Deniers are traitors

Written By: - Date published: 2:31 pm, December 11th, 2009 - 116 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment - Tags: ,

Strongly worded piece by Chris Trotter this morning:

In the war for nature, the deniers are traitors

… The question of why war, alone of all our endeavours, possesses the power to inspire such tremendous collective exertions and unstinting sacrifices by human communities is not a new one. Ninety-three years ago, the American scholar William James addressed precisely the same question in his famous essay: “The Moral Equivalent of War”.

Humanity, he argued, must find another way to mobilise all that is brave and noble in the human soul, or the warriors of our species will never want for either willing volunteers nor eager financiers. James’ solution, richly ironic in the context of the events unfolding in Copenhagen, was to enlist youth in a “War against Nature”.
…
James’ idea of conscripting the nation’s youth to wage the moral equivalent of war struck a deep chord in the American psyche. It informed the thinking behind president Franklin Roosevelt’s Conservation Corps, and president John F Kennedy’s Peace Corps.
…
Today, however, it is not a “War Against Nature” that our generation is called to fight, but a war in nature’s defence. And it is not merely the youth of the world who must be summoned to battle (though, as always, they will lead the charge) but whole populations. If the battle against climate change does not become the moral equivalent of war for all the peoples of the Earth, then not only the battle, but the Earth itself, as a planet hospitable to human civilisation, will be lost.
…
There will, of course, be people who whisper that the enemy isn’t really our enemy. That all of our individual and collective sacrifices are quite unnecessary. And that, if only we would stop listening to the “alarmists” and “extremists”, then this needless and terribly costly campaign could be brought to a happy conclusion. In 1940, England was full of such whisperers. The British ruling class, in particular, was riddled with defeatists, Nazi sympathisers and traitors. Back then people called them “Quislings” and “Fifth Columnists”.

If, therefore, the battle against climate change has to become the moral equivalent of war, with all the sacrifice that war entails, then climate change denial must become the moral equivalent of treason.

Over the top? No. The stakes really are that high.

I don’t agree with a lot of the stuff that Chris writes these days. But I agree with him on this.

116 comments on “Deniers are traitors ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    11 December 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Interesting way of thinking about it. I’m not sure that I’d go that far at present, but I notice that my tolerance for CCDs is rapidly declining. You point out the science and they wander off into bullshit land of demanding ‘perfect’ models.

    Huh? How can you have perfect models on something we’ve never seen before? The last shifts of greenhouse gases in the same order as what humans are doing now was tens of thousands of years ago. We can see that they happened. We know that they involved complex feedback effects of some kind with natural changes as the triggering temperatures rose. We can’t see what the feedback was because we don’t have a frigging time machine. So they estimate based on what they can see now. I’m kind of expecting that the major feedback effect will be one that they haven’t seen yet.

    Then these bozo’s (like DPF) say that the science is ‘uncertain’ because the models aren’t ‘perfect’. Similarly their kurffle about ‘climategate’, which is pretty much a normal set of conversations going on that I see at work every day is like observing people wanking in public. Interesting but not particularly productive.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that most CCDs are so stupid about the limitations of science that they’ll never accept that climate change is happening until after it is quite evident. Of course then they’ll start whining that the IPCC was being excessively conservative in its estimates (which it is). However the whole of the IPCC approach is about assessing risk levels conservatively. It isn’t about getting perfect models. Which is why the rise in the risk levels of the IPCC reports over time is quite worrying. As it is, the effects in AR4 are now getting relatively short term, and the earlier we start to mitigate the lower the costs of both mitigation and adaption will be worldwide.

    However I do notice that there have been slow glacial changes going on in the minds of the CCDs. Some of the CCDs (like Andrei) have astonished me recently while reading kiwiblog (I was looking at the new rating system there) by conceding that CO2 might have something to do with climate change.

    Maybe we don’t need to shoot them quite yet – it isn’t worth wasting the bullets. Lets just encourage them to invest in farming and seashore properties.

    Nice being able to comment when the post is queued.

    • Ag 1.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:22 pm

      “I’ve come to the conclusion that most CCDs are so stupid about the limitations of science that they’ll never accept that climate change is happening until after it is quite evident.”

      They aren’t stupid. They just understand that a worldwide binding treaty that effectively regulates energy use (the centre of the economy) would be the greatest victory for government interventionism in history. They’re afraid that once nations start co-operating on that level, that they may start co-operating on other interventions as well. After all, if you’re radically committed to the idea that government is evil, then you don’t even want to give it the chance to prove itself capable of something good.

      The scepticism is just a fig leaf. Their hatred of government is so all-consuming that they would rather let millions of people die than accept that it may be wrong.

      • Clarke 1.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 4:40 pm

        Their hatred of government is so all-consuming that they would rather let millions of people die than accept that it may be wrong.

        That is probably one of the most concise and accurate – albeit saddest – things I have ever read on the climate change debate.

  2. Brett Dale 2
    11 December 2009 at 2:38 pm

    I notice he didnt use any science or fact in his item about climate change in his item.

    Calling someone a traitor because you are asking questions of your leaders is what the extreme right did under Bush.

    • r0b 2.1
      11 December 2009 at 3:04 pm

      I agree Brett, there are certainly dangers in taking this kind of stance. Leaders should never be above questioning.

      But there is questioning and there is questioning. There is a point where genuine open minded scepticism and the freedom to voice it crosses the line and becomes fanaticism, dishonesty, and the fig leaf of freedom of speech to perpetuate it. And I think we’ve passed that point with the majority of activist deniers.

      What do you do with a continued refusal to accept the overwhelming majority of scientific fact and opinion? What do you do with wilful distortion of the facts and outright lies? These denier tactics confuse and slow progress on an issue which is literally life and death to millions if not billions of people. Has that crossed the line to the point of being a traitor? I think it has.

      Trotter didn’t suggest, and I’m not suggesting (of course), that we should silence these people or lock them up in camps. I agree with you that they must have their right to free speech. But I do think that it’s time to fight fire with fire, and call them what they are in the strongest terms possible. I think the analogy that Trotter makes with climate denial being the moral equivalent of WW2 traitors is a fair one.

