Always an excuse to do nothing

64 comments on “Always an excuse to do nothing ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ghostwhowalks 1

   2 September 2009 at 9:40 am

   Fancy ‘serious Bill’ doing a photop with such a sign.

   But even more laughable is that Nick ( highest Court in the land) Smith is in charge of the detailed negotiations- before November??.
   Was they same Smith who couldnt get on top of his paperwork from a few months back ?
   Just let the nutty engineer ( and there are none so nutty as a nutty civil engineer) get himself all tangled up and then offer a few cosmetic changes that grab headlines and let National stew in their own juice
2. Matthew Hooton 2

   2 September 2009 at 9:44 am

   In terms of people wanting to do nothing, the problem is that the ETS won’t do anything either.

   Even when Labour was first talking about its most comprehensive form of an ETS right at the beginning, its environmental advisors at MfE were saying it won’t reduce emissions by much if at all.

   See http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/framework-emissions-trading-scheme-sep07/html/page9.html

   In particular:

   “7.2.1 Emissions from electricity
   Preliminary modelling work on the electricity sector (see Figure 7.1) indicates that:

   * in the short term, price-based measures may only lead to a moderate emission reductions relative to the base case, irrespective of the emissions price (due to lead times in bringing new renewable generation on line)

   * over the long term, emission price levels of around $15 to $25/tCO2-e would keep emissions from the electricity generation sector at about current levels through some moderating of demand growth and encouraging new investment in renewable generation (this represents an improvement over the business-as-usual base outlook, which projects steady growth in electricity sector emissions).

   “7.2.2 Emissions from transport
   Because fuel use is highly inelastic, emissions are likely to drop only by a small percentage. For every 10 per cent increase in petrol price, medium- to long-term demand is expected to fall by 3 per cent. The use of diesel for the heavy fleet is assumed not to respond to price because they will pass the increased costs through to customers.”

   The advice went on to say that other emissions, including agriculture, would not occur unless there was a drop off in production and economic activity.

   So the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that the ETS will do nothing to deliver the Government’s 10-20% by 2020 target, let alone Labour’s 40% by 2020 target (is that Labour’s target?).
   • snoozer 2.1

     2 September 2009 at 10:01 am

     So Matthew’s with the Greens and the Maori Party calling for a strong ETS and steadfastly opposed to National’s plan to weaken the existing one… yay matthew

     captcha (honestly!) wonderful
     • Matthew Hooton 2.1.1

       2 September 2009 at 10:38 am

       I’m not calling for anything. I’m just observing that MfE says that even if you had the strongest possible ETS – all sectors, all gases, no price cap, full international tradability – you won’t reduce emissions.
       • snoozer 2.1.1.1

         2 September 2009 at 11:13 am

         you will if you lower the cap.
   • NickS 2.2

     2 September 2009 at 10:03 am

     @Matthew

     Of course, you haven’t bothered mentioning offsetting carbon emissions via forestry and land-use change. Which if I recall correctly, while seen as a stop-gap measure till new technologies and other methods become mainstream/available, has a potentially massive carbon sink capacity. That aside from uncertainties to do with soil carbon cycling and storage, isn’t that difficult to pull off, since the methods are already there. And from memory all this is actually part of the ETS…

     Which means you’re lying by omission by ignoring the off-sets, creating a false dilemma in which carbon emission reductions can only be done via reducing economic output.

     /clap clap clap

     Anti-spam: consider
     Something Matthew failed to do…
     • Matthew Hooton 2.2.1

       2 September 2009 at 10:40 am

       Not at all. You are right that the one sector in the ETS is the forestry industry and the ETS was meant to lead to new planting. But this hasn’t happened. There has been no new planting since the ETS came in and there doesn’t seem to be much prospect of any.

       The prospect of the ETS led to massive deforestation too, although that has now stopped, mainly because all land that could be deforested was deforested in 2007.
       • NickS 2.2.1.1

         2 September 2009 at 12:26 pm

         Except the reason why forestry plantings have stopped expanding at present is because of National and ACT’s “review” of the ETS, which made further plantings uneconomic. Again, something you’ve conveniently left out.

