Key and Abbott are prepared to sacrifice the Pacific

Written By: - Date published: 8:07 am, September 12th, 2015 - 98 comments
Categories: australian politics, climate change, Environment, global warming, International, john key, Minister for International Embarrassment, national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: ,

AbbottKey

Anthony R0bins has already posted on this subject but it is an important one and deserves multiple  analysis so here goes.

The Pacific Leaders Forum has occurred over the past few days.  The proud leaders of small Pacific Nations were there.  Some nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati are facing the prospect of disappearing under increasing sea levels caused by climate change.  The issue is clearly of utmost importance to them.

So how did Australia and New Zealand handle the impassioned pleas of the leaders of these nations for us to do something meaningful?  The response can only be described as meh.

From ABC News:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has held his Government’s line on climate change despite pleas from low-lying Pacific island nations for a stronger stance on emissions and temperature rises.

Both Mr Abbott and New Zealand prime minister John Key refused to go further than their existing commitments on global warming at the Pacific Islands Forum in Port Moresby.

Some Pacific island leaders say they are disappointed in the leaders for putting economic growth ahead of the survival of communities in small Pacific nations.

“Australia and New Zealand have made no additional commitments when it comes to climate change,” Mr Abbott told reporters after the meeting last night.

“As you know Australia and New Zealand have already announced very ambitious targets for emissions reduction to take to the Paris conference.”

Pacific island nations had said the meeting was their last chance to highlight the threat they face from climate change, before the UN Climate Conference in Paris.

The Australian response disappointed leaders who say some people are already being forced out of their homes by rising salinity, lack of water, or damage from severe storms or high tides.

Kiribati president Anote Tong had campaigned especially hard for Australia to further reduce emissions, support a tighter cap on global temperature rises and consider a moratorium on new coal mines.

“It is disappointing,” he said.

“I would really have loved to go back and say yes, we had support, solid support from all of the Pacific neighbours including our developed neighbours. How does it feel? I’ve learned to live with the disappointments.”

Mr Tong said Australia and New Zealand continued to argue that reducing emissions further would stymie economic growth and lead to job losses.

“I understand what’s being said, that if they agree to those reductions in emissions, then it would hurt their industries and it would hurt their life, standard of living,” he said.

“But what I’m perhaps failing to communicate across is that while it will affect their standard of living, for us, it will affect the future of our people.”

Mr Tong’s statement sums up Australia’s and New Zealand’s attitude perfectly.  We are worried about short term economic gain while they are worried about long term survival.

Key said this in this One News report:

A lot of those leaders from very low lying areas believe that climate change could be the biggest risk to the survival of their countries.  That may or may not be correct.

My tourettes kicked in.  Rising sea levels are a current fact, not some future possibility.  And why risk it?

Such gross intellectual dishonesty is hard to comprehend.  It is the equivalent to someone my age saying that they cannot recall what their position on the Springbok tour was.

But instead of trying to improve our response Key and Abbott stuck to their insipid positions previously announced for the Paris talks.  They agree to the aim of maintaining no more than a 2 degree increase even though in New Zealand’s case what is proposed will not achieve this.  The other Pacific Nations want the increase to be no more than 1.5 degrees.  There is clearly a major disjoint between Australia’s and New Zealand’s positions and the expectations of the Pacific Island Nations.

And the difference between a 1.5 degree increase and a 2 degree increase in temperature?

Potentially it represents a catastrophic difference for the Islands.  It is predicted that the Greenland Ice shelf will melt completely if global temperatures increase by 1.6 degrees.  If this occurs then sea levels rise by 6 metres.  Good bye Kiribati.

Of course this may not happen.  But if you are talking about devastation of low lying areas the precautionary approach should kick in.

And if you want to witness the utter indifference Australia has for the Pacific Islands plight then watch this video.

Shame on Abbott and Key for insisting that short term economic gains are more important than the long term future of Pacific Islands.  Shame on them.

98 comments on “Key and Abbott are prepared to sacrifice the Pacific ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    12 September 2015 at 8:23 am

    Is that what right wing commenters mean by “economic migrants”?

    “My economy is more important than your life.”

