It’s begun

Written By: - Date published: 9:02 am, June 19th, 2011 - 141 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, International - Tags: ,

While climate change deniers still try to dishonestly pick holes in the science, and spread long disproved lies, the visible effects of climate change are becoming more and more obvious:

Warning: extreme weather ahead

Tornados, wildfires, droughts and floods were once seen as freak conditions. But the environmental disasters now striking the world are shocking signs of ‘global weirding’

Drought zones have been declared across much of England and Wales, yet Scotland has just registered its wettest-ever May. The warmest British spring in 100 years followed one of the coldest UK winters in 300 years. June in London has been colder than March. February was warm enough to strip on Snowdon, but last Saturday it snowed there.

Welcome to the climate rollercoaster, or what is being coined the “new normal” of weather. … Sober government scientists at the centre for hydrology and ecology are openly using words like “remarkable”, “unprecedented” and “shocking” to describe the recent physical state of Britain this year, but the extremes we are experiencing in 2011 are nothing to the scale of what has been taking place elsewhere recently.

Last year, more than 2m sq km of eastern Europe and Russia scorched. An extra 50,000 people died as temperatures stayed more than 6C above normal for many weeks, crops were devastated and hunderds of giant wild fires broke out. The price of wheat and other foods rose as two thirds of the continent experienced its hottest summer in around 500 years.

This year, it’s western Europe’s turn for a mega-heatwave, with 16 countries, including France, Switzerland and Germany (and Britain on the periphery), experiencing extreme dryness. The blame is being out on El Niño and La Niña, naturally occurring but poorly understood events that follow heating and cooling of the Pacific ocean near the equator, bringing floods and droughts.

Vast areas of Europe have received less than half the rainfall they would normally get in March, April and May, temperatures have been off the scale for the time of year, nuclear power stations have been in danger of having to be shut down because they need so much river water to cool them, and boats along many of Europe’s main rivers have been grounded because of low flows. In the past week, the great European spring drought has broken in many places as massive storms and flash floods have left the streets of Germany and France running like rivers.

But for real extremes in 2011, look to Australia, China and the southern US these past few months. In Queeensland, Australia, an area the size of Germany and France was flooded in December and January in what was called the country’s “worst natural disaster”. It cost the economy up to A$30bn (£19.5bn), devastated livelihoods and is still being cleaned up.

In China, a “once-in-a-100-years” drought in southern and central regions has this year dried up hundreds of reservoirs, rivers and water courses, evaporating drinking supplies and stirring up political tensions. The government responded with a massive rain-making operation, firing thousands of rockets to “seed” clouds with silver iodide and other chemicals. It may have worked: for whatever reason, the heavens opened last week, a record 30cm of rain fell in some places in 24 hours, floods and mudslides killed 94 people, and tens of thousands of people have lost their homes.

Meanwhile, north America’s most deadly and destructive tornado season ever saw 600 “twisters” in April alone, and 138 people killed in Joplin, Missouri, by a mile-wide whirlwind. Arizonans were this week fighting some of the largest wildfires they have known, and the greatest flood in recorded US history is occurring along sections of the Missouri river. This is all taking place during a deepening drought in Texas and other southern states – the eighth year of “exceptional” drought there in the past 12 years. [My bolds]

Argue with the science if you must, but it’s pretty hard to argue with the world. The effects of climate change are upon us. If runaway feedback loops kick in (and there’s no reason to believe that they won’t) then it doesn’t end well.

The attitude of governments world wide seems to be that it’s far too expensive and inconvenient to do anything about climate change, so let’s just carry on as usual. (Key wants to dig up all the lignite.) Even in narrow economic terms business as usual is stupid short term thinking. But in broader practical and moral terms it’s nothing short of madness.

141 comments on “It’s begun ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. John D 1
    19 June 2011 at 9:22 am

    Why hasn’t there been any warming for the last 10 years or so?

    • jackal 1.1
      19 June 2011 at 10:27 am

      Scientists first presented the facts surrounding climate change in the 70’s. It’s not that the effects weren’t apparent to a degree that can’t be ignored until recently, it’s that the powers that be have been actively working against the evidence and a public realisation that climate change is real. Mr Robins is correct, they’re madmen and their inaction may have killed many millions of people.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1
        19 June 2011 at 11:39 am

        Try billions but that’s likely to have happened even without climate change. You cannot maintain massive over-population.

        • Gerard 1.1.1.1
          20 June 2011 at 1:39 pm

          People people – in the 70’s they were all concerned about COOLING…. it didn’t happen. Then all the concern about WARMING…. it didn’t happen. I haven’t managed to encounter anyone, ever, who though that climate was a static thing. Climate is only ever change and forever changing. People who speak of climate change deniers identify something that cannot be found in space-time. The data has long been in and it says that spaceship earth always goes through cycles of warm and cold and this will likely continue into the future no matter what pathetic name calling whether so-called denier or warmista goes on.

          [lprent: Kind of boring and reads like a troll (and I’m not talking about the idiot content). I’d suggest that you learn to use paragraphs, stop SHOUTING if you want anyone to take any notice of you.

          Read the policy on trolls so you get some idea about what to avoid on the behavioural side.

          BTW: Many of us have enough science training to detect those who have not. So reducing your use of psuedo-science babble would probably help as well. Then at least we wouldn’t get the sense that you’re simply being a parrot. ]

          • James 1.1.1.1.1
            20 June 2011 at 1:56 pm

            they were all concerned about COOLING

            No “they” weren’t.

            from New Scientist (which explains more about the rise of this particular climate change deniers myth) – http://bit.ly/dVt86S…

            A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling.”

            • Gerard 1.1.1.1.1.1
              21 June 2011 at 9:31 pm

              Policy read. Nothing posted justifies your attack. This pseudo-science babble you speak of is the history of the planet. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the science of it.

              [Arguing with the lead moderator here is a short-cut to getting booted. Unlike you I’m more than six years familiar with Lynn’s background and knowledge of climate science; and I know that your sneering and dismisal of it is wrong. We have repeatedly seen your immature kind of thinking that is incapable of changing.

              Consider that you have now drawn the critical attention of two different moderators…how do you want to proceed? RL]

              [lprent: I did decades ago – my first degree was a BSc in Earth Sciences, and I keep reading in the subject. But if you’d bothered to read my note, that was an aside. What is at issue is your particularly stupid and old school trolling comment style. I would boot you now for being dumb enough to not understand how transparent it is.. ]

              • Clare Swinney …
                22 June 2011 at 12:18 pm

                The advisers to the so-called elite may expose what is behind policy in their documents/papers.

                Read comments from Richard N. Haass of the highly influential Council of the Foreign Relations. He stated that global warming and terrorism will be used as an excuse to dissolve the sovereignty of nations. He wrote in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in a globalized era,” that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. “Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function,” asserts Haass. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…” In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, is this: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

                Thus, he is admitting that man-made global warming is a scam concocted in order to further the globalists’ agenda for one-world government.

                • RedLogix …
                  22 June 2011 at 3:24 pm

                  The simple fact is that Haass is right. The world cannot continue as it is.

                  Eventually and inevitably the threats that all these crisis present will force the nations of the world to cede a portion of their sovereignty to a global federal body…. simply because the consequences of not doing so will become so hideous. This is plain logic that most mature people have understood for a long time; more or less since the first nuclear bombs were dropped.

                  Financial instability, Terrorism, starvation, the death of the oceans, the destruction of the biosphere, weapons of mass destruction, bio-weapons, cyber-war, climate change, resource limits… are all very real threats that we can see approaching us.

                  All of these threats are global in nature and therefore the response must be global in character. For instance it will never work for just some nations to limit their carbon emmissions… all nations must do so in a fair and equitable fashion. The only way to achieve this is through the legaslative coercion of a global government of some description.

                  You can pretend global govt will not happen all you like. That will not change a thing, except ensure you have no voice in what happens. Most people tend to think that the govts we have are bad enough, a global govt must be worse. Which is directly analogous to thinking that just because your local warlord/baron in the castle down the road is a rapacious arse… that a nation state based on a democratic Parliament must be worse.

                  It’s false thinking, worse still it shuts you out of the discourse. What we will get is a global govt; what sort of government and how much you get to participate in it is the really crucial question.