         Also, source for the land clearances please.

         And also, there’s significant differences in the amount of carbon stored in different native forest/shrub communities vs plantation forests, along with the fate of the different carbon stores (wood vs leaves/litter vs soil) plus the rate of carbon storage. Which sometimes makes it economic sense to clear out patchy shrub and replace it with plantation, although from what I’ve learnt in lectures + literature readings this year, it’s sometimes more effective to let natural forests remain, or regenerate. Since disturbance can lead to quite a bit of carbon being lost from the soil + erosion.
         • Matthew Hooton 2.2.1.1.1

           2 September 2009 at 3:01 pm

           No, the deforestation started in 2006 – see figure 4 at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nz-2020-emissions-target/nz-2020-emissions-target.pdf

           Or see this release from Jim Anderton which traces the problem back to 2003: http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/quotchainsaw+massacrequot+refuted+evidence

           Anderton also boasts of a total of 2,800 hectares of new forests in 2007, a pathetic amount compared with the tens of thousands of hectares planted each year through most of the 1990s.

           BTW, I am surprised you need a “source” for the deforestation issue. It was big news all through 2006, 2007 and 2008.
           • snoozer 2.2.1.1.1.1

             2 September 2009 at 3:11 pm

             by ‘big news’ Matthew means that in his role as the forestry industry’s shill he generated a bit of heat around the issue.

             In reality, the logging decisions were due to wood prices and dairy prices.
       • lprent 2.2.1.2

         2 September 2009 at 1:21 pm

         Because of the uncertainty that NACT engendered when they opposed the ETS and then were uncertain about what they would do. That increased the risk on what is a 20+ year investment.

         The arguing about if forestry counted as carbon credits didn’t help either early on. But that was fixed long ago.

         Besides, in case you hadn’t caught up on current events. The ETS is meant to start going into force in January next year. So at present there aren’t any of the carbon credits that would make forestry more attractive over the long-term than alternate investments. We also have the flat-earthers in Act wagging national around and increasing the uncertainty.

         Sounds to me that you’re like the Nat’s. Dithering around jumping from foot to foot trying to avoid making a hard decision that might affect one of your political backers. But that is the national trademark isn’t it. Only attack the weak because they’re an easy target. Avoid making hard decisions that upset your bank-balance.

         Kind of a useless bunch…
         • Matthew Hooton 2.2.1.2.1

           2 September 2009 at 3:06 pm

           No, forestry came into the scheme on 1 January 2008. Some forest owners have begun sales of credits offshore – see http://www.carbon-financeonline.com/index.cfm?section=asiapacific&action=view&id=12291

           The previous government did put in place the mechanism for investors to plant trees and sell credits. The incentives you write about are all in place. It just hasn’t worked in terms of delivering the tree planting that was anticipated – and nothing like what was achieved in the 1990s.

           It probably would make it easier for forest owners to sell credits if other New Zealand sectors were in the ETS, but even that is debatable, because they are already able to sell them offshore if they want.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.2.1.1

             2 September 2009 at 3:51 pm

             Rome wasn’t built in a day.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.3

     2 September 2009 at 10:06 am

     You seem to have missed the bit about capping the emissions. The reducing cap is what brings our emissions down not the cost of carbon credits. The trade just allows for the most efficient means to bring the cap down to be utilized.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1

       2 September 2009 at 3:44 pm

       Gah, that was in reply to Matthew Hooton.
   • jarbury 2.4

     2 September 2009 at 3:14 pm

     Is fuel use really THAT inelastic to price? Last year we saw traffic volumes fall quite significantly when petrol went up – so I’m not sure whether that assumption is true.

     That said, 5c a litre won’t make much of a difference.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1

       2 September 2009 at 3:46 pm

       How much did fuel go up?
       How much did traffic volumes fall?