    • weka 1.1
      12 September 2015 at 11:18 am

      Yep. Although I think we all live that particular evil in the over-developped world, given that our lifestyles are supported by the callous economy and given that our lifestyles are the main contributors to climate change. We can intellectually and morally oppose our governments’ foreign policies, but until we are willing to change our own lives we’re still culpable (I mean willing, not necessarily able btw).

  2. Steve Withers 2
    12 September 2015 at 8:56 am

    The two conservative parties of Australia and New Zealand clearly put their economies ahead of the homes of Pacific Islanders. There can’t be any real doubt about that any more.

    What is less clear is why they believe doing – effectively – nothing about climate change is ‘good for the economy’.

    One doesn’t have to be very bright at all to see that isn’t a sustainable long term approach to climate change.

    Unless these two parties are still in denial mode. In which case they aren’t fit to govern anything that matters.

    • Corokia 2.1
      12 September 2015 at 9:03 am

      They most definitely are NOT fit to govern at this time when climate change will change life as we know it on this planet.

      From George Monbiot
      http://www.monbiot.com/2014/11/11/better-dead-than-different/

      “We in the rich world can brook no taxation to encourage green energy, or regulation to discourage the consumption of fossil fuels. We cannot adapt even to an extra penny of tax. But the other “we”, which turns out to mean “they” – the people of the tropics – can and must adapt to the loss of their homes, their land and their lives, as entire regions become wastelands”

    • Tracey 2.2
      12 September 2015 at 12:07 pm

      The irony is that we tried so hard to get on the security council so our small voice could be heard in the face of veoting bullies… but when we hold similar positions in the South pacific, we behave like self righteous masters

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3
      12 September 2015 at 12:49 pm

      One doesn’t have to be very bright at all to see that isn’t a sustainable long term approach to climate change.

      It’s not a sustainable long term approach to the economy. Using up all the wealth as fast as possible is not sustainable.

      RWNJs really don’t seem to be very bright – except for the psychopaths in charge of the whole lot of them.

  3. save NZ 3
    12 September 2015 at 9:05 am

    Instead of spending on the science budget something to improve climate change, the Natz are instead giving corporate welfare grants of approx 9.6 million to oil companies.

    Steven Joyce’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment latest science investment round just announced it will give GNS $2.4m a year over four years to ‘develop new workstation-ready data products for the exploration industry.’

    Hey buddy, spare some change for the oil industry?
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/09/11/hey-buddy-spare-some-change-for-the-oil-industry/#sthash.5ltI6Qhe.dpuf

  4. Pasupial 4
    12 September 2015 at 9:42 am

    It’s not just the Greenland ice-sheets either, if we’re thinking of long-term consequences of CO2 emissions:

    With cumulative fossil fuel emissions of 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Antarctica is projected to become almost ice-free with an average contribution to sea-level rise exceeding 3 m per century during the first millennium…

    the currently attainable carbon fuel resources are sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet and that large parts of the ice sheet are threatened at much lower amounts of cumulative emission. The successive sea-level rise far exceeds all other possible contributions from thermal expansion or ice loss from mountain glaciers or the Greenland Ice Sheet. Thus, if emissions of fossil-fuel carbon result in warming substantially beyond the 2°C target, millennial-scale rates of sea-level rise are likely to be dominated by ice loss from Antarctica. With unrestrained future CO2 emissions, the amount of sea-level rise from Antarctica could exceed tens of meters over the next 1000 years and could ultimately lead to the loss of the entire ice sheet.

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589

    • dukeofurl 4.1
      12 September 2015 at 10:56 am

      No they arent saying that:
      ” The interaction of these processes is still insufficiently understood so that the evolution of the Antarctic Ice Sheet remains unclear, particularly for the long term.”

      More likely model predictions are these:
      ” Our simulations show that cumulative emissions of 500 GtC commit us to long-term sea-level rise from Antarctica of 1.15 m within the next millenium,

      • Pasupial 4.1.1
        12 September 2015 at 11:45 am

        dukofurl

        The fact that I used direct cut&paste blockquotes means that they did indeed say that. Though I do admit that the 10,000 GtC scenario is the worst case, and the 500 GtC is very a optimistic scenario. Sadly, given the current state of denial of anthropogenic climate change, it seems unlikely that fossil fuel use will be restrained by forethought; only be adverse circumstances, by which time the damage will be done.