                  • Clare Swinney …
                    22 June 2011 at 3:48 pm

                    No, the planet can not continue as it is RedLogix, particularly not with all the aerosol material being injected into our fragile atmosphere in the name of saving the planet from man-made global warming.

    • Zetetic 1.2
      19 June 2011 at 10:39 am

      the warmest year on record was last year.

      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html

      It tied with 2005.

      So, you kind of mucked up there.

      • John D 1.2.1
        19 June 2011 at 10:43 am

        Warmest year on record does not conflict with a zero trend for the last 10 years.

        Here’s the graph from HadCrut3, showing the 1995-current and 2000-current trend.

        Notice that the flat line from 2000

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 10:53 am

          That’s right John D keep putting your foot down, pedal to the metal, there’s a few hundred metres of road left before the cliff face.

        • Zetetic 1.2.1.2
          19 June 2011 at 10:54 am

          yes you did. you said there hasn’t been any warming in a decade. there has been. the trend is up.

          If you bothered to follow the link I gave you, you would see a graph of that trend.

          here’s one of the five-year rolling average. As you can see, the latest point of that graph is over 0.1 of a degree above where it was a decade ago. and the last two years have both beaten the current 5 year average point.

          thus year will be slightly down on last year, but the 5 year average will probably continue to rise.

          Of course, one year, two years, or even five years of flat temperatures wouldn’t break the rising trend. We’re talking about a system whose patterns, before humans, usually changed only over centuries and millennia.

        • Zetetic 1.2.1.3
          19 June 2011 at 10:57 am

          In the graph you’ve supplied, both the trend lines are upwards.

          • Jim Nald 1.2.1.3.1
            19 June 2011 at 11:25 am

            Seems like he’s got one foot jammed on the pedal
            and another firmly in his mouth

          • John D 1.2.1.3.2
            19 June 2011 at 11:28 am

            Both trend lines are upwards? Huh? The 2000 looks pretty flat to me.
            As for your NASA graph, it doesn’t show the 200-2011trend in any detail.

            OK, try this one

            http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Since20011.jpg

            Notice the flat line from 2000.
            Notice also the black lines, which are the IPCC projections.

            As for my personal habits, “pedal to the metal” or whatever, I work from home, so my “carbon footprint” is pretty small.

            I’d rather stick to what the data says rather than an emotional argument.

            • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.3.2.1
              19 June 2011 at 11:42 am

              If you followed what the data says, you wouldn’t be a climate change denier 🙂

              And you wouldn’t do odd unscientific things like look at climate just within a specific predetermined 10 year period 🙂

            • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.3.2.2
              19 June 2011 at 11:43 am

              Linking to denier sites isn’t going to win any brownie points. Mostly because the data that they use already been proven to be twisted.

              In other words, they’re lying.

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 June 2011 at 11:49 am

                Mostly because the data that they use already been proven to be twisted.

                In other words, they’re lying.

                But why would John D, or indeed anyone, want to disseminate lying climate change denier sites like that? 🙂

                • John D …
                  19 June 2011 at 12:39 pm

                  “They are lying”

                  I provided a link to HadCrut3

                  This is the actual data collected by the University of East Anglia.
                  How is this a “denier site” and in what way are they lying?

                  Please explain.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    19 June 2011 at 1:21 pm

                    They’re picking and choosing the data and then “analysing” it in such a way so as to get the result they want rather than show what’s actually happening. Follow the multi-decade time series, which you have to do to see trends in the climate, and the trend is obvious and it’s going up.

            • Zetetic 1.2.1.3.2.3
              19 June 2011 at 12:11 pm

              “Both trend lines are upwards? Huh? The 2000 looks pretty flat to me.”

              both of them are upwards.

              Me. I go to NASA for climate data. The world authority on measuring the globe’s temperature. Not denier sites.

              • John D …
                19 June 2011 at 12:41 pm

                Please give me some data from NASA that shows the trend over the last decade. Compete with error bars

                Otherwise I’ll just assume that you are another bullshit artist

                • Doug …
                  19 June 2011 at 1:22 pm

                  Of course the temperature trend (warming or cooling) will not be statistically significant (95%) in any ten year period due to the noise arising from yearly variation. For the warming trend to emerge takes a larger time period (sample). It is intersting to note that when Phil Jones was asked if there had been warming since 1995 last year and he stated that there was no statisitcally signficant warming (at 95% confidence) at that time.

                  However, since that time he has commented that the warming trend, since 1995, now meets the 95% test.

                  The world is warming and John is either ignorant about how to analysis time series data or being delibrately misleading.

            • Macro 1.2.1.3.2.4
              19 June 2011 at 7:30 pm

              Yeah! Definitely cooling!
              Just look at this
              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201105.gif
              and see how the trend is OBVIOUSLY downwards…
              opps sorry I’m looking at it upside down!

    • Zetetic 1.3
      19 June 2011 at 10:46 am

      I’ll throw a dog a bone.

      the ‘it hasn’t warmed in ten years’ line refers to the fact that 1998 stood as the record hottest year for nearly a decade, until 2005. The reason why 1998 was above trend, and so stayed a record for a long time, was the strong el nino that year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

      so, not only is the ‘it hasn’t warmed in ten years’ line 6 years out of date. It also relies on you not understanding that major weather patterns can influence the temperature for a given year, above or below the underlying trend. This year, for example, will be cooler than last year due the current la nina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a

      see, things are much simpler when you bother to do a bit of learning.

      • John D 1.3.1
        19 June 2011 at 11:35 am

        Explain to me, if we know so much about the climate, why the IPCC projections didn’t reflect this?

        • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 11:40 am

          IPCC projections use knowledge which is 4-6 years out of date by the time it is publicly released. If anything the situation is worse than they consider.

          Keep putting your foot down on the pedal John D.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2
          19 June 2011 at 11:45 am

          Because they were far too conservative due to the political influence of denier countries such as the US.

        • Zetetic 1.3.1.3
          19 June 2011 at 12:20 pm

          I’m just saying the trend is clearly up. You can deny until the pot boils, but won’t change the face.

    • Tangled up in blue 1.4
      19 June 2011 at 11:51 am

      This is such an obvious troll I’m not even sure why people bother answering this.

      • John D 1.4.1
        19 June 2011 at 12:43 pm

        This is such an obvious troll I’m not even sure why people bother answering this.

        Are you referring to me?

    • side show bob 1.5
      19 June 2011 at 7:36 pm

      Come on John get with the program. It’s not about climate change ( new words for tomorrow’s weather) it’s about wealth redistribution and the advancement of socialism. It’s about people who infest sites like this who have their heads stuck so far up their arses that the only time the weather heats up is when they have a curry. I’m a bloody farmer and I’m sick and tied of the morons that scream the sky is falling.It is not. I don’t disrupt the climate is changing what I do dispute is the parasites who claim the only way to save the world is to keep paying, and paying, and paying , and paying. Fuck them . It’s a joke and we all know it. Don’t believe me ?? then I would like to see what your carbon credits are worth now.Oh In case you don’t know they are not worth a tin of shit.

      • Colonial Viper 1.5.1
        19 June 2011 at 7:49 pm

        I’m a bloody farmer and I’m sick and tied of the morons that scream the sky is falling.It is not.

        I’ve got some Canterbury/Waikato/Southland stream water for you and your family to drink.

        it’s about wealth redistribution and the advancement of socialism.

        Yes. Wealth redistribution is happening right now.

        From poor people to the already wealthy.

        what I do dispute is the parasites who claim the only way to save the world is to keep paying, and paying, and paying , and paying. Fuck them .

        Don’t you believe in price signals and the invisible hand of the market?

        • Rusty Shackleford 1.5.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 7:55 pm

          CV you are a hypocrite. On the one hand you advocate inflationary policy (enacted by Don Brash), then on the other harp on about redistribution from the rich to the poor.

  2. Steve Withers 2
    19 June 2011 at 9:44 am

    I’ve been seeing articles in several US media publications (Newsweek was one of them) calling for the urgent establishment of state “adaptation committees”. Not a single word about reducing emissions. They want to talk right past that.

    I watched “The Age of Stupid” again a few days ago.

    I suspect humans have always been functionally stupid on the macro scale (or mobs would be smarter than individuals)…..it’s just that we weren’t numerous enough to do enough harm to really screw things up.