  3. fizzleplug 3
    11 December 2009 at 2:52 pm

    I see myself more as a conscientious objector.

  4. Rob 4
    11 December 2009 at 2:54 pm

    The Standard has high quality deniers. The one’s I have seen on other sites make me imagine people sitting in basements with tin foil hats on their heads as they rant about communist takeovers of the UN.

    I think large numbers of them are beyond hope if they truly believe things like that but the majority of the population despite what stuff polls say do appear to believe in climate change. So long as deniers remain the minority we can beat them and allow science to dictate what we do rather than their confused opinions.

    What they do goes beyond merely questioning the science. To do that requires them to read it and make a balanced opinion based on the information. Climate Change is not about opinion like the issues under Bush that were silenced.

    • lprent 4.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:33 pm

      *sigh* yes. There is an ogre in the background.

      Many of the CCDs elsewhere tend towards hysteria and seem to lack basic knowledge. They tend to get a bit of a hard time here (especially by me – my first degree was in earth sciences). They usually fall into unacceptable flaming or trolling behaviors which also drops them outside our moderation limits.

      There are just a few with pretty impervious faith (and bugger all science) that do – like Andrei. They don’t trip the behavior limits.

      The skeptics here tend towards looking at the economics (ie the mitigation vs adaption) rather than the science. But whatever, they will be reasonably well-behaved.

      • lukas 4.1.1
        12 December 2009 at 8:05 pm

        “Many of the CCDs elsewhere tend towards hysteria and seem to lack basic knowledge.”

        As opposed to the CCB’s who blame everything on “climate change”… take Marty for example and his polar bear post.

    • lukas 4.2
      12 December 2009 at 8:06 pm

      “The one’s I have seen on other sites make me imagine people sitting in basements with tin foil hats on their heads as they rant about communist takeovers of the UN.”

      They are there to balance out the “truthers” that seem to inhabit this site.

  5. outofbed 5
    11 December 2009 at 2:58 pm

    I see the bog has a post about NZ being in the top ten in terms of climate emissions targets
    Something which Smith is also claiming
    However the results are based on Info used by http://www.climateactiontracker.org/country.php?id=844 which the source of is Mr Nick ” economical with the truth” Smith

    • lprent 5.1
      11 December 2009 at 3:09 pm

      I was wondering where the crud came from today. If you remove trash wood forests which the Kyoto protocol properly ignores, then NZ’s record is pretty bad based on 1990 levels.

      If you look at 2005 levels (as someone talked about today), then it looks ok. Until you realize that we’d peaked economically in 2004 so the rate of growth in emissions has been reducing as a consequence of the rate of growth in the economy reducing.

      I’d presume that DPF was cherry-picking the numbers in his usual fashion.

  6. Tim Ellis 6
    11 December 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Mr Trotter seems to make a habit out of using big, heroic language yet running for cover and censoring people on his blog who call him on it.

    • snoozer 6.1
      11 December 2009 at 3:32 pm

      sounds like you need a cuddle, Tim. Did mean old Trotter not put up with your wedging bullshit?

      • Julie Fairey 6.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 4:15 pm

        For all that I’ve been passionately disagreeing with Trotter on another topic on Bowalley Rd recently, I’ve never had a comment not make it through approval, and I haven’t been banned. Sure, some of his responses have been unnecessarily barbed imho, but I’m not sure your experience of banning etc is widespread Tim. Perhaps you need to look at the common denominator in your comments (hint: it’s not disagreeing with Trotter).

  7. Bill 7
    11 December 2009 at 3:07 pm

    Climate Change Deniers are the least of all our problems.

    Of far bigger concern is the fact that too many who ‘get it’ are unwilling to contemplate any courses of action aside from disastrous market based ones. They are the ones who doom us. They are the ones who could have done something. Perhaps it is these people who are the traitors…the ones who know better but who cling tenaciously to their comfort zone regardless…the ones who will not take the step demanded of them by their own intelligence?

    The CCDers are manipulated and can be further manipulated to jump aboard whatever latest bandwagon comes along. They are not the problem.

    • fizzleplug 7.1
      11 December 2009 at 3:10 pm

      Surely if they always rode the latest bandwagon they wouldn’t be deniers?

    • Rex Widerstrom 7.2
      11 December 2009 at 5:00 pm

      Interesting point. There’s a study by McKinsey (referenced about half way down here) on which the Australian Liberals are partially basing their new climate change policy.

      The message of the McKinsey cost curve is that a 20 per cent cut in Australia’s emissions is doable with technology already invented.

      The McKinsey method first sets out where emission reductions can be found, in order of expense, starting with energy efficiency measures for cars and buildings, moving through green carbon ideas to stop tree-felling and to store carbon in soil, and finishing with all the different methods of generating power.

      It then describes how government may achieve the reductions, advocating an “aggressive but realistic” reduction target and government incentives or regulations to push the least cost options, such as what the Coalition has in mind with energy-efficient buildings and more fuel-efficient cars.

      Where the Liberals deviate, of course, is that McKinsey goes on to recommend some form of ETS.

      But it brought home to me the point that the major parties in NZ are squabbling over an ETS, and saddling us with the associated cost, while only the Greens are keeping a focus on the things that can be done outside of the tax system.

      These things offer the potential of quick impact, possibly lessening the cost (or deepening the effect, or both) of any ETS, and allowing people to play a positive role in combatting climate change rather than being passively hit with a tax and thus must be politically far more palatable to many.

      I’m far happier to make changes in my lifestyle, my car, my office than I am to pay more tax. It’s just human nature. And yes (tinfoil hat firmly fixed) a large part of the reason for that is that I do not like, or trust, politicians (not the concept of “government” per se, but rather its more recent manifestations).

      Again I make the point that if “believers” engaged with “deniers” in something other than a name-calling match (and Trotter’s recent rant is one of the worst examples I’ve seen of divisive counter-productive ad hominem) we might actually get somewhere.