       The problem is that people still need to get to work and the only reliable way most of them have is their car.
3. Nick 3

   2 September 2009 at 9:48 am

   All the while greenhouse gas concentrations, and the world’s temperature, keep on rising. How much longer are we going to keep going around and around?

   The world’s temperature is not rising.

   We could cull all our cows and never breed another one. We could also reduce our emissions by 300% and it wouldn’t affect the climate one iota.
   • NickS 3.1

     2 September 2009 at 9:54 am

     The world’s temperature is not rising.

     Right, I guess we’ll just ignore the data sets mentioned on A Few Things Ill Considered then that show consilience in terms of global increases in average temperature;
     http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence.php
     • snoozer 3.1.1

       2 September 2009 at 9:59 am

       The world’s temperature is rising – NASA’s numbers http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt

       fail Nick, fail.
4. gomango 4

   2 September 2009 at 10:24 am

   economists say the impact of a tax or cap and trade on a business is the same.

   Perhaps theoretically (as you allude to) but in practice there is no way an international cap and trade system will deliver what is intended. See these papers for starters:

   Avi-Yonah, Reuven S. and Uhlmann, David M.,Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade(March 18, 2008). U of Michigan Public Law Working Paper No. 117

   Daskalakis, George and Markellos, Raphael N.,Are the European Carbon Markets Efficient?(October 20, 2008). Review of Futures Markets, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 103-128, 2008.

   From the first paper:

   The popularity of a cap and trade system may reflect the
   fact that cap and trade offers something for everyone. For
   environmentalists, cap and trade promises a declining cap on
   the carbon dioxide emissions that are the principal cause of
   global warming. For industry groups, cap and trade offers the
   possibility of a new market in carbon allowances and therefore
   the potential for significant income for companies who can
   inexpensively reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. For
   economists, cap and trade allows the market to take into
   account externalities as it determines the price of carbon. For
   politicians, cap and trade offers the opportunity to take action to
   combat global warming without implementation of a complex
   regulatory permitting scheme or a dreaded tax on fossil fuels

   and

   But an international environmental crisis is not the time to
   experiment with a largely untested regulatory system on a
   global scale. It is far from clear whether a cap and trade system
   will work on a national and international level. First, while the
   United States utilized a cap and trade system to reduce acid rain
   in the 1990s, we have never used cap and trade to address an
   emissions problem that affects the entire economy. Second, a
   cap and trade system promises fixed reductions in carbon
   dioxide emissions, but the trade-off is uncertainty about the
   price of those reductions. If the price of carbon rises too high,
   the carbon cap will need to be relaxed, thus removing the
   primary benefit of a cap and trade system. Third, a cap and
   trade system would be difficult to implement, monitor, and
   enforce. There would be complicated questions about how
   allowances should be distributed and challenges in determining
   the validity of allowances (especially in an international cap
   and trade system).
5. George.com 5

   2 September 2009 at 10:38 am

   Labours handling of climate change legislation was far from perfect, arguably too slow, controversial and opposed at every turn by organised capital. The debate is open as to how Labour handled the issue. I think the introduction of mechanism to start to address CC was too little and late. However, it was a start. Set against what we have now however, the four headed monster, Labour was quick out of the blocks.

   A few years ago National was dead set against any meaures to address CC and much of the science itself. Now Nick Smith is stating that the science is all but settled. Thank you Nick, finally. What a pity however his party didn’t come to that realisation a few years back. Worse still is ACT wanting a carbon tax. Where the heck were they 6 years ago when the idea was first debated?

   On the subject of adressing CC I am not sure if history will judge the Labour govt that well. When the history booked are written I do hope the obstructive actions of Brash, National and ACT are clearly highlighted however. National, it ‘go time’, get on with it.
6. outofbed 6

   2 September 2009 at 10:38 am

   Good animation showing temp increase
   for those who like visuals (20 sec long 2.,4mb)

   10-Year Mean Anomaly

   Begins with 1881-1890 mean meteorological year anomaly and ends with 1998-2007.