    We can now.

    • Rusty Shackleford 2.1
      19 June 2011 at 5:16 pm

      The global warming (sorry, climate change), industry has no interest in the environment. It may or may not be an actual problem (I’m not qualified to comment), but it certainly is a great opportunity to spin a buck and arrogate power.

    • KJT 2.2
      19 June 2011 at 6:35 pm

      AGW is not happening. The US Senate passed a law against it.

  3. Nick K 3
    19 June 2011 at 9:46 am

    I’m sure I just looked out my window and saw the sky falling.

    • Steve Withers 3.1
      19 June 2011 at 9:48 am

      Nick: G’day Mr. Frog. I’m sure that pot you’re in isn’t really any hotter than it was a while a go. Don’t worry mate, you won’t feel a thing.

    • Robert Atack 3.2
      19 June 2011 at 10:36 am

      This is for Nick and his mates

      http://www.youtube.com/user/oilcrash1?feature=mhee#p/a/f/1/XB3S0fnOr0M
      Snip >
      Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s.
      Yes, the decade of disco, kung fu, and watergate

      Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. Those crazy climate scientists! Why can’t they make up their minds? <

      • John D 3.2.1
        19 June 2011 at 11:32 am

        Actually, they are forecasting a possible little ice age again within the next decade

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

        Of course, John Cook has “debunked” this, so don’t bother with the link

        I just hope they are wrong. I’d hate to be paying to heat all those windmills from freezing up

        • burt 3.2.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 11:39 am

          John D

          But that would be in keeping with past trends and isn’t aligned to the teaching of High Priest Gore… The hockey stick my boy…. did you forget about that… back to the start of the global warming climate change bible for you mate!

        • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.2
          19 June 2011 at 11:48 am

          No, really, they’re not. They’re saying that they don’t actually know what the sun not going along in it’s normal cycle means.

      • Clare Swinney 3.2.2
        22 June 2011 at 11:56 am

        Luckily even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence! Contradicting Al Gore’s claim in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ that, “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

        The idea for the man-made global warming scam appears to have emerged from the Iron Mountain Report. This was authored by a group of intellectual elitists in 1966 who were asked to devise methods by which a government could become more powerful. War, they wrote, would be impossible under a single, world government, so other methods for controlling populations would be required. A new enemy that posed a threat to life on earth was needed.
        After considering a number of possibilities, including a staged space-alien invasion, which they decided was too far-fetched, they concluded that the environmental pollution model was the one most likely to succeed. This model, they wrote, could be related to observable conditions like pollution and predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios. Accuracy was not important – what mattered was that it was believable, as the intent was to frighten, not to inform.
        The group concluded that the benefits of this model were huge for the elite, as it could be used to justify expansive and authoritarian government, as well as impoverish citizens, thereby greatly widening the gap between the leaders and followers.

        • lprent 3.2.2.1
          22 June 2011 at 1:03 pm

          … ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

          You are looking at a similar but different different feedback effect. The first part of your statement should have been..
          ..ice core data shows that as the temperature starts to rise..

          During glacials the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are lower. That is because much of the organic carbon of the carbon cycle gets sequestered under ice, in permafrost, bog, and the numbers of animals consuming it and excreting it are lower.

          Now I realize that you probably have never spent much time actually thinking about the effects on cold of geography. I’d suggest some time in Alaska would help a lot (especially for those of use reading your ill-informed comment)

          But what you have is large areas that are cold, but not covered with snow and ice all year. This is permafrost and there are massive areas of it in the northern hemisphere even now. These accumulate significiant depths of organic material below the surface that are permanently frozen. In slightly less cold areas you get the buildup of peat bogs, again with vast amounts of organic material.

          Now think what happens when the cold starts to retreat for whatever reason (most likely long orbital cycles or volcanic activity). Large areas of organic debris stored in permafrosts and bogs start getting eaten by aerobic bacteria who can now survive in greater numbers because they aren’t frozen each year and not in cold anaerobic bog waters (increasing tempatures cause water bodies to “turnover” faster). They excrete CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere from the stored organic carbon.

          Now you have a feedback effect going. More CO2 is released into the atmosphere to do its thousands of years carbon cycle (and CH4 with its much shorter cycle). This causes more warming, which release more greenhouse gases. Eventually the cold retreats to the polar continents and the feedback slows.

          But the net effect is that the end of a glacial causes a feedback with greenhouse gases being released that speeds up the warmup. The feedback starts slowly, then is rapid as the mid-latitudes warm from the fast feedback from relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases. But the biggest release by volume of greenhouse CO2 shows up towards the end when it has a reduced effect because the cold is closing on the poles. That is because it takes time for the bacteria much their way through stored carbon in bogs.

          Typically after a glacial starts to turn, you see a growth in atmospheric CO2 back to normal levels driving a warming, with a smallish overshoot at the end because there is more CO2 being released than the carbon cycle can process (much like the situation we are in today). It then drops back as the oceans and plants suck it out of the atmosphere.

          What you don’t see is centuries of sustained release of C02 to move the atmospheric CO2 to a point that is massively higher than the usual levels.

          Sure we have seen that kind of thing happen in the geological record. It is a result usually of vulcanism, takes hundreds of thousands of years, and is associated with mass extinctions towards the end of it. The Deccan traps about 65-66mya being a good example. No one has any idea what doing it over a few centuries will do. Modelling it based on known science however does not give very encouraging conclusions for human survival as a civilization (the likely effects on food production alone are scary).

          Luckily even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence! Contradicting Al Gore’s claim in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ that, “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

          What your statement really shows is how limited your basic understanding is of the processes of climate change. Perhaps you should consider doing some basic science courses. Or at the very least go and read some actual science orientated material on the topic just to balance up the political nutter stuff you have been reading (that you probably think is science).

          Gore may be a politician and therefore chronically overstates issues, but he obviously actually listened to people talking about the science before he started yammering. You obviously have found that to be beneath you….

          • travellerev 3.2.2.1.1
            22 June 2011 at 2:32 pm

            Iprent,

            Enough with the patronising already.

            So you did the “science”. Here is something interesting about how the elite influences our “independent” science.

            Al Gore for all his “listening” to “scientists” has not seemed to actually taken in what the consequences might be considering that he actually made a billion of the carbon trade and invested part of it in huge mansions (that was his second or his third) and thinks it’;s perfectly OK to keep motors running when he’s peddling his “message”.

            And don’t even get me started on his families business and his suspect silence on the oil disaster in the gulf of Mexico.

            But then what to expect from a “science” guy who still believes that three steel framed (huge heat sinks) buildings can collapse into their own footprint into the path of most resistance in free fall speed (6.5, 10 and 11 seconds) as the result of minor carbon fires (limited pockets of fire at the point of plane impact (Here is a transcript of the tape of the fire fighter in one of the buildings at the level of impact who says they should be able to kill the fires with two engines. Just google it and you will find the audio)

            No offence Iprent, but maybe you should take up another science course on Newtons laws of motion.
             

            • Clare Swinney 3.2.2.1.1.1
              22 June 2011 at 3:22 pm

              Iprent

              Ironically, my statement – “…the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years…” – which you stated indicates that I have no understanding of climate change, could be verified as being correct by yourself, if you put the two graphs together that were shown in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore. Note that Gore says the relationship is complicated, but does not state in what way. The graphs are shown together in the UK documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ and a valid explanation given – one that fits what is shown in the graphs. Refer:
              http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

              Dr Michael Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, who headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, said it is not happening – global warming is a hoax. He says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government.
              Refer: Global Warming Or Global Governance? by Dr Michael Coffman
              http://video.ezinemark.com/global-warming-or-global-governance-dr.-michael-coffman-is-global-warming-a-scam-part-1-of-9-4648f1f7b7c.html

              • lprent …
                22 June 2011 at 3:56 pm

                I looked at your first paragraph and decided that you had been incapable of reading my comment or incapable of understanding it (and stopped reading in sympathy for your predicament). Perhaps you should try reading it because the explanation of why there is a lag is in there. The trick is that you have to think in earth science timescales – where a decade is like a blink of an eyelid and a million years isn’t really that long.