    • SJ Hawkins 7.3
      12 December 2009 at 5:43 pm

      Good observation. I think many CCDs aren’t blind to the reality that the climate is changing, nor even that it will have bad consequences. If the argument was framed that it mostly is irrelevant whether or not man has caused accelerated warming, the facts are that if we can do something to ameliorate the future situation then we should. To centre the debate on what the best course of action really is would make more sense than getting sidetracked by largely irrelevant arguments

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1
        12 December 2009 at 7:59 pm

        If the argument was framed that it mostly is irrelevant whether or not man has caused accelerated warming,

        If it was irrelevant then we wouldn’t have to do anything which is what the CCDs want.

  8. Andrei 8
    11 December 2009 at 3:20 pm

    As the whole AGW thing unravels Chris Trotter demonstrates Godwins law as his world crumbles.

    Desperate times for the sky is falling crowd.

    Still never mind you might yet get to see the destruction of our economy at the hands of parasitic technocrats slurping their way to wealth on the backs of working New Zealanders through the ETS justified by your junk science and taken up with glee as another opportunity to keep the working class poor and in its place.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:09 pm

      The stupid showing his anti-intellectualism.

      It’s the capitalists that are the parasites and who break things (usually through ignorance). The technocrats usually have some idea as to what they’re saying and are putting forward ideas on how to fix things the capitalists have broken.

  10. tsmithfield 10
    11 December 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Many of those you refer to as “deniers” are not very different in views from the alarmist side of the AGW debate.

    There are a number of areas where both sides of the debate generally agree.
    There seems to be wide consensus on the fact that the climate is warming.
    There seems to be wide consensus that C02 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing levels will directly increase the world temperature slightly.

    The area of disagreement revolves around secondary feedbacks such as clouds, and degree of balance between positive and negative forcings. As a consequence, the skeptical side of the debate argues that the climate is less sensitive than those on the alarmist side of the debate.

    For instance, Spencer and Christie have published research relating to clouds in the tropics that demonstrates that there are also strong negative forcings from clouds that could mitigate substantially the positive forcings thought to intensify greenhouse warming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

    Note that John Christy was the lead author for the 2001 IPCC report, so he is not some wacky extremist.

    Why scientific debate at this level causes so much angst is beyond me.

    • Andrei 10.1
      11 December 2009 at 3:34 pm

      Why scientific debate at this level causes so much angst is beyond me

      Its because expensive public policy is being decided based upon it.

      • outofbed 10.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 4:12 pm

        Why scientific debate at this level causes so much angst is beyond me,

        Christains don’t like it because God doesn’t figure
        Rightwing Nutjobs don’t like it because because only collective action will save us and “me” doesn’t seem quite so important as “us”

    • snoozer 10.2
      11 December 2009 at 3:36 pm

      what you refer to as ‘alarmist’ are the forecasts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from aroudn the world.

      That is where everything you say falls down.

    • Rob 10.3
      11 December 2009 at 4:10 pm

      If that cloud cover research is the one I am thinking of it only studied the hottest part of the ocean. If you look at cloud cover over the whole of the tropical oceans the research doesn’t actually work. While cloud cover does increase temperatures there is little evidence to show it has changed significantly. Same as there is little evidence the sun is causing current global warming, if anything the sun temperature readings indicate we should be cooling. While there is some scientific debate the alternate theories have significantly less scientific basis behind them. From what I have read of the scientific evidence while there is argument of how sensitive the climate is all the predictions would cause massive damage to the planet and our way of life that are based on reliable data.

      Deniers on the other hand like to blow up a massive conflict existing there are deny some of these basic elements such as that the world is warming or that carbon dioxide absorbs short wave radiation.

  11. Scott 11
    11 December 2009 at 3:45 pm

    A(nother) ridiculous post from Trotter. It’s a bit silly to even attempt to class CCD as treason.

    Trotter is obsessed with labelling people he doesn’t agree with as class enemies, or splitters. Now he adds traitors to the list of terms used.

    Why call it treason when plain old fashioned stupidity will suffice as a description?

  12. Daveo 12
    11 December 2009 at 3:55 pm

    Trotter’s lost any credibility he once had. So full of bombast, so little of it with any factual basis or reasoned argument. It’s a pity, because it means even when he says things that might be reasonable it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  13. tsmithfield 13
    11 December 2009 at 3:55 pm

    Snoozer “what you refer to as ‘alarmist’ are the forecasts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from aroudn the world.”

    No. When I say “alarmist” I mean those who deliberately misrepresent the facts to dramatize their points.

    For instance, the previous article about polar bears eating their cannibalizing their young and the very long bow being drawn to link it to AGW when it is a well-known behaviour pattern of many species.

    Or programmers who include bogus data and fudge their programs to magnify the effect:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

    This sort of approach is wearing very thin and is doing the cause more harm than good:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece

    It is those who believe the cause justifies any action, no matter how inaccurate or extreme that I qualify as “alarmists”.

    • snoozer 13.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:22 pm

      but ts, none of what you classify as alarmist diminishes the seriousness of climate change. The serious science is saying if we let warming get above 1.5-2.5 degrees there will be feedbacks causing runaway climate change up to 6-8 degrees making large parts of the world unhibitable, destroying existing climate and ecological systems on which our argiculture and economies are dependent.

      So you think that the polar bear pic was over the top? who gives a crap, if you’re serious about not being blind you should be looking at the real projections and you should be damned worried.

      As it is I think you find little things as excuses to turn a blind eye, because you are afraid to acknowledge the truth because if you face the truth that we are on the verge of destroying the environment that underpins our wealth then you will have to let go of your ideological precepts – ‘growth is good’, ‘collective action is bad’, ‘restraint is bad’ etc

    • lprent 13.2
      11 December 2009 at 4:47 pm

      The actual post was about late-forming sea-ice.

      The polar bears are adversely affected by that as a result.

      Face it, you really just got upset about an effective image rather than the content.

      I briefly dropped into the sewer post about that this morning while I was looking at DPF’s new bully system. Some of the crap that was being slung around there was farcical. Without having to even look anything up, I was able to point out some flaws in the whining that was going on about Eddies post based on nothing but some watching of the discovery channel, and some general background of mammalian behavior.

      What was more interesting was watching the bully mammalian socIal group behaviour as my comments dropped out of visibility..

  14. outofbed 14
    11 December 2009 at 4:02 pm

    I don;t think watts is a credible source
    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#watts

    and you other link states

    The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed.