   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a10_1881_1998_6fps.mp4

   Sure looks like its getting hotter
7. Brett Dale 7

   2 September 2009 at 2:12 pm

   So the left’s idea to fight global warming is more taxes?
   • Quoth the Raven 7.1

     2 September 2009 at 2:21 pm

     ACT is back to wanting a carbon tax, National wants something that wouldn’t do anything, and what’s Federated Farmers calling for? You guessed it: an emissions reduction research levy a fart tax.

     I’m guesing Act and Federated Farmers is left to Brett? Oh Brett what’s St. Obama doing?
   • lprent 7.2

     2 September 2009 at 2:25 pm

     I think that is Act’s current idea to help avoid taking responsibility for having emissions.

     Most of the left and the greens would prefer that something was put into place before the whole thing
     1. starts costing too much when it does start (delays in reductions increase the price under Kyoto)
     2. starts reducing the emissions before the weather starts getting really bad in a few decades.
8. Matthew Hooton 8

   2 September 2009 at 3:17 pm

   Snoozer at 3.11 pm – wood prices were in fact very low. People were not harvesting for the money. The harvesting was caused by people wanting to avoid the deforestation tax components of the ETS. In other words, the one effect that so far can be attributed to the ETS is the first deforestation in New Zealand since 1945.
   • mickysavage 8.1

     2 September 2009 at 3:25 pm

     So Matthew what would you do to address climate change?

     And do nothing does not appear to be an option if the huge bulk of scientific study in the area is to be believed.
     • Matthew Hooton 8.1.1

       2 September 2009 at 3:54 pm

       The best thing New Zealand can do, in my view, is worry less about our own emissions, which don’t count for much anyway, and look to see what we can do to contribute on a global scale. That would imply massive investment in areas where we are genuinely world leaders, in particular agricultural and horticultural science, and the sell or give the IP to other agrarian economies, particularly in the third world.
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1.1.1

         2 September 2009 at 9:20 pm

         Do you really think that should be our Copenhagen position? Don’t you think we need to have some bargaining power when the important decisions are made at the conference? How do you feel our tourism industry will feel about our environmental credentials being tarnished by opting out?
         • Matthew Hooton 8.1.1.1.1

           3 September 2009 at 9:04 am

           The question was what New Zealand could do about climate change. You’ve raised what our position should be for the Copenhagen conference, which is an entirely different thing.

           I think we can have any position we like at Copenhagen. It makes no difference. The conference will end, like an APEC conference, with ringing declarations of intent and no substance. New Zealand will not be a player and the only people who will notice what position we take will be New Zealand journalists and NGOs at the conference.

           But seeing you asked, I think we would have more credibility showing up at Copenhagen saying we have just launched the world’s largest investment programme in agricultural and horticultural science and we will sell or give you the results, rather than saying we are implementing an ETS that won’t reduce emissions and we have a 10-20% target even though we’ve failed to reach any of our previous targets and have no plan to achieve it.
           • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1.1.1.1.1

             4 September 2009 at 12:52 pm

             Maybe it will be a forgotten conference, maybe it won’t. If we opt out of negotiations now and don’t show some sincerity (as opposed to outright cynicism- like a lot of people), we will lose all ability to affect the debate.
             Like it or not, how they deal with this issue will be a defining issue of this government claiming NZ is too small to be important and hoping it goes away will not work.
             This is the easy stuff, the harder sacrifices will be to come.
       • r0b 8.1.1.2

         3 September 2009 at 12:04 am

         That would imply massive investment in areas where we are genuinely world leaders, in particular agricultural and horticultural science, and the sell or give the IP to other agrarian economies, particularly in the third world.