                BTW: I really can’t be bothered in investigating your abilities at reading a chart. Little kiddies at school get taught how to do that.

                What is of interest is if you can understand enough basic science to understand what the chart is showing in terms of the physical processes.

                • Clare Swinney …
                  22 June 2011 at 10:21 pm

                  Iprent – You like focusing on personal attacks rather than dealing with the facts. You keep writing “I”. Why is that?

                  • lprent …
                    22 June 2011 at 10:50 pm

                    Ah no. If I was making a personal attack then you’d tend to notice it. Most people around here get to know when I am making such an attack because then I don’t bother to restrain how far I insert the needles. After almost 30 years of being around online social networks I can usually wind people up into an apoplexy.

                    This is just my normal self, albeit out towards the grumpy end.

                    I use ‘I’ a lot to make sure that people are aware that I am expressing my opinions or my understanding. I tend to be pretty pedantic about attribution when I am expressing the opinion of someone else.

                    But yes I can understand your point. Your comments do read like they come off someone else’s website. So I can understand why you do not wish to claim responsibility for them yourself.

                    Oh and the only fact I was interested in was to correct your misunderstanding regarding post-glacial CO2. Did you have missed that? Or just prefer to avoid understanding the physical cause of why it happens (and that it does support CO2 greenhouse warming effects).

            • lprent 3.2.2.1.1.2
              22 June 2011 at 3:25 pm

              te: I think I made it pretty clear that I couldn’t really give a toss about Gore. He is a politician, and only slightly more accurate than Clare Swinney. So that part of your comment is a bit wasted on me.

              So looking at the rest of your response to my comment about the science I was referring to….. I’m sure that it is there somewhere….. Oh there isn’t any.

              Patronizing? What I explained was the underlying science for the post glacial CO2 pulse. You will find it in damn near any university text about Quaternary earth sciences for the last 30 years. I was being sarcastic because it is the nth time that I have seen it raised in comments and I tend towards sarcasm when I repeat myself.

              • travellerev …
                22 June 2011 at 5:41 pm

                You know damn well Iprent that if you are entitled to tell people to stick with science I damn well have the right to do the same.
                You are perfectly happy to reproach Clare or me for that matter about our “lack” of scientific information but you are equally happy to stick with ignorance when it suits you.
                What’s the matter Iprent? How much of your world view would you have to adapt if you have to admit that since science does not support the fashionable conspiracy theory we have a big problem?
                Like New Zealanders have died for a lie in Afghanistan or perhaps it is convenient for our elite to have us believe in Terrorists, Climate change and other assorted taxable scams?

                You want us to stick to “science”? All I did was suggest you do the same.

                • lprent …
                  22 June 2011 at 6:30 pm

                  I replied to the comment on exactly one point that I considered to be quite incorrect and that was clearly influencing whatever else was in the comment and that I had relevant information on.

                  I didn’t bother with the rest of the comment. Now you can reply with whatever you like. However, the only thing I was interested in on the comment was that point. Everything else is a diversion that I really don’t have time for at present.

                  You have to remember that I have been watching the science for this developing since I was first at university 30 years ago. Most of the stuff you are describing as ‘fashionable’ is as completely irrelevant as fashion is to me. My general view on most ‘skeptics’ of various types is that they have no frigging idea of what a skeptic is or how they should act. Most of them are simply fashion victims and tend towards being innately conservative. Which is how I tend to regard them with a certain amount of contempt. They tend to spend more time trying to defend their pet theories than figuring out how to break them.

                  There is absolutely nothing else that I know of that is as skeptical as the processes that science uses to keep hammering theories with decade after decade to see if they can be broken.

                  • travellerev …
                    22 June 2011 at 7:59 pm

                    Wow, you’re scared. Keep rationalising I. That’s what most scared males do. 9/11 was an inside job and we are in a world of hurt. Kiwi boys are dying for a lie and you just want to live a peaceful life and you don’t have time to have closer look. LOL. Enjoy it while you can Iprent because while you “have no time” they will make sure they’ve got the time to plunder you, me, you’re family, mine and this country. Later.
                     
                     

                    • lprent …
                      22 June 2011 at 8:23 pm

                      Yeah right.

                      Haven’t you noticed that my time here has been restricted over the last couple of months. My post writing is way down, so are my comments, and I am even restricted on the amount of time that I moderate. It is called heading towards the end of a project. It is a bit complicated this year by needing to allow more sleep, exercise, and relaxation time than usual so I don’t wind up in hospital again.

                      It reduces the amount of time I spend on what I consider to be side issues. Now if you were talking about something I am actually interested in…

                      And talking about defensive, I notice that neither you or whatshername have commented all on the actual content of my comment.

                    • Macro …
                      22 June 2011 at 9:42 pm

                      “I don’t think that Carbon pollution is one of them and I don’t think that paying taxes to rich pricks is the solution even if Carbon was a problem.”
                      “For example it appears that the eruption of the Chilean Volcano barfed more CO2 into the atmosphere to negate the entire attempt of man kind in the last five years so what are we going to do?”

                      Did you write this rubbish travellerev?
                      http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/on-silver-iodide-weather-modification-and-butterflies-also-known-as-the-best-weather-money-can-buy/#more-7750

                      Fact:
                      Best estimates place human industrial emissions of CO₂ at 100 times natural volcanic emissions
                      The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year (2007 figures)
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
                      Volcanoes release around 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
                      http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

                      Do some research!!

                      You might also note that our oceans are now more acidic than they have ever been in the past 65 million years – from CO2 POLLUTION

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html
                      http://e360.yale.edu/feature/an_ominous_warning_on_theeffects_of_ocean_acidification/2241/

                    • travellerev …
                      22 June 2011 at 9:48 pm

                      I’m sorry Iprent,

                      I did not mean to push that far and I realise that you have had your shit to deal with. How about we call it a day for now and when you are done and rested we pick up were we left off in a kinder fashion. God knows I know about stress and deadlines and with what happened you have indeed enough on your plate.

                      Marco as you quote from my blog I would like to point out that what you quoted was incorrect.

                      I intended to say: It appears that the Chilean Volcano barfed more CO2 into the atmosphere than needed to negate the entire attempt of mankind to reduce carbon exhaust in the last five years. I clearly updated the post with the correction.

                      That is not the same as the volcano barfed out the same amount of CO2 as people produced in five year. That is simply not true.

                    • Macro …
                      22 June 2011 at 10:34 pm

                      But you say Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant – It clearly is.
                      The reason for a Carbon tax (or ETS) is because fossil fuel producers/users externalise the cost of the extraction and consumption. That cost is now being realised in rising sea levels, increasingly warmer oceans, rapid loss of sea ice, more frequent extreme weather events, loss of bio-diversty, extinction of 1000’s of species, threatened water supply from retreating glaciers and exacerbating drought, to list but a few of the costs associated with “cheap” oil and coal.
                      I agree NZ’s ETS is a “shame” made worse by National but some good news is that our Emissions declined last quarter – alternative energies reaching 79% of total.
                      http://lancewiggs.com/2011/06/21/nzs-79-renewable-electricity-generation/

  4. jellytussle 4
    19 June 2011 at 9:52 am

    Global warming. What tosh. It is the other way round. The climate has in fact deteriorated by at least ten degrees in the last few months alone. As recently as the February just gone, it was in fact way hotter outside!

  5. ianmac 5
    19 June 2011 at 10:01 am

    This morning on National Radio about 8:15 they were talking about cleaning up Mt Everest and the comments included how the glaciers were receding seriously which is changing the nature of the cleanup of human debris. For instance the water from the melt is forming large lakes which are a serious threat to habitation down below. I guess the melting will change the major rivers whose headwaters are in the Himalayers.

    • Robert Atack 5.1
      19 June 2011 at 10:15 am

      Yeah 2 billion people will go thirsty once all the ice has gone, assuming China, India et al don’t immigrate to NZ.

    • burt 5.2
      19 June 2011 at 10:49 am

      OMG – are you saying that the bloody Himalayers are now refusing to stay static as well. Shit we humans are supposed to be in control…. we must do stuff urgently to make the climate keep the status quo. Please ignore the fact that climate has been changing relentlessly for the last few billion years and remember it us that are in control and we must regain that control now……

    • John D 5.3
      19 June 2011 at 12:48 pm

      ianmac,
      The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035.

      I know because the IPCC said so

      • Colonial Viper 5.3.1
        19 June 2011 at 12:55 pm

        Worlds changing mate, better keep up.

      • burt 5.3.2
        19 June 2011 at 12:58 pm

        When the first IPCC report made it into the hands of evangelist Gore they thinking was that glaciers moved in unison in the northern and southern hemispheres. That thinking was shattered in 2009 (see: http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-zealand-glacier-findings-upset.html).

        But’s it’s OK – the science was settled before that major discovery and it’s still settled. Just don’t mention the glaciers OK – that bit’s gonna get the believers cranky every time.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.3.2.1
          19 June 2011 at 1:30 pm

          So a blog post points out that some research, which they don’t link to, indicate that there’s regional differences in the climate? We already knew that so how is this supposed to upset us?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.3.2.1.1.1
              19 June 2011 at 8:05 pm

              That doesn’t say anything more than your previous link. The only indication that the research has “upset climate theory” is in the headline which, considering that it’s the Granny, probably means that the editor was trying to be controversial and, in the process, failing to be informative.

              Hint: You’re supposed to read beyond the headline.

              • Macro …
                19 June 2011 at 8:58 pm

                “Hint: You’re supposed to read beyond the headline.”

                Interesting you should say that Draco!
                I’ve just been reading Joe Romm’s latest posting on Climate Progress

                “Crappy Headline” Ruins New York Times Story on Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather”

                http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/18/247938/crappy-headline-ruins-new-york-times-story-climate-change-extreme-weather/#more-247938

                In which he says:

                “Ah, kismet. So I’m about to start writing a post criticizing the New York Times for the dreadful headline it ran on John Broder’s Thursday piece, “Scientists See More Deadly Weather, but Dispute the Cause,” when who should call me on the phone?

                Broder was calling for some comments on climate politics, as he does every six months or so. I said I thought the headline did not accurately reflect the story he wrote.

                Broder called it a “crappy headline.” He said of the two scientists he spoke to and quoted — NOAA’s Thomas R. Karl and NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth — “they don’t dispute the cause.”

                Note: It is always tricky when a reporter is talking to a blogger, so I specifically asked for permission to use each of these two quotes, and he gave it.

                I have written about the work and the words of both Karl and Trenberth a number of times and, as readers know, each understands that climate change is contributing to more extreme weather. The story makes that clear.

                What is especially dismaying about this kind of misleading headline is that most people never read beyond the headline and NY Times headlines sweep across the internet. This one appears to have been repeated at least 55,000 times.

                The grim statistics on how few people actually read newspaper articles was something my parents, who were both in the newspaper business, told me repeatedly. Here are some stats I found on the web:

                [Readers] see 56 percent of the headlines. But they are aware of only 25 percent of the text, and read just a portion of that. Only about 13 percent of the stories in the paper are read in any depth – that is, at least half-read. And that’s under the best of circumstances: These test subjects, frequent newspaper readers, were uninterrupted, supervised, and given prototypes with well-written, compelling stories.” ”

                Obviously burt is one of the 56%.

              • burt …
                19 June 2011 at 9:24 pm

                Draco, there was this bit – (how sore is your foot ?)

                The first direct confirmation of differences in glacier behaviour between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the new work topples theories based on climate in the Northern Hemisphere changing in tandem with the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.

                The research argues that at times the climate in both hemispheres evolved in sync and at other times it evolved differently in different parts of the world.

                It wasn’t the headline but I had hoped you would read it.

                • Macro …
                  19 June 2011 at 9:47 pm

                  OMG!
                  So sometimes the Northern and Southern Hemispheres climate changes in tandem in parts and sometimes it doesn’t. This is NOT as the headline “NZ glacier findings upset climate theory” suggest that AGW and rapid climate change is not occurring. This is a CRAPPY headline.
                  Either your comprehension skills are non-existent, or you are simply arguing for the sake of argument.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 June 2011 at 10:15 pm

                  Ah, I see, you’re reading into the article that which isn’t there.

                  Nothing in the article, including the piece you quoted, says anything about the new findings calling into question Anthropogenic Climate Change. All it’s done is challenge a few peoples assumptions that the glaciers in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres grew and shrank at the same time. I’m sure it’s interesting, possibly even important, but it doesn’t change the underlying theory.

        • Macro 5.3.2.2
          19 June 2011 at 6:52 pm

          Ok Let’s look at it from a Glaciers point of view!
          http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/

    • Mauri Pelto 5.4
      20 June 2011 at 4:26 am

      It is not just a few glacier in the Himalaya that are following this path either. Take a look at Menlung Glacier or Khumbu Glacier etc.
      http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/menlung-glacier-retreat-tibet-glacier-moraine-dammed-lake-expansion/
      or
      http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/khumbu-glacier-decay/

  6. Robert Atack 6
    19 June 2011 at 10:01 am

    It is all good, the faster the shit hits the fan the better, as the sooner we start the die off the less people there will be to suffer, ie if it starts @ 7 billion (now) that is 2 billion less people to get rid of than if it started @ 9 billion
    And the sooner we leave this rock the better it will be for every other spices, even if it will only be radioactive bacteria left.
    So lets keep consuming and fucking this environment. Hail Nick, his thinking will save the day.
    Going along with the ‘Nicks’ we should increase the speed limit, ban safety belts, produce as many babies as we can. Oh and all of us should pay as much spare cash as we have into Kiwi Saver, so TPTB have the funds to finish rogering us and the environment. .
    New Plymouth … windy enough for ya?

    I know we can vote 🙂

    • John D 6.1
      19 June 2011 at 11:47 am

      You’ve gotta love our Robert.

      The thought of radioactive bacteria and other spices (sic) being left on the planet conjures up an interesting picture.

      Garam Masala anyone?

    • johnm 6.2
      19 June 2011 at 12:20 pm

      R.A. has fearlessly gazed into the abyss of the end of the oil age and climate change Nemesis. He’s supported by the Scientists of the World. I don’t blame people: most people find happiness in family life, a partner and one or two children,asking them to heroically engage with these issues it’s beyond them. Not even the communist state of China can stop its population increasing! Problem is those children have children have children ad infinitum.

  7. Robert Atack 7
    19 June 2011 at 10:10 am

    Planet Earth we have a problem

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKV7VfAQhs0

    This talk is not for the Nick’s of this world … they are on another planet. Along with all the politicians that voted for Kiwi Saver …. hmmm was that the Green Party?

    LO fucking L

    WE TOLD YOU SO 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • John D 7.1
      19 June 2011 at 6:49 pm

      Robert Attack,
      Since you seem to hate life so much, perhaps you could [Banned for a month. r0b]

  8. Brett 8
    19 June 2011 at 10:48 am

    These guys have the right idea.

    • Robert Atack 8.1
      19 June 2011 at 10:53 am

      Evolution”

      I’m ahead… I’m advanced.
      I’m the first mammal to wear pants.
      I am at peace with my lust.
      I can kill cause in god I trust.
      It’s evolution baby!

      I’m a beast… I’m the man.
      Buying stocks on the day of the crash.
      On the loose, I’m a truck.
      All the rolling hills I’ll flatten ‘em out.
      It’s herd behavior… it’s evolution baby!

      Admire me, admire my home,
      Admire my son, he is my clone.
      This land is mine, this land is free,
      I’ll do what I want, yet irresponsibly.
      It’s evolution baby!

      I’m a thief, I’m a liar.
      There’s my church, I sing in the choir.
      Halelujah… Halelujah…

      Admire me, admire my home,
      Admire my song, admire my clothes.
      Cause we know an appetite for nightly feasts.
      Those ignorant Indians got nothing on me.
      Nothing. Why? Because it’s evolution baby!

      I am ahead… I am advanced,
      I am the first mammal to make plans.
      I crawled the earth, but now I’m higher.
      2010 watch it go to fire.
      It’s evolution baby! [2x]
      Do the evolution!
      Come on! [3x]
      It’s evolution baby!

      – Pearl Jam

  9. Hilary 9
    19 June 2011 at 11:40 am

    Maybe the fact that snow skiing is becoming a thing of the past for NZ will alert some of the few deniers left.