  15. tsmithfield 15
    11 December 2009 at 4:11 pm

    outofbed “I don;t think watts is a credible source”

    This is just a print of the leaked documents from the climate-gate fiasco. No-one has questioned the integrity of the leaked documents. The comments by the programmer don’t make pretty reading though, do they? Hard to draw any other conclusion that there was serious fudging and manipulation going on to get the desired outcome.

    outofbed “and you other link states

    The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed.”

    And if you truly believe this then you should also be against the alarmist brigade if they are actually undermining the cause as the article suggests.

    • snoozer 15.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:27 pm

      ts. do you actually seriously, with your brain turned on, think that climate change or the worst scenarios are disproven by those emails?

      A few scientists with some sloppy language and bad practices does not undo the decades of evidence that is “undeniable” (to use the term used by scientists from the oil-company backed denier front group the Global Climate Coalition in a secret report http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html)

      So some scientists were jerks. That doesn’t undermine the body of evidence in any significant way.

      • zelda 15.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 4:55 pm

        Body of evidence ?
        Even Real Climate doesnt go so far

        “The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established that is ‘highly likely’ and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion.
        “Highly likely “?? Must be those graphs they are talking about

        “well supported”.
        Not really as the doubling of CO2 will give a 1.5C warming, and the feedbacks ? Who Knows?

        • snoozer 15.1.1.1
          11 December 2009 at 5:02 pm

          read the IPCC you illiterate. Read Nature, hell even read New Scientist if you don’t like long words.

          God I’m so sick of these uneducated little twerps.

          • zelda 15.1.1.1.1
            11 December 2009 at 7:07 pm

            It was cut and pasted ( another high crime here BTW) from Real Climate

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
            Unusually, I’m in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page:

            “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled’

            I know enough to agree, the CO2 only gives you 1.5C max . Then its water vapour, going to label that a ‘pollutant’ are you.

            Of course it has to keep getting warmer, which lately its isnt. Thats why they ‘have to hide the decline’

            • Rob 15.1.1.1.1.1
              11 December 2009 at 8:10 pm

              Hide the decline in climategate which I assume you refer to can refer to one of two things. One the decline in the rate of tree growth since 1960 which messes up temperature readings from them. Second it can refer to the fact that 2009 is colder than 2008 as it is at the El Nina cooling stage in climate cycles. It was originally believed climate change would be enough to over ride this but it has not been as strong at mitigating it as thought. This decade is the highest in recorded history even with the slight dip this year which is already reversing back up again.

              That webpage you just posted DOES say that anthropogenic climate change (i.e. human induced) is settled. It only says there is still a few minor details to find out.

              I have seen nothing that suggests 1.5 temperature cap. Do you have a source for that? am kinda interested in it.

            • lprent 15.1.1.1.1.2
              11 December 2009 at 8:17 pm

              What ppms of CO2 are you talking about.

              If the atmosphere was 100% CO2, you’re saying that it’d still be 1.5C. I think not.

              It is a particularly stupid statement

              • Andrei …
                11 December 2009 at 9:20 pm

                If the atmosphere was 100% CO2, you’re saying that it’d still be 1.5C. I think not.

                No it would get substantially colder because the major Greenhouse gas is H2O of course and it wouldn’t be there.

                Still we will never see a 100% atmosphere of CO2 although it has been as high as 7000ppm in the past which the planet seemed to manage ok and a figure well below the levels which impact on human physiology.

                In fact I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the C02 levels in the conference rooms at the Copenhagen gabfest exceed 7000ppm its quite common for such places to reach levels 10000 ppm or 1%

                • lprent …
                  11 December 2009 at 9:52 pm

                  Andrei: Yeah right. How much water in the atmosphere of Venus?

                  However it isn’t the effect of CO2 on humans that is the issue. It is the effect on climate. My question was about this daft 1.5C as the maximum that CO2 (what ppms?) can lift average temperatures the milder CCDs like DPF have been coming up with. To date I haven’t seen a link to anything on it. It just seems to have appeared like magic as a consensual figure. In fact one could say – an article of faith. I’m sure that there is a reason for that number being used. However to date no-one using it has been capable of explaining it.

                  I have a strong suspicion that the number is from somewhere – but has been plucked and used completely out of context.

                  Do you have a link to it?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 December 2009 at 10:27 pm

                    The reason 1.5 degrees is being used is because it’s less than 2 degrees.

                  • Andrei …
                    12 December 2009 at 6:50 am

                    Well Lynn the 1.5C° comes from the draft agreement being floated at Copenhagen and like you I don’t give it any credence whatsoever- Apparently if signed the worlds elite politicians will have agreed to limit the worlds average temperature rise no more than this – have you ever heard of King Canute?

                    In truth politicians have no more control over the climate than they do over the time the sun rises in Ulan Bator but what the heck like shamans of old pretending they do have “the power” will help keep us poor and in serfdom.while they and their cronies indulge in the fine things of life feeding at the trough.

  16. ConorJoe 16
    11 December 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Mr Trotter is brilliant. And spot on.
    Its too late in the day for argument.
    Of course we can put our collective foot on the accelerator and enjoy this joyride while we can but the future generations will not be so thrilled to look after us in our dotage.
    Its too late in the day for argument.

  17. outofbed 17
    11 December 2009 at 4:19 pm

    >No-one has questioned the integrity of the leaked documents?<
    but they have but them in the context which they were written
    Smacking the Hack Attack

  18. tsmithfield 18
    11 December 2009 at 4:26 pm

    outofbed “but they have but them in the context which they were written”

    In the example I cited, how much more context do you want? That is a fairly extensive set of comments. Anyway, if you want to check the context for yourself, you can download all the e-mails if you want:

    http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/11/25/download-entire-climate-gate-climate-research-unit-cru-leaked-data/

    In this case, trying to squirm out of it on the “context” argument just doesn’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid.

    • snoozer 18.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:30 pm

      ts. of course anything like these emails has to be put in context. whereas in reality they have just been cherry-picked.

      But even so.

      So what?

      Do these emails disprove climate change? Do they? No.

  19. tsmithfield 19
    11 December 2009 at 4:36 pm

    snoozer, read my previous posts.