         Excellent ideas, and possibly the first sensible thing I’ve heard you say. Ever. Pity National worked against funding such research when they were in opposition.

         worry less about our own emissions, which don’t count for much anyway

         But you fall down there. We still have to do our bit. Everybody does.
         • mickysavage 8.1.1.2.1

           3 September 2009 at 8:40 am

           Fart tax anyone?
9. Daniel Silva 9

   2 September 2009 at 6:29 pm

   “They’ve been leading us on this merry dance for a decade. All the while greenhouse gas concentrations, and the world’s temperature, keep on rising. ”

   What exactly was the rise in the ‘world’s temperature’ since 1998?

   [the strong el nino in 1998 caused that year to be exceptionally warm – it was what is known as an outlier. There will always be exceptional years that are extra hot or cold, they don’t disprove the trend anymore than one cold day in september means that there’s not going to be a spring this year, the record has now been equalled in 2007, the trend has continued to rise]
   • Armchair Critic 9.1

     2 September 2009 at 7:17 pm

     Let me guess why you chose 1998. Hmm, could it be that it is one of a tiny handful of dates that support your half-arse argument? Yep, that’ll be it.
     • Daniel Silva 9.1.1

       3 September 2009 at 12:05 pm

       “Let me guess why you chose 1998. Hmm, could it be that it is one of a tiny handful of dates that support your half-arse argument? Yep, that’ll be it.”

       Actually, no. The author claimed that the world temperature has been rising for a decade (that is, since 1998). I just wanted to know by how much. Predictably, I did not get a straight reply.
       • Armchair Critic 9.1.1.1

         3 September 2009 at 12:55 pm

         Yeah, nice try, the post doesn’t say anything like that. The closest Marty gets to mentioning 1998 is in the last paragraph, which reads “They’ve been leading us on this merry dance for a decade.” If you can read “the world temperature has been rising for a decade (that is, since 1998)” into that, good for you.
         Like I said before, you know damn well what the answer to your question is and have selected the specific year because it supports your half-arsed argument.
         If you don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, try selecting the average temperature for ten years at random out of the last 250 years, or so and see how they compare. Go on, shock me with your findings. Or just read the “Are you smarter than a 10th-year” post.
         • Daniel Silva 9.1.1.1.1

           3 September 2009 at 3:30 pm

           The original post said: “They’ve been leading us on this merry dance for a decade. All the while greenhouse gas concentrations, and the world’s temperature, keep on rising.”

           This decade started in 1998. I asked by how much has the ‘world temperature’ risen in this decade, as claimed in the post. If you have a straight answer to that straight question, please let us have it.
           • Armchair Critic 9.1.1.1.1.1

             3 September 2009 at 7:49 pm

             Flaw in your logic – the decade started in 1999. 1 January 1999 to be precise. It ended on 31 December 2008. Unless you want to be a bit more precise and go month by month back from August this year, or day by day from today, but I don’t think the data are available. And that doesn’t get you back to 1998 either. 1998 was eleven years ago, or you are a year behind the rest of us.
             What’s not straight about “just read the are you smarter than a 10th-year post”? There are links to it from this page and links to the data you asked for from there. I can’t follow those links for you, do it yourself. Having said that, if you can’t count to ten, I doubt you can read the data.
             But since you ask, the way I read it the rise from 1999 to 2008 was 0.08 degrees, the rise from 1999 to the highest value (2005) was 0.30 degrees and the rise from 1999 to the average of 1999 to 2008 was 0.15 degrees. Straight enough of an answer for you? Still got a problem with the wording of the post?
             Now, how about a straight answer to you for my straight question. Why are you stuck on 1998 as a reference year?
           • Daniel Silva 9.1.1.1.1.2

             3 September 2009 at 9:24 pm

             0.08 degrees in only ten years! Quick, let’s all panic now, before it is too late.