        It is certainly a good idea to read the entire article for context.

        If the 2°C target, corresponding to about 600 GtC of additional carbon release compared to year 2010, were attained, the millennial sea-level rise from Antarctica could likely be restricted to 2 m. In our simulations, this would keep the ice sheet below the threshold for the collapse of the Wilkes Basin. However, if that threshold is crossed, the Antarctic ice cover is significantly reduced in thickness and area (Fig. 4). If we were to release all currently attainable fossil fuel resources, Antarctica would become almost ice-free. It is unclear whether this dynamic discharge would be reversible and, if so, on which time scales.

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1
          12 September 2015 at 1:02 pm

          I did look into the entire article, that’s where my quotes come from, the same article.
          eg “Although Antarctica has already begun to lose ice (3), the consequences of combustion of the remaining fossil-fuel resources (4) to the ice sheet’s future mass balance are still unknown.”

          As I said earlier they are looking at ” 1.15m with the next millennium”, are you saying you disagree ?

          • Pasupial 4.1.1.1.1
            12 September 2015 at 5:28 pm

            dou

            Yes, I disagree, because being able to predict the sea-level rise contributed by Antarctic melting is contingent upon knowing how many GtC will ultimately be released into the atmosphere. I hope that it will be down at the lower end of the emission continuum modeled by Winkelmann et al, but given the lack of action in curbing emissions that does seem unlikely.

            As far as your quote; ““Although Antarctica has already begun to lose ice…”, that occurs within the introductory paragraph, which by convention in scientific papers is intended to give background to the present study. It is precisely because; “the consequences of combustion of the remaining fossil-fuel resources to the ice sheet’s future mass balance are still unknown”, that the modelling described took place. The rest of the article is an attempt to address this very issue.

            • mickysavage 4.1.1.1.1.1
              12 September 2015 at 7:20 pm

              I tried to keep it really simple for the deniers. Greenland ice sheet goes sea levels goes up. Making it more complex gives them more to argue about.

              • Pasupial …
                12 September 2015 at 10:56 pm

                MS

                Greenland ice melt and Arctic methane effusion are shortterm, Antartica is longterm. It’s a complex issue, and I’m more talking past the deniers than to them.

                [NZ & Aus governments] are worried about short term economic gain while they [pacific island states] are worried about long term survival.

                Is a good summation, but we really ought to be worried about our long term survival too.

              • dukeofurl …
                13 September 2015 at 12:23 pm

                “Greenland ice sheet goes sea levels goes up. Making it more complex gives them more to argue about”

                Putting it like that, means its not science anymore.
                the IPCC produces bookloads of reports exactly because they are doing proper science.

                You should check out the high schools Mickey, to see how it is presented, they would laugh at your ‘simple approach’

  5. infused 5
    12 September 2015 at 10:47 am

    Cool. So tell China to cut its emissions by 1%. That will do more than NZ can ever do.

    We make no difference.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      12 September 2015 at 11:18 am

      I thought you guys were all against freeloaders?

    • weka 5.2
      12 September 2015 at 11:21 am

      “We make no difference.”

      Everyone has to change. Even if you dismiss concepts of fairness, there is so much carbon etc in the atmosphere now that all the little countries add up and are going to affect what happens.

    • Tracey 5.3
      12 September 2015 at 12:10 pm

      yeah we all need to make china change and fast, cos no one else carried any responsibility or advantage from their own bad behaviours in the past.

      🙄

      infused, if you have children, do you remind them daily that nothing they can ever do will make a difference? Just wondering how consistent you are.

      .

    • emergency mike 5.4
      12 September 2015 at 6:20 pm

      Thing is infused, most people on this blog are New Zealand citizens. As such, we aren’t in much of a position to tell China to do anything. Maybe you could tell them? Or is your comment just another one of your usual useless low brow thinks?

      Over in China, I’m sure that some dick on a blog is saying something like, “If small clean green New Zealand can’t even make that target then we can’t be expected to.”

