-28T00:
Oil Nymex 48.4 0.650 2017-03-28T00:
Silver Index 18.2 0.140 2017-03-28T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 7070.6 7118.7 7065.2 0.74%
NASDAQ 5836.5 5888.7 5840.4 0.60%
DAX 12062.7 12158.7 11996.1 1.28%
DJI 20542.1 20735.6 20551.0 0.73%
FTSE 7293.5 7349.6 7293.5 0.68%
HKSE 24470.7 24470.7 24345.9 0.30%
NI225 19216.8 19251.3 19202.9 -0.03%
ASX 5821.2 5873.9 5821.2 0.90%