             Does anyone know what a typical inter-decadal temperature change brought about by natural (read: pre-capitalist) variability woud be?
           • mickysavage 9.1.1.1.1.3

             3 September 2009 at 9:32 pm

             Why do I despair that the future of the world that my kids grow up in is going to be decided in part by people including you with your stupid cromagnon beliefs.
           • Armchair Critic 9.1.1.1.1.4

             3 September 2009 at 9:48 pm

             DS – Good on you for choosing the answer that suits you – at least you are consistent. If you really want to know about variability, have a look at some data. If you want to spout crap, keep going, you seem to have a talent for it.
   • Quoth the Raven 9.2

     2 September 2009 at 8:24 pm

     Daniel Silva – FAIL. What does this say:

     Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

     and

     The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
     • Sonny Blount 9.2.1

       3 September 2009 at 2:04 am

       So temperature trends have been basically flat for 10 years?
       • Armchair Critic 9.2.1.1

         3 September 2009 at 9:51 pm

         If you consider that rising and basically flat mean the same thing then you are absolutely correct.
     • Sonny Blount 9.2.2

       3 September 2009 at 2:17 am

       Only because the records haven’t been kept for very long.

       Over the history of human civilisation the 14 warmest years have been spread out over thousands of years.
   • mickysavage 9.3

     2 September 2009 at 9:04 pm

     Cherrypicker.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.4

     3 September 2009 at 1:46 am

     Clue: Trends in climate don’t happen in one year, they happen over decades
     • Sonny Blount 9.4.1

       3 September 2009 at 2:03 am

       Like in the decades 1940-1980
   • Daniel Silva 9.5

     3 September 2009 at 12:07 pm

     So, what exactly was the rise in the ‘world’s temperature’ that you claimed for the last decade?
10. Sonny Blount 10

    3 September 2009 at 2:13 am

    Some issues I have:

    How do CO2 emissions compare between the periods 1988-1995 and 1995-2005?

    How do temperature trends compare over the same periods?

    If the temperature rise from 1985-1995 was caused by CO2 emissions, why are considerably greater emissions no longer causing temperaure increases? Because there are other, more powerful factors involved.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      3 September 2009 at 8:43 am

      Hey Sonny

      Do you second guess your doctor or do you accept expert advice?

      If you saw 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were ill would you take steps just in case you were ill?

      Do you really believe that something as complex as climate change can be dismissed by a couple of sentences and analysis of cherrypicked data?
      • Sonny Blount 10.1.1

        3 September 2009 at 10:08 am

        There are no anthropogenic climate change experts.

        If we take the nobel prize for physics winners from 1901-1950 which would be a reasonable representation of the best scientific minds of the time, are any of them experts in nanotechnology?

        They may have been aware of the idea or read/written about it in Sci-fi books but none of them were real experts.

        Same situation today, we’re at the sci-fi/philosophy stage of the anthropogenic climate change idea.
        • NickS 10.1.1.1

          3 September 2009 at 10:18 am

          There are no anthropogenic climate change experts.

          Lawl.

          Right, I guess that means James Hansen doesn’t exist then, nor any of the other main publishing researchers in climate change.

          Same situation today, we’re at the sci-fi/philosophy stage of the anthropogenic climate change idea.

          Excepting of course all the lovely evidence and empirically valid scientific theories that point towards climate change is happening, and we’re to blame. That’s nicely summarised in the IPCC reports, and further explained by climatologists doing outreach via news articles and blogs…

          Then again, some people prefer comforting delusions to reality.
          • Sonny Blount 10.1.1.1.1

            3 September 2009 at 10:32 am

            What track record of correctly predicting climate does James Hansen have?

            I do recall him being censured by NASA for mnisrepresenting their views though.

            I think you may be confusing the large amounts of research showing the effects of warming which is expected with natural climate variation.

            Observing the effects of warming does not equate with empirical evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

            Need I remind you of Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph to show the fallibility of the IPCC reports.

            Or the authors that disagree with the ‘summary for policy makers’ for each chapter.

            Or the people such as Chris Landsea who have resigned the IPCC due to their misrepresentation?