      Our emissions might be tiny compared to China, but we can make a difference by setting an example that we then challenge others to follow. We have a voice on various international councils that we could be using to highlight and campaign for the plight of those Pacific island neighbours that we supposedly care about.

      But nah, you go ahead and shrug your shoulders and have yourself another ‘nothing we can do’ beer if that works better for you.

    • Lloyd 5.5
      12 September 2015 at 8:57 pm

      My understanding is that the Chinese are doing more to install clean electrical generation than the USA. Anyone got factual data on that? They certainly are installing wind turbines.

    • Macro 5.6
      12 September 2015 at 9:13 pm

      You are aware are you not that China is where the majority of things sold in this world are now made. The western world has simply exported its emissions for production off-shore to China. So stop being a monumental hypocrite. If you want China to stop emitting GHG’s, stop consuming goods made in China, and stop pointing the finger at China and saying we won’t stop until they stop.

  6. Corokia 6
    12 September 2015 at 11:00 am

    Hey Infused, using your logic I don’t need to pay any tax, my personal contribution is miniscule.

    • infused 6.1
      12 September 2015 at 6:05 pm

      No. Your just being retarded.

      • Corokia 6.1.1
        12 September 2015 at 7:25 pm

        Firing off insults doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Your argument is that NZ is tiny compared to China, so what we do doesn’t matter. Same argument for me not to have to pay tax because my contribution is tiny..

  7. Kelly-Ned 7
    12 September 2015 at 11:16 am

    You are all aware that the globe has been steadily cooling for the last 10 years and that CO2 follows warming but doesn’t lead it?
    The people promoting the poor scientific information are dependent upon that inaccurate data to keep their jobs.
    Just saying. Check me if you think I’m wrong.

  8. johnm 8
    12 September 2015 at 11:46 am

    We are already committed to a greater rise than 1.5 or 2degrees global average temperature, more like 4c because the climate is now on the bandwagon with positive feedbacks increasingly activating.

    1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks
    1.1.1 Arctic methane release
    1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
    1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates
    1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane
    1.1.3 Decomposition
    1.1.4 Peat decomposition
    1.1.5 Rainforest drying
    1.1.6 Forest fires
    1.1.7 Desertification
    1.1.8 Modelling results
    1.1.8.1 Implications for climate policy
    1.2 Cloud feedback
    1.3 Gas release
    1.4 Ice-albedo feedback
    1.5 Water vapor feedback
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

    What Key and Abbott do makes no difference they are straw men for BAU.

    ” We May Have Already Committed Ourselves to 6-Meter Sea-Level Rise ”
    ” Even if humanity were to stop throwing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere today, a catastrophic rise in sea levels of six meters may be inevitable. Two previous prehistoric interglacial periods, in which the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was believed to be about what it is today, resulted in dramatic rising of the oceans. ”
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/24/we-may-have-already-committed-ourselves-to-6-meter-sea-level-rise/

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175785/tomgram%3A_dahr_jamail,_the_climate_change_scorecard/

    Last Hours : 🙁

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw

    Study: 6th mass extinction already underway — and we’re the cause

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/20/sixth-mass-extinction-study/29028887/

  9. marty mars 9
    12 September 2015 at 12:25 pm

    It is getting close to when some of these politicians (deleted by author so I don’t get banned for saying violent things about real politicians) on the low tide mark of our cities beaches.

    • RedLogix 9.1
      12 September 2015 at 12:55 pm

      Sighs – you don’t have that on your own. I have to keep self-deleting a lot of thoughts like that as well.

      But here is a thought; maybe in the not too far distant future there will a trials for what will be called ‘climate criminals’.

      • Macro 9.1.1
        12 September 2015 at 1:06 pm

        “maybe in the not too far distant future there will a trials for what will be called ‘climate criminals’.”

        I sincerely hope so.. and abbot, key, harper, the kock’s, singer, and co will be the first to face the judge.

        How abbot and key can stand there and say that our GHG proposals for Paris are “ambitious” defies belief! Bare faced lies at best.