    I am not denying climate change at all. My target has been at alarmism and steps taken to exaggerate and manipulate the degree of the effect by some researchers.

    The computer programs similar to those referred to our commonly used to create models to predict future climate change. If it is shown that the computer programs themselves are dodgy, then it follows that the strength of future warming trends may also be overstated deliberately or otherwise.

    • snoozer 19.1
      11 December 2009 at 4:52 pm

      Unless you deny the actual main body of research then you can’t deny that unless we act swiftly to make major reductions in emissions we will destroy the environmental foundations of our standard of living. That’s not alarmism, ts.

      You’re simply pointing to isolated cases of what you charaterise as alarmism as an excuse not to think that tackling climate change is of paramount importance.

      • tsmithfield 19.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 5:06 pm

        Snoozer, I don’t have a problem with science that is done properly.

        I don’t have time for science that is obviously distorted by vested interests on either side of the debate. On the alarmist side, one of the foremost authorities, James Hansen, is also an extreme activist in the area and has even been arrested for his activism.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Hansen.27s_role_as_a_climate_activist

        If you are familiar with the “experimenter” effect, it is clear that a researchers preconceived beliefs can have a major effect on how they interpret results etc, even unconciously. Hence the reason for double-blind studies. It seems to me that the likes of James Hansen has such a strong interest activism in the field that he will be likely to even unwittingly fudge data. Actually I have seen evidence to support this in the case of Hansen, although I don’t have the link at hand unfortunately.

        • snoozer 19.1.1.1
          11 December 2009 at 5:27 pm

          again. TS. you’re distracting yourself with fringe things that don’t matter.

          Now, let’s have it straight. Do you or do you not accept the validity of the mainstream climate forecasts, IPCC etc, that project runaway climate change if warming is allwoed to pass 2 degees = 450ppm, which will happen unless we begin to substantially reduce emssions now?

          Do you accept that is true or don’t you? If not, why not?

          • tsmithfield 19.1.1.1.1
            11 December 2009 at 5:35 pm

            I agree with the consensus that the world is warming and that C02 is a major contributor. I am uncertain of the rate or magnitude of warming.

            I agree that something needs to be done. I disagree that cap and trade solutions are likely to be effective.

    • Rob 19.2
      11 December 2009 at 5:21 pm

      Went and read all those emails on the first site that had the extracts. Having done a little bit of coding even with all those seemingly damning lines I can see all of it being simple bugs and poor record keeping. Sometimes you just real bastards of programming problems. Can’t say I know what the temperature fixes in them are but it doesn’t seem conclusive of a conspiracy.

      Also not all climate scientists use the same program. There is not one body with one research method saying climate change is happening. Even if one did something a bit dodgy everyone else is getting the same results…

  20. ieuan 20
    11 December 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Maybe we have finally arrived at the world of ‘1984’.

    Everyone will be asked to sign a declaration that they believe climate change is real, those that don’t sign get taken away never to be seen again.

    Those that do sign are in constant fear they will be reported for thought crimes if they doubt the ‘truth’.

  21. zelda 21
    11 December 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Its the 14th century again. Time to burn some witches.

  23. ConorJoe 23
    11 December 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Is Wishart a witch then?
    I thought so. He’s got the ears.

  24. gomango 24
    11 December 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Trotters piece is as ridiculous as is Chris Trotter himself. He is the socialist equivalent of Ian Wishart. An anachronism thats not even quaint any more.

    A lot of those that are derided as deniers actually arent. Yes there are plenty of fruit loops out there, but imo the larger group called deniers actually fall better into a group that kind of accepts AGW but disagrees very strongly over what is the right course of action to take in response. I personally came to the view that man is having an effect on the environment not because of the shitty statistical work done by Mann, Jones etc , but by looking at more modern temperature records. And its just kind of obvious given the reduction in aerosols over the last 50 years and the increase in CO2. Being a gambling man, I think it prudent to take action based on that alone. But there are better, cheaper, more effective ways than the lunatic ETS.

    I fervently believe that anyone who thinks Cap and Trade systems are the best solution to the probable problem of AGW is an economically illiterate fool with no ability to think logically. As well by definition they are incredibly wasteful, being prepared to waste billions of dollars of resources on a process that will not deliver their intended goal, unless that goal is transferring wealth to big business. Should we march cap and traders off to the gulag/camps/freezing works because they are traitors to the working class? It is quite easy to prove that they are deluded – merely supporting a system that will never deliver its declared objective but is designed to make money for the global investment banking community is enough evidence right?

    Big corporates love carbon credits. Its another commodity to buy and sell, but one that the corporates will control completely from production to sale to consumption.

    Science got us into global warming (through industrialisation), I think science rather than shonky elite enrichment schemes is capable of getting us out.

    If I have to pay a tax I’d rather pay it the government than Goldman Sachs, Exxon and Deutsche Bank etc.

    Anti-spam word is “war”. Now thats irony.

    • Pascal's bookie 24.1
      11 December 2009 at 6:33 pm

      That’s all very well, but there are fuck all people that think cap and trade is the best solution. It’s the politically viable solution however.

      Why’s that? Ask decades of right wing propaganda about how government is the problem and never the solution, and combine it with your precious self taught pseudo-sceptics. Hey presto.

      • felix 24.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 8:53 pm

        there are fuck all people that think cap and trade is the best solution.

        Especially without the cap.

  25. grumpy 25
    11 December 2009 at 6:29 pm

    The “war” analogy is appropriate. Introducing carbon cuts based on the current science is the same as invading Iraq based on Bush’s intelligence.

  26. gomango 26
    11 December 2009 at 6:35 pm

    just read snoozers comment. I think you are very badly informed….. who do you think makes money out of this carbon industry?

    And why do you think it will lead to lower carbon emissions?