    • John D 9.1
      19 June 2011 at 11:45 am

      Hilary,
      I don’t see any evidence for your assertion.
      We have had a mild May/early June that has delayed opening of ski fields.
      The last 2 years were bumper snow seasons.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        19 June 2011 at 11:51 am

        The last 2 years were bumper snow machine seasons.

        Fixed that up for you. For a guy who is so into climate issues you look at very short time frames. Just sayin 🙂

        • burt 9.1.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 1:00 pm

          Ah, no they were bumper snow seasons – this year is looking a bit different but it’s not the most significant La Nina (cooler oceans) that has driven this – it’s global warming man made climate change !

          Weather vs climate CV – keep up!

        • John D 9.1.1.2
          19 June 2011 at 6:39 pm

          Yes, I remember those knee-deep powder sessions from the last couple of seasons, kindly provided by mother nature at ski-fields that have no snow making facilities.

          Clearly, someone from the Koch Brothers has invaded by home and implanted false memories into my brain.

          (* giggles *)

          [Yes I do recall these heavy snow events; heavy snow in unusual places has become common recently…however it’s means pretty much the exact opposite of what you think it does.

          There are two places on earth where it almost never snows… very hot places like the tropics which is what most people expect, and very cold places like the Antarctic, which is what most people don’t expect. Heavy snow is the result of warm moist air colliding with cold air in the right combination. It takes BOTH to create snow. This is basic meterology. …RL]

      • Afewknowthetruth 9.1.2
        19 June 2011 at 1:10 pm

        John D

        Increased precipitation (as rain or snow) is a sure sign of warming, since precipitation is due to evaporation, and evaporation is dependent on temperature.

        It’s such a shame that we live in a scientifically iliterate soceity.

      • KJT 9.1.3
        19 June 2011 at 6:21 pm

        Another tornado in Taranaki.

        “Warmer ocean waters driving more extreme weather”. (NZ met).

        What you would expect with Global warming.

  10. johnm 10
    19 June 2011 at 11:59 am

    I live in Wellington. May and June this year have been so warm I beginning to think Wellington must be the new “Winterless North”! This is the warmest early Winter since I came to Wellington in 1979. Last year 2010 in July I remember one night it seemed as balmy as an early summer’s night! In 2009 we had very warm temps in June then eventually real Winter eventually barged in in July and lasted about 7 weeks and then it started warming up again. Frosts are getting rarer and with the warmth we’re getting more rain the two seem to go together whereas in the 90s we were warming and getting drought conditions the climate turned to wetter in the early 2000s marked by the flooding in Paekakariki around about 2003. In 2004 we had two major storms the first in February flooded large areas of the southern NI right up to Wanganui one image I remember is a house falling into one of the flooded rivers its earth foundations eroded and undermined.
    In the 80s people commented about bushes flowing in the middle of Winter in the botanic gardens that’s when I remember the first observation here about CC

  11. Colonial Viper 11
    19 June 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Hell, I’ve just seen that the ‘Naki has been torn up tornadoes. What is going on 🙁

    Bloody John Key is a hex on this country.

    • Jim Nald 11.1
      19 June 2011 at 12:35 pm

      Had a lunch catch-up yesterday with some visitors who said, with John Key as PM & Tourism Minister, it has been unlucky for our country which has been visited with bad fortune and especially the ill-fated travel and tourism sector that has been besieged with the next thing or another.

  12. prism 12
    19 June 2011 at 12:44 pm

    In the old Listener I think under Ian Cross or some thinking literary bloke, short stories often appeared. It must have been in the sixties there were two that stayed in my mind.

    One was about us trying to cope on a planet in which the sun was nearly blocked out and everything damp with moulds and mosses and diseases. The only answer (the original TINA) was to set off a device (probably nuclearbomb) that would result in the fog and dampness clearing away – and then?

    The other was a story about a man travelling in Wellington I think on a funicular to his hillside home. People had been shifted off the flatland so it could be used for food production. Homes were simple to ensure that all the refugees from other parts of the world could be housed adequately. The man was wearing one of the last sheepskin coats in the country. Sheep had been abandoned as being not as efficient for food as growing crops. Unbeknown to others, he was also carrying eggs. The state had taken over egg production and having unauthorised hens and eggs was a no-no, probably the wheat they ate meant they were regarded as inefficient.. Scary but in emergencies these authoritarian measures might be needed, and people are not averse to setting harsh rules and controlling others.

  13. infused 13
    19 June 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Time to get me a V8.

    • Jum 13.1
      19 June 2011 at 5:44 pm

      Infused,

      I just know you’ll want to use methane fuel. Not to mention the bullshit coming from the driver.

    • Colonial Viper 13.2
      19 June 2011 at 7:06 pm

      Time to get me a V8.

      That’ll be a $180 fill up shortly 🙂

  14. Afewknowthetruth 14
    19 June 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Regarding Key.

    It is worth noting that tourism , and especially international tourism, is one of the most environmentally destructive activites engaged in by humans .. from the massive resources required to construct planes and airports through to the huge quantities of fuel converted into CO2 per passenger kilometre.

    Indeed, everything Key and the criminals clowns in his cabinet promote destroys a little more of NZ’s future (and humanity’s future).

    Pity the young people.

  15. pollywog 15
    19 June 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Don’t want to HAARP on, but some people do…

    • Deadly_NZ 15.1
      19 June 2011 at 2:17 pm

      Yep I read that HAARP thing, the only thing it did for me was to make me wonder if they had not stolen a plot from one of Clive Cussler’s books.

      • Clare Swinney 15.1.1
        22 June 2011 at 11:52 am

        Deadly_NZ See if your local library has a copy of: ‘Angels Don’t Play This HAARP’ by Jeane Manning and Dr Nick Begich. Begich is regarded as one of the top authorities on the topic of HAARP.

    • Jum 15.2
      19 June 2011 at 5:30 pm

      You people running HAARP down need to be careful here.

      HAARP probably has some grains of truth in that the American/Russian/Chinese military/governments would give anything to be able to force a global military government upon us, to make climate changes, cause earthquakes; they’ve been trying very hard over the last five plus decades to do all those things; they’ve been into space and just about destroyed the earth through man-made means with people suffering the effects of chemical plant malfunctions and nuclear power station meltdowns not to mention the little extras like war and the huge wealth that creates.

      The only stupid people in this country are those who refuse to even countenance the possibility that man-made physical effects can be wrought throughout the world and that the mega-wealthy and the all-powerful aren’t behind that.

      The fact that Pike River and these ongoing earthquakes are sending JKeyll and Parker into the astral orbit poll-wise would be a wonderful vindication of the money and ‘energy’ being spent on these experiments.

      So, just play the ignoramus game. Burn the Hollow Men books. Ignore the fact that John Key must have known that there was about to be a global financial meltdown if he had any sort of financial ability yet left us to suffer knowing he would be voted in on the so-called ‘strength’ of his financial knowhow. Ignore the fact that John Key put our financial system in danger when he ran a particularly nasty and aggressive speculative run on the NZ dollar while overseas. Ignore the fact that Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley and any number of other Pinochet enthusiasts are travelling around the world manipulating and influencing governments to follow the Hayekian path of destroying others in order to progress themselves. Iceland, Ireland…

      There are people in New Zealand who believe John Key is God… I am not one of them.

      In New Zealand a majority of people obviously put greed and selfishness above the egalitarian country this used to be. Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Caygill, the Kerr, the late Deane, Fay/Richwhite, Brierley, and all the others who continue to rip off New Zealanders; it needs some good investigative research by journalists who still have some credibility and sense of loyalty to New Zealanders, and the stories of how these business/politicos betrayed the trust of Kiwis finally told.

      These business-bought people did not help New Zealanders; they used them for their own profit. We knighted most of them for their theft. I have little faith that New Zealand will learn differently until it is too late. NAct will prove that if they get back in this year.

  16. Andrei 16
    19 June 2011 at 4:17 pm

    The attitude of governments world wide seems to be that it’s far too expensive and inconvenient to do anything about climate change, so let’s just carry on as usual.

    You really think that governments can do anything about climate change, or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

    God God man, just look at the people in our parliament let lone the people running things in third world shitholes, do you really think they could be trusted with running the worlds climate, even if it were possible, which it aint.

    Governments bring enough misery and disaster eg WW2 without having the strings to control the weather and thank God I say to that.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.1
      19 June 2011 at 5:27 pm

      The governments could – if they stopped listening to the corporates and their lackeys the economists and started listening to the scientists.

      Oh, and ignored fuckwits like you who disbelieve reality.

      • Andrei 16.1.1
        19 June 2011 at 8:04 pm

        The governments could – if they stopped listening to the corporates and their lackeys the economists and started listening to the scientists.

        You really think they are listening to the wrong people? The only people they listen to are the ones that serve their purposes. And this “climate change” BS serves the purposes of those who wish to further increase government power over us ie the LEFT.

        And when governments get too much power people DIE, in their millions in Stalin’s Russia for example.

        • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1
          19 June 2011 at 10:23 pm

          Checked out how many millions have been killed by the right? The US has been in continuous war for well over 100 years. They’ve trained death squads, initiated coups and supported right-wing dictators. The so called commun1st countries aren’t alone in their death toll.

          You really think they are listening to the wrong people?

          Well, they’re not listening to the scientists that’s for sure.

          The only people they listen to are the ones that serve their purposes.

          Yep, which happens to be more wealth and power to the rich and powerful.

          As I said, you’re a fuckwit who disbelieves in reality.

          • Rusty Shackleford 16.1.1.1.1
            19 June 2011 at 10:28 pm

            Yup, big, giant, coercive govts really suck. I wonder if there is a correlation between the size of the govt and how many people it kills?

            • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1.1.1
              20 June 2011 at 1:44 am

              The lack of government is likely to kill even more. We need the administration that is government.

              The problem isn’t government per se but the fact that it gets taken over by the corrupt. An open, transparent government should fix that and return the government to the people.

              • Rusty Shackleford …
                20 June 2011 at 1:51 am

                If there are courts in place, I don’t see why there would be more killing. You kill someone, you have to pay back his family, or go to jail. It depends on the families decision. This includes in wars. This could work a million other ways. Whether the state is involved or not.

                See, a little logic. It may not be perfect, but at least I’m not making blind assertions.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  20 June 2011 at 10:13 am

                  The people are the state you moron, it’s not a separate entity. The government is the peoples administration which we need to run the courts that you want.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 June 2011 at 1:53 am

                Rusty regards the coercive force of gravity as something to be negated and opposed at all costs.

                Even as it maintains a helpful atmosphere around him that he needs to breathe and stops him from drifting unprotected into space.

                yeh its daft I know

                If there are courts in place, I don’t see why there would be more killing. You kill someone, you have to pay back his family, or go to jail.

                Here you are again supporting the coercive power of the state.

                What a surprise

            • KJT 16.1.1.1.1.2
              20 June 2011 at 8:41 am

              The Physicists have a hypothesis that there are parallel universes.

              I have always been a bit dubious.

              Until someone like Rusty comes along and removes all doubt!

  17. Afewknowthetruth 17
    19 June 2011 at 4:55 pm

    ‘so let’s just carry on as usual’

    The good news is that business as usual will soon bring business as usual to a standstill.

    Burning up the last of the cheap oil in an orgy of stupidity (motor racing, Rugby Wold Cup, more roads, more shopping malls, rebuilding Christchurch in the wrong place etc.) will cause the entire system to crash via a combination of lack of cheap energy, financial ruin and environmental catastrophe.

  18. MrSmith 18
    19 June 2011 at 6:58 pm

     

    We know for a fact that an average drop of just 5 degrees Celsius over thousands of years can cause an ice age; so what will happen if the Earth’s average temperature increases a few degrees in just a few hundred years? We don’t know for sure because the earths temperature has never increased at the rate it is presently, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
    But anyone who understands Evolution and basic science knows we can expect massive problems with such sudden change, as changes in the past happened over thousands of years, except in the likes of John D’s mind where I suspect there has been little change since puberty and he will go to the grave probably clutching his bible along with his predigests and Argument from ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance .

     

  19. Andrew K 19
    20 June 2011 at 12:34 am

    http://www.realclimate.org/
    Where leading climate scientists discuss the latest developments in climate science and debunk denier ‘facts’.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/
    This site was dedicated to illuminating the link between corporate funding and denier ‘science’. Although, now I notice it is focusing more on climate activism.

  20. Clare Swinney 20
    20 June 2011 at 10:39 am

    There is plenty of evidence to show that at least some of the extremes in weather being seen around the globe are being caused by the use of weather modification technology. This manipulation involves the spraying of particulate matter into the sky from aircraft, named “chemtrails’ which form an electrically charged plasma which can be used with HAARP/scalar technology. Skies around the world have been loaded up with barium and aluminium, which are being found in rainwater, snow and in waterways and they are poisoning the environment. Watch What In The World Are They Spraying? (2010) at YouTube for evidence of this.

    • Geezer 20.1
      20 June 2011 at 2:41 pm

      Clare, In the doc you link @ ~29:18 they mention concentrations in ppm while at the blowup (@~30:09) of the results they show the same numbers but with different concentration units (ug/l). Which one is correct?

      I believe 1 ppm = 1mg/l = 1ug /ml = 1000ug/L (approx/rounded).

      Also, in relation to some of the comments from the video re: Mt Sasta:

      http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1176011800/New-tests-find-trace-or-no-aluminum-in-area-water

      • Clare Swinney 20.1.1
        20 June 2011 at 4:34 pm

        Geezer, the link to MtShastaNews you posted is to an article that is more than 2 years old. Here is more recent information:

        Scientist, Frances Mangels of Mt Shasta, California has been collecting test result information from around the US. He emailed Peter Drew of New Zealand on the 3rd of March, 2011. Refer: http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/scientific-evidence-related-to-geo-engineering-from-francis-mangels/

        Also refer:
        Chemtrail Health and Eco Impacts Prompt Lawsuit
        http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/chemtrail-health-and-eco-impacts-prompt-lawsuit/

        • Doug Mackie 20.1.1.1
          21 June 2011 at 12:04 am

          hmm remind us Clare, who said:

          “I oppose this bill [ETS] in its entirety because it is founded on a fraud that has been manufactured for fascist political purposes. Proponents of the New World Order are behind this as they wish to bring in a one world government under the guise of saving the planet. In reality they want to implement UN Agenda 21 under which not only will we have no property rights, but we will be treated as nothing more than mere contaminants.”

          • lprent 20.1.1.1.1
            21 June 2011 at 1:02 am

            Nice one… Tis the chemtrails crowd who I haven’t had a chance to exercise my usual degree of sarcasm on yet. Have to learn the topic and it’s flaws before I can be bothered.

            • travellerev 20.1.1.1.1.1
              21 June 2011 at 7:59 am

              Good,

              Like you Iprent, I was a fully fledged member of the “climate change” brigade and I still aim to live a sustainable perma-culture lifestyle in which I plant trees and try to kick start the Nitrogen cycle to repair my little peace of heaven so that I may leave it in a much better state of health as when I found it.
              My drives in cars are limited I try not to use plastics and bottle my own preserves and as I never buy anything in glass I actually had to buy jars to bottle my produce and I even take a horse to friends rather than the car so I can truly say I do my bit but when the likes of Al Gore get to be a billionaire from carbon trade scams and clear evidence appears of aluminium and barium dropping from the sky in pristine nature reserves I get suspicious and it appears so do a lot of scientists and concerned politicians.

              I appreciate your remark about learning what the flaws are in our “conspiracy theories” and perhaps you can point them out to me but I’m afraid that just like; 3 buildings collapsing (which never happened before and never again) in a freefall speed of 6.5m 10 and 11 seconds after simple carbon fires into their own footprint in the direction of most resistance all done by 19 young hijackers with box cutters under the guidance of a fanatic sick man with kidney failure in a cave in Afghanistan doesn’t hack it, you are going to have to make it pretty darn scientific.

              Start with What in the world are they spraying and this very worried paper written by officials of the European union on what they perceive to be an extremely dangerous development with regards to weather and geo manipulation weapons of mass destruction one of which is most notably HAARP just to get a feel for the issues at hand and take it from there.

          • Clare Swinney 20.1.1.1.2
            21 June 2011 at 9:14 am

            Reply to Doug Mackie:

            That statement I wrote regarding the ETS is factual. Information regarding UN Agenda 21 is readily available online, eg. [1].