  10. fisiani 10
    12 September 2015 at 2:08 pm

    Climate change induced sea level increases poses a huge threat to most Pacific Islands. They are seeking support for a goal of limiting temperature increases to no more than 1.5 degrees. Australia and New Zealand are insisting on sticking to a goal of no more than 2 degrees even though this will likely mean that many Islands will disappear.

    Do you not know how many islands are in the Pacific?
    When you declare that many islands will disappear how many is many? Three? Four? Let me enlighten you.There are around 25,000 islands in the pacific Islands Only about 6,000-10,000 are inhabited, the rest are either temporary inhabited (for scientists, military, or tourism), too small to be conventionally inhabited, and alot of them are underwater reefs and not actually inhabited except for fish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Islands

    Hyperbole does not help any argument and to state that there is a huge threat to MOST Pacific Islands is another example of the patently absurd.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      12 September 2015 at 2:47 pm

      A more accurate statement would note the threat to humans and other species. Thanks for that eagle-eyed observation Fis.

      • fisiani 10.1.1
        12 September 2015 at 3:37 pm

        The Left are often guilty of exagerating in the hope that that will bring converts. It just produces sceptisism and distrust. That’s why about 50% of people plump for Honest John over Chicken Little (the sky is falling) and the wannabees. You can get really good odds on Ipredict for a Left victory in 2017. But then again you could have had long odds on Corbyn.

    • mickysavage 10.2
      12 September 2015 at 7:41 pm

      Dickhead. Analyse the consequences for Kiribati and then comment.

      • fisiani 10.2.1
        12 September 2015 at 8:18 pm

        Examine the word many or most then comment. No need for the ad hominen.

        • mickysavage 10.2.1.1
          12 September 2015 at 8:29 pm

          Alert, alert.

          False equivalence alert.

          Fisi asks:

          When you declare that many islands will disappear how many is many?

          But I said no such thing.

          I did say this:

          Some nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati are facing the prospect of disappearing under increasing sea levels caused by climate change.

          And also this …

          If this [Greenland ice sheet melt] occurs then sea levels rise by 6 metres. Good bye Kiribati.

          Of course this may not happen. But if you are talking about devastation of low lying areas the precautionary approach should kick in.

          So I said Tuvalu (average height above sea level 4.6 metres) and Kiribati (average height above sea level 2 metres) may disappear. But I did not say many islands will disappear …

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.1.1
            12 September 2015 at 8:48 pm

            Fisiani is a liar? Say it ain’t so! Charity demands that we think of him as a brainless unwitting dupe.

          • fisiani 10.2.1.1.2
            12 September 2015 at 8:56 pm

            Yes you did write many and most. You simply edited the original post. Cheap trick to try to cover up sloppiness.

            [lprent: There are exactly two revisions on that post.

            You should know by now that if you make an assertion, you need to be able to back it.

            I keep ALL revisions of ALL posts for quite some time after they are released to be able to check for issues like this. Others cannot clear them. The post was put up at 08:07. The last revision was at 08:07 seconds before it was posted (and in anycase had nothing like what you are alleging).

            FFS: banned permanently for deliberately and knowingly making up a false allegations about an author. ]

        • fisiani 10.2.1.2
          12 September 2015 at 8:54 pm

          What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others.

          [lprent: You deliberately misquoted Mickey, didn’t deal with it when he called you on it, and tried to misuse the site rules when he called you on it? That is a bad idea. Banned 6 months for being a dickhead.

          Updated: The dickhead lied about MS modifying the post. The revision log shows that he did not. Bye bye fis permanently. ]

  11. Redbaiter 11
    12 September 2015 at 2:08 pm

    NZ Science Media Center

    May 15 2015

    NZers’ attitudes to climate change-

    – Just over half (53%) agree that there is a scientific consensus on climate change

    – Only around half of those polled (49%) agreed they were certain that climate change is really happening, with 24% undecided and 28% disagreeing

    Keep on keeping on doomsayers. This rapidly disintegrating myth will keep you out of office for as long as you persist with it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      12 September 2015 at 2:39 pm

      people feel impotent to act on their own, and there is a perceived lack of government leadership…Financial factors were viewed as the