    Or is your view formed purely by the feeling that “we have to act, we must do something, anything………”

  27. outofbed 27
    11 December 2009 at 6:42 pm

    carbon tax

  28. Macro 28
    11 December 2009 at 8:11 pm

    CCDs are 5th columnists pure and simple! In a war they would be put in a concentration camp – and that in my opinion is the best place for them. And when humanity needs to mobilise – as it does now to combat dangerous climate change – their constant noise and obstruction should be seen for what it is – sabotage.
    They are little more than the useful idiots for the petrochemical industry and other polluting and high emitters of GHGs with heavily vested interests. The are seen by those who wont “Business as Usual” as the pawns in their game, but they are also considered by their manipulators as little more than idiots – to be fed misinformation and lies so that the efforts to control the polluters business will be be delayed for as long as possible. The polluters care nothing for anything else apart from profit.

    AS word “danger’

    • lukas 28.1
      12 December 2009 at 8:09 pm

      A concentration camp?

      Save the trees and kill the children… I hear that is the new “green” party motto… perhaps explains one of the nut jobs that inhabit the party comparing mining the estate to the death of your child.

  29. Pascal's bookie 29
    11 December 2009 at 8:51 pm

    The problem I have with Trotter’s piece is that he, as is his want, winds the rhetoric up to eleven without really building it on anything. He hasn’t been particularly vocal on this issue up till now, (and that’s fine) but here he is with all the war and traitor talk. I just don’t believe he himself believes it, but he expects me to.

    Either the moral equivalent to war thing is a metaphor, or it’s not. Here’s the last bit of the quote :

    If, therefore, the battle against climate change has to become the moral equivalent of war, with all the sacrifice that war entails, then climate change denial must become the moral equivalent of treason.

    Over the top? No. The stakes really are that high.

    Rightio. That seems pretty clear that he wants me to think that, for him, it’s not a metaphor. Ok. What does that actually mean though in terms of how Chris thinks we should be dealing with CCDs?

    Shooting them right? At the very least, you shut them the hell up in a prison and deny them the right to speak. That’s what you do with traitors in a time of war. That’s the moral standard he is saying that he is committed to. Does anyone believe that’s where Chris is at?

    I don’t.

    He was on the panel nice as pie with Michelle Boag the other day. Don’t know where she stands on AGW but there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. He writes paid columns for all sorts of papers that run ‘treasonous’ columns and op-eds. He should really stop doing that, if he means what he says.

    The guy blows hard in this piece, but it’s all ‘let’s you and him fight’. It’s the young that are going to do the real work, which is real convenient, but I’ll wager the baby boomers have a higher carbon footprint. It’s them that’s got to make the bigger lifestyle changes, down from what they’ve convinced themselves they are entitled to.

    I don’t mean to say he doesn’t care or anything, or that he isn’t trying. Lord knows he’s trying. But this sort of rhetoric has to be lived up to or you devalue your cause. If you are not prepared to live up to it, don’t use it.

  30. Lew 30
    11 December 2009 at 8:56 pm

    The trouble with labelling people ‘traitors’ and such is that it’s an arms race.

    If someone is a ‘traitor’, then what courses of action aren’t justified in making them stop their treason? It opens the door to the sort of authoritarian nonsense Macro suggests, which — although it might be meant half in jest now, or without an eye to actually being enacted, is just the sort of drift toward the bad old days of groupthink and persecuted dissent that the world can do without.

    To everyone taking the Sensible Sentencing Trust approach to climate change denial: what happens when you find yourself on the wrong side of a deeply-held orthodoxy?

    L

  31. Macro 31
    11 December 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Sorry Lew – but it was not in jest and yes I do see the down side of being persecuted for holding a perfectly valid belief! But the situation here is not something that is open to discussion anymore – that is what the CCD’s and the petrochemical industry would like you to believe! But it is NOT a valid belief – just as holding the belief that passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer. The are some aspects of the science – as there always is in any part of any science that is not fully understood! (We don’t know why tree rings do not always show the warm seasons for instance). We are still grappling with aspects of gravity – but nobody says gravity doesn’t exist! or that we can’t make predictions based on calculations using gravitational fields. AGW is here and we can rest assured that it is humans who are doing the forcing – and if we don’t do something drastic about it now then it is too late! We know what to do – we NEED to mobilise and we need to do it FAST! and CCD’s are just getting in the way!

    • felix 31.1
      11 December 2009 at 9:46 pm

      Really?

      Lock them in camps for real?

      With guns and stomping and all that?

      • lprent 31.1.1
        11 December 2009 at 10:05 pm

        Yeah Macro is usually a bit nicer than that. However I guess that this has him wound up.

        • Macro 31.1.1.1
          13 December 2009 at 9:35 pm

          Yes I am! I think it’s all the airtime given to those who’s obvious intent is to obstruct and to misinform. There is an excellent post here I recommend you should read about fairness and “balance” in the media.

          http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/248046_mtrahant13.html

          The decisions we make over the next 20 years will affect the planet for the next 400 years as you well know. So we haven’t the time nor the latitude to parley over what needs to be done. We are fortunate in NZ that many of the early effects don’t seem to be causing us too much pain. I had a discussion the other day with some idiot who suggested that a 5 degree average temperature rise in wellington would be welcome! I don’t think he was speaking in jest. He just didn’t realise the implications of such a statement.
          Regretfully we have now a government that has seen its task as the unravelling of all but one of the small faultering steps taken by the last towards lowering our carbon footprint. They are aided and abetted by the “useful idiots” – a political term I’m sure you are well aware of.
          As Bill points out here – the media are as much controlled by the 385 people who own 66% of the worlds wealth! (although he didn’t use those statistics). What is needed is a strong independent media and even our “so-called” national media seem to want to ape the manners of the private news channels.

          • Bill 31.1.1.1.1
            13 December 2009 at 9:47 pm

            Hey.

            This is what it all comes down to……..perhaps.

            Extrapolate and apply……liberals are fucking useless

            • Macro 31.1.1.1.1.1
              13 December 2009 at 10:11 pm

              Yep that’s what it’s all about Bill! That’s what it all comes down to.

              “Liberals” – should this not be “intellectuals” are too busy wanting to examine both sides of the argument – well in this case the argument is over pretty much over. It’s now time to get on with doing something about it!

              AS word “kindly!” lol

              • Bill …
                13 December 2009 at 10:32 pm

                It’s an understanding of the other side that’s missing.

                The right wing fucks won’t just beat you down. ( let’s assume you you are ‘big’ enough to see some merit in both sides of the argument.) That equivocation was your weak spot. And they will dumb fuck Pavlov dog stomp on down on it. But that’s not enough. After they have stomped you down they will put the boot in. And then they will put the boot in again. And again. And again….ad nauseam until you are pizza pulp.

                And then they will grind their heel in the mush.

                But hey! Be civilised and superior and nice and you’ll go far.

              • Bill …
                13 December 2009 at 10:46 pm

                Qualifier.

                It ain’t the ccd who are the right wing fuckwits. It’s the relevant personnel in the corporations ( eg Rob ‘bobby banana’ Fyffe) and the PR company personnel, the ‘shock jocks’ and the brainless think tank fuckwits.

                Monkton? irrelevent

                Andrei? irrelevent

                Corporates and their political lackeys? Maybe Baader Meinhof had a valid point afterall?

    • Lew 31.2
      11 December 2009 at 10:19 pm

      Macro, by taking such a position, you end up opposed to both the deniers and everyone who values their own liberty and a civil society — and that’s a fight you can’t win.

      Thank goodness.

      L

      • Draco T Bastard 31.2.1
        11 December 2009 at 10:34 pm

        If someone’s liberty is getting everyone else killed then we usually lock them up in jail. This is normal.

        • Lew 31.2.1.1
          11 December 2009 at 10:57 pm

          DTB, up to a point, but the essence of civil society is defining those points on grounds of principle and agreed social contracts, not in service of discrete political aims.

          But ultimately it’s going to come down to sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. Are you prepared to be locked up when the Mises fanatics and Rand cultists decide that your economic views are Objectively Suboptimal and you’re killing people by failing to “get out of their way”?

          If not, I suggest you unload that rifle, put away the pitchfork, douse the torch and sit back down at the table.

          L

          • Draco T Bastard 31.2.1.1.1
            12 December 2009 at 6:15 pm

            Economic policies aren’t a good counter example – there’s too much unknown about economics (although I’m pretty sure a good case could be made to show that the neo-liberal policies followed over the last few decades have killed people). There’s no doubt about AGCC and it’s effects. We know that not doing something about it will kill.

            • Lew 31.2.1.1.1.1
              12 December 2009 at 9:24 pm

              You make the charming mistake of thinking that, given a political and civic culture where declaring folk nonpersons for holding certain beliefs is legitimate, any actual substantive test of the merit (or lack) of those beliefs would be necessary.

              I’m sure that, being the imaginative sort you are, you can think of an issue in which you are on the wrong side of the orthodoxy and would stand to suffer under a ’round ’em up’ model of dissent-management. That’s the point: if you can do it, so can they, and they’ve got all the lawyers, guns and money. So what’s your move?

              L

  32. Gooner 32
    11 December 2009 at 9:33 pm

    AGW is here and we can rest assured that it is humans who are doing the forcing

    As opposed to other forms of anthropogeny?

    and if we don’t do something drastic about it now then it is too late! We know what to do we NEED to mobilise and we need to do it FAST! and CCD’s are just getting in the way!

    Damn us CCD’s aye. Perhaps you could lock us in a concentration camp like those damn Joos were – you know, like you suggested above.

    CCDs are 5th columnists pure and simple! In a war they would be put in a concentration camp and that in my opinion is the best place for them.

    Nice place this.

    [lprent: It is an opinion. Not a particularly useful one. But in line of what this post is about. It is called debate – something that you haven’t indulged in. ]

  33. Gooner 33
    11 December 2009 at 9:51 pm

    lprent, I asked whether there were other forms of human anthropogeny. Would someone care to debate that?

    • lprent 33.1
      11 December 2009 at 9:59 pm

      Beats me. The statement as you’ve framed it is rather meaningless, especially with the redundant ‘human’ prefixing it

      anthropogeny – the evolution or genesis of the human race

      It is hard to figure out what an evolutionary or genesis debate would be like in the context of this discussion. Perhaps you’d rephrase it into something meaningful.

      BTW: The definition is from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropogeny

  34. Macro 34
    11 December 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Lester Brown Iprent uses the word to Mobilse in his book Plan b version 4
    Mobilise is a word used in wartime and that is where we need to be – If we just think it will all happen without out taking deliberate steps as if in war time to fight it we will be beaten – its that simple. An ETS or carbon tax – just doesn’t cut it!
    America changed from making cars to war planes overnight – if they had not done so – the world would be a different place today.
    Britain had to regulate everything in order to muster the resources necessary to meet the challenges of 1940.
    I believe that similar action is necessary now -so does James Hansen

    • Pascal's bookie 34.1
      11 December 2009 at 11:47 pm

      But in both America and Britain in wwii, the govt’s had the support of the people to mobilise.

      I agree with you about both the scale of the problem and the size of the needed response. But without winning the political argument, the response is just not possible. If you even try and force the response through the criminalisation of dissent, you only further guarantee failure by worsening your position in the political debate.

      It may well be that the political debate won’t be won until there is even more incontrovertible evidence, with all that means for both the increased scale of the problem, the size of the necessary response, and the decreased possibility of success for that response and the lower definition of what success will be defined as. But be that as it may, winning the political debate is absolutely necessary.

      When the nutters on the other side are claiming it’s all a conspiracy man, with the NWO and the FEMA camps and the godamn Wall st (cough) bankers, then feeding their rhetoric simply can’t be helpful.

      • Macro 34.1.1
        13 December 2009 at 9:43 pm

        “But in both America and Britain in wwii, the govt’s had the support of the people to mobilise.”
        And we won’t get the support of the people to mobilse if the media continues to give airtime to people who’s only intent is to obstruct and procastinate.
        The time has come when the CCD’s need to be silenced. There is a need for the truth to be spoken clearly and loudly, and it needs to be spoken now.

  35. Jenny 35
    11 December 2009 at 11:39 pm

    In the war to save the planet, Chris Trotter compares climate change deniers to traitors during war time.

    The Second World War is commonly cited as being responsible for 60 million deaths.

    Climate Change is projected to exceed that kill rate, many times over.

    Will history judge Climate Change Deniers as culpable as Holocaust Deniers?

    Meanwhile over at the Granny Herald, on their editorial page, an article on climate change, Friday Dec. 11, is paired with a matching article on Climate Change Denial. (Guess which article was given the top billing?)

    The placing of these two almost exactly sized articles together, was probably justified by the Herald as “balanced reporting”.

    I makes me wonder if ‘Granny H.’ published an account of the Holocaust, would they feel similarly compelled to, “in the interests of balanced reporting”, publish an equally sized article arguing for Holocaust Denial?

    The bizarre editorial line of this creaking, anachronistic, right wing rag, it sometimes makes me wonder.

    • Macro 35.1
      11 December 2009 at 11:46 pm

      Agree entirely Jenny.
      This so called “balance” in our media – the giving voice to the CCD et al would not be permitted in wartime – it shouldn’t be now!

      AS word “published” the things uncanny!

      • Bill 35.1.1
        12 December 2009 at 10:30 am

        @ macro

        Where do you get this ‘balance’ shit from? There is no balance. Their is no objectivity.

        All reporting is subjective and ergo not balanced.

        When claims of balance are made you will usually find it is a ploy to narrow the field of debate to ‘safe’ discourse within corporately acceptable parameters…or to pull ‘the centre’ off towards a more pro-business/right position.

        What we need is an honest stating of an authors agenda or position in every piece.

        • Macro 35.1.1.1
          12 December 2009 at 5:09 pm

          You will note Bill that I did put quotes around the word. There is no balance in wartime.
          Now we have the absurd situation where every time the media report evidence of global warming they seem to think that they have to drag on some crackpot CCD with some spurious explanation that anyone with half a brain could drive a bus through. And there is no analysis of the CCD’s misinformation and in some cases deliberate lies. (You might say – “Well an intelligent person would see through that!” but we have to understand that 50% of the population have an IQ LESS than 100 – that is after all what an IQ is supposed to represent).
          There has to come a time when the media see these CCDs for what they are – “USEFUL IDIOTS” for the petro chemical and other GHG polluting industries endlessly repeating the rubbish that is provided to them by the PR and other “think tanks” of the vested interest. The planet and humanity as a whole are the casualties.

          • zelda 35.1.1.1.1
            12 December 2009 at 5:35 pm

            Part of email from Mick Kelly CRU University of East Anglia
            “Had a very good meeting with SHELL… accept the invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund…”

            Usefull idiots ? Macro do check the mirror as the CRU finds the petro chemical industries a ‘strategic partner’.
            http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt

            • wtl 35.1.1.1.1.1
              12 December 2009 at 6:53 pm

              Aha! Perhaps then all the e-mails were part of a master plan formulated with Shell to discredit the science behind global warming?

          • Bill 35.1.1.1.2
            12 December 2009 at 5:44 pm

            But corporate media are members of the corporate family whose other members include the GHG polluting industries and include the petro-chemical industries. And they are all serviced by the same PR industry and the same think tanks.

            So the corporate media will continue to repeat the rubbish that is provided to them by the PR industry and the think tanks…ie the corporate media will continue to promote the “USEFUL IDIOTS” because they are on the same side as the other corporates. Since the corporates each have their fingers in one another’s pies they are all playing the same game with the same agenda and all seek to use the “USEFUL IDIOTS” as pawns for the same ends.

  36. travellerev 36
    12 December 2009 at 8:30 am

    If you question the events of 911 you are a traitor because we have to fight terrorists, you are disrespectful to the family members who lost loved ones and your disrespect the troops for sacrificing their lives for all of us in the honorable fight against them rag heads.

    If you are cynical in the face of all these new taxes to be payed to the international bankster elite to be able to start emitting CO2 you are a traitor.

    If you are critical of the NAZI regime you are unpatriotic and if you think that Stalin is not a nice man you are a bad communist.

    I’ve heard them all before and a mainstream asshole in the mainstream media telling me that to be critical of the way our elite wants to solve our problems is deviant and treacherous is just more of the same.

    I hate it when people tell me what I can and can not say and try to silence me with labels.

    That is how the ruling elites have done it alway and the always will.

    The moment discourse is silenced with labels such as that we have reached the end of liberty.

  37. vto 37
    12 December 2009 at 9:50 am

    deniers are traitors?

    there some funny, and dangerous, shit on here sometimes.

    back to the dark ages we go

    • Bill 37.1
      12 December 2009 at 10:34 am

      Nope.

      Chris Trotter and his ilk are the traitors by dint of his own reasoning. Maybe ( by his own reasoning) he should hang more than his head in shame?

      see here http://www.thestandard.org.nz/deniers-are-traitors/#comment-178148

      • Bored 37.1.1
        12 December 2009 at 10:42 am

        Bill, its all a lot of hot air, suggest you read the latest Archdruid report on why action wont work. Labelling people from both sides of the debate will not make an iota of difference. Because people cannot see the paradigm they live in clearly makes judging them today a waste of time, history can be the judge.

        For my part the elephants in the room are real, but relying on other people to take any notice is a futile exercise. All that can be done is to lead by example and make your own arrangements in the hope that you might survive any mass die off.

        • Bill 37.1.1.1
          12 December 2009 at 10:51 am

          But it’s fun calling Trotter on his hot air by following through with a wee bit of logic.

          And sometimes people have a better (though never full) view of their paradigm than others. I guess it’s all down to a thing called awareness or doubt or whatever.

          Anyway I agree with your basic trust….not that knowing something to be a waste of time will prevent me indulging…. Have already read the archdruid….good stuff.

        • Bill 37.1.1.2
          12 December 2009 at 11:07 am

          All that can be done is to lead by example and make your own arrangements in the hope that you might survive any mass die off.

          Have to take issue with that bit. Absolutely no point in making your own arrangements unless it involves making arrangements in cooperation with other people.

          And from my experience, NZ is one of the most backward and difficult places for implementing any cooperative or collaborative course of action. There really is just bugger all development of institutions or ways of living that fall outside of or challenge the rather narrowly defined orthodoxies prevalent in NZ.

          Which is a shame, ’cause the opportunities afforded by climate, geography, population etc are far greater than those afforded in other countries where unorthodox solutions and challenges abound. ( I use the word abound in relative terms)