            The reason people are not aware of the true nature of the elite’s plans is because the New World Order proponents control the mainstream media. For instance, David Rockefeller, who is regarded as a king pin of the New World Order stated at a Bilderberger meeting in 1991: ‘We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as ‘democracy’] practiced in past centuries.”
            –June 5, 1991, Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton)www.mega.nu/ampp/bilderberg.html. [Main source: Dr. Dennis Cuddy, A Chronological History of the New World Order
            Refer: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/rockefeller.htm

            Investigative journalists Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker have been following Bilderberg meetings and what they’ve learnt is online. Also, Estulin wrote the best seller ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group’, [2]. If you are short for time, the New World Order’s eugenics agenda is covered by the documentary Endgame (2007) by Alex Jones. Jones has the most popular radio show online, which can be heard via a link at Infowars.com or Prisonplanet.com.

            [1] Agenda 21 – Dr Stan Monteith & Michael Shaw (1/4)

            [2] http://bilderbergbook.com/

            • travellerev 20.1.1.1.2.1
              21 June 2011 at 9:34 am

              And our own Michael Moore, now the NZ ambassador to the US is a member of the Bilderberg group which he attended in 2000. His latest book is called: saving Globalisation.
              By the way you won’t find that little tidbit on his CV as secrecy is paramount.

              Here is a good article on the history and intentions of the Bilderberg group.

              Michael Moore, John Key and Don Brash, the three finance boys taking NZ to the cleaners, but hey that’s just a “conspiracy theory”, right?

        • Geezer 20.1.1.2
          21 June 2011 at 12:48 pm

          Clare, does the documentary you posted a link to include the independent results from the article I posted? Seeing as the article pre-dates the documentary I would have thought it would be worth mentioning in the documentary. The independent testing appears to have been carried out in response to a group of local citizens claiming to have found levels of aluminum detrimental to human health.

          Mt Shasta is part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, a region where high-alumina (aluminium oxide) olivine tholeiites have been reported. This could provide an answer as to why high Al concentrations were found in samples collected by locals.

          Are there any documented reports of “chemtrails” being collected as they are being deposited, i.e. figuratively has anyone run behind one of these planes with a bucket collecting samples?

          • travellerev 20.1.1.2.1
            21 June 2011 at 12:56 pm

            You mean like this or this (sorry this is an Italian video but pretty self explanatory) sort off?

            • Geezer 20.1.1.2.1.1
              21 June 2011 at 3:17 pm

              I was specifically refering to someone collecting samples directly from “chemtrails” and having them analysed in a lab.

              An “original” version (no music or subtext) of the second video can be found here:

              The poster claims to be the source of the video, the comments on the video were the subject of a joke. The protrusions on the wings labelled as “nozzles” appear to be flap fairings found on most commercial aircraft wings:

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

              (See 757-200 image bottom right)

              You’ll notice from the video that the “chemicals” appear to also be on top of the wing toward the fuselage.

              Researchers at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics (Germany) seem to have a good understanding of this topic:

              http://www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2342/6725_read-16936/

              Interestingly their findings into the possible affect of contrail cloud formations on the environment would suggest that these man made clouds do in fact have a potential impact on climate change:

              http://www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2342/6725_read-29898/

          • Clare Swinney 20.1.1.2.2
            22 June 2011 at 10:17 am

            Who do you work for Geezer? Disinformation Inc? While you try and suggest that the aluminium being found may have come from volcanic ash, a cursory look into the facts shows this can not be the case. According to Wikipedia: “During the last 10,000 years Mount Shasta has erupted an average of every 800 years but in the past 4,500 years the volcano has erupted an average of every 600 years. The last significant eruption on Mount Shasta may have occurred 200 years ago.”

            Aluminium oxide is extracted from clay and bauxite.

            In addition, your proposal FAILS to account for the sudden increases in aluminium, BARIUM AND STRONTIUM, and the die-offs that have been occurring just over the last few years. A group of concerned citizens at Mt Shasta has been closely monitoring environmental changes attributable to chemtrails over the last 4-5 years and evidence shows the area is heading for eco-collapse. The snow at Mount Shasta had 61,100 parts per billion (ppb) of aluminium in it, when it should have been at a level of about 7 ppb and there is so much metal falling over the forests, that the soil pH has changed from acidic to neutral and the trees are dying.

            Furthermore, in only four years, salmon spawning crashed in a local tributary at Mount Shasta from 160,000 to 8,000, about 80% of amphibious species have died off and the potato harvest has declined by 80%. Learn more: http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/dr-bill-deagle-talks-to-dane-wigginton-and-dr-mike-castle-about-aerosol-armageddon/

            • Geezer 20.1.1.2.2.1
              22 June 2011 at 5:55 pm

              I never suggested the Al was sourced from volcanic ash, tholeiites are volcanic rocks, basalts, i.e. lava flows. Given that the deposits have been around for a while any weathering may have produced particles (dust, etc) that could have polluted the snow sample. One would also expect these volcanic deposits to be a key constituent of the natural surrounding soils.

              The Cascade Volcanic Arc consists of over 20 major volcanoes, over 4000 vents and various other bits and pieces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Volcanoes). Some examples of whole rock basalt units within the Mt Shasta region sampled for various oxides and elements:

              Aluminum Oxide: ~18%
              Sr: 390ppm
              Ba: 250ppm

              There are also examples of Al-rich allophane soils in the Mt Shasta region in some cases the allophane concentration in older soils is 68 times that of younger soils.

              What is the history of previous die offs in the region? Do you have links to reported scientific studies of these die offs and drops in potato yields? Were the potato yields reported in the local press, documented over the years?

            • FromAGeologist 20.1.1.2.2.2
              28 June 2011 at 10:14 pm

              Volcanic ash deposits form consolidated rocks too, we call them tuffs. So they do tend to hang around for a long time, sometimes many millions and many meters thick.

              Ash beds are also important in age dating.

    • Ross Marsden 20.2
      25 June 2011 at 7:20 pm

      Clare, please explain how the chemtrails form an “electrically charged plasma”. Your film does not explain this. Is it positively or negatively charged? And how is this plasma used with HAARP/scalar technology? How does this work? Do you have a common place, everyday example of the same physical principles at work?

      Since the chemtrails are “local” can we locals hijack them for our own purpose? If someone hacked a microwave oven, for example, could they do something with the chemtrails that could be seen from the ground?

      You have references for your other claims below, but none for these extraordinary claims.

      Thanks.

      • Geezer 20.2.1
        28 June 2011 at 5:43 pm

        Good questions and points Ross.

        I suspect you won’t get a reply from Clare, her comments seem to have dried up.

        Open discussions on the chemtrailsnorthnz are disallowed. They get labelled as “disinformation” which is ironic given content in some of the topics posted on the site.

        “Fascist” regimes are blamed for supporting these climate changing programmes, earthquake causing phenomenon, etc but the principles governing the chemtrailsnz website seem to support those very ideals the site claims to stand against!

        I’d be happy to join the chemtrail band but there doesn’t seem to be any hard scientific evidence proving that contrails are in fact chemtrails containing Al, Ba, Sr, etc.

  21. travellerev 21
    20 June 2011 at 10:42 am

    It could of course also have something to do with the fact that Chinese, Russian (the guy doing the bragging is Zhirinovsky the Russian speaker of the house) and American idiots/military scientists are heating up the ionosphere, inducing rain in formerly drought stricken areas and playing with million watt radio antennas causing earthquakes, storms and other “freak” geo-weather engineering events or perhaps the fact that planes all over the globe are injecting aluminium and barium and other assorted particles by the tonne into the atmosphere. Like here 40 km of the coast of Taranaki.
     
     (wanted to use the strike through button but that didn’t work.)

     
     
     

  22. mike ratonastick 22
    20 June 2011 at 6:30 pm

    All this bad weather is man made……Look up HAARP & Geo Engineering. The evidence is all there. Chemtrails are NEVER EVER mentioned in the media, or if they are, it is only to ridicule those who are trying to bring our attention to it, calling them “conspiracy theorists” Don’t be fooled. We need to stop it now or things are just going to get worse!

Links to post