            Claiming the word of the IPCC as gospel on climate change is like taking the Sensible Sentencing Trusts statements as the be all and end all of what the justice system should be doing.
            • mickysavage 10.1.1.1.1.1

              3 September 2009 at 1:48 pm

              Sonny you are trying to wind us up.

              Hansen was disciplined because of activity by the Bush White House who have as much understanding of and respect for science as you do.

              Which planet are you talking about? For that matter in the immortal words of Barney Frank on which planet do you spend most of your time?
      • Sonny Blount 10.1.2

        3 September 2009 at 10:25 am

        “If you saw 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were ill would you take steps just in case you were ill?”

        If I saw 100 naturopaths(however well-meaning or experienced) and 98 of them told me I had bad chi, I wouldn’t believe them.

        “Do you really believe that something as complex as climate change can be dismissed by a couple of sentences and analysis of cherrypicked data?”

        Absolutely, because it has not been in any way demonstrated.
        Just because a false statement has been repeated 100 times does not make it more valid than the first time it was given.

        And the cherry picked data is from 1980-2000, all other periods in our last 70 years (since 1940) of heavy industrial output have trended down or flat.
        • mickysavage 10.1.2.1

          3 September 2009 at 9:39 pm

          Prey tell, why have you decided that the vast majority of climate change scientists are naturopaths?

          Because if you do this as a reflex I cannot argue with you because you are making a conclusive judgment on the quality of the expert before we can even work out who to trust in interpreting the evidence.

          Can you point to a huge mass of intellectual capability that says that the world is OK and that we do not need to worry about CO2 levels?

          If not shut the f*** up and let the caring part of the human race work out what to do with the most difficult challenge it has ever faced.
          • Sonny Blount 10.1.2.1.1

            3 September 2009 at 10:11 pm

            “Because if you do this as a reflex I cannot argue with you because you are making a conclusive judgment on the quality of the expert before we can even work out who to trust in interpreting the evidence.”

            There are no experts on the future.
            If a scientist spends their career drilling ice cores and analyzing the composition of the ancient atmosphere, they become an expert on ancient atmosphere, which is not anthropogenic climate change.
            The same for scientists that study storms, the sea-level, disease, or animal life, they are experts in their fields, which is not the same as anthropogenic climate catastrophe.
            What research would a scientist conduct that would provide the knowledge to make them an expert on anthropogenic climate catastrophe?

            “Can you point to a huge mass of intellectual capability that says that the world is OK and that we do not need to worry about CO2 levels?”

            The burden of proof does not rest with those who expect the norm. It lies with those with those who suggest radical change.
            • mickysavage 10.1.2.1.1.1

              3 September 2009 at 10:31 pm

              With the greatest of respect that is BS.

              Scientists have with increasing ability been able to predict the response of the natural world and the future to current

              We can use chicken entrails and crystal balls to predict the future instead but I prefer using people who have developed expertise in understanding why things are happening.

              There are experts on the future. There are millions of them.
    • Maynard J 10.2

      3 September 2009 at 9:17 am

      “How do CO2 emissions compare between the periods 1988-1995 and 1995-2005?”

      You are asking the wrong question. Say I lock you in a small, sealed room and start putting in tear gas. Every ten seconds I will put in a little bit more. Afterwards, would you argue I put in very little at the start, and far greater concentrations at the end, because your eyes started to burn near the end, or would you think it was the accumulation of gas over time?

      (sorry for the sadistic example, please do not read into that at all!)

      It is the overall level, CO2 in PPM, that you need to look at, not yearly emissions.

      “Because there are other, more powerful factors involved.”

      Sure are – take a look at feedback loops if you want to truly worry.
      • Sonny Blount 10.2.1

        3 September 2009 at 10:08 am

        I have taken a look at feedback loops. They are called ice ages and optimum warm periods.
      • Sonny Blount 10.2.2

        3 September 2009 at 10:19 am

        OK,

        What was the CO2 in ppm in 1985-1995 and in 1995-2005 because that is what I was actually refering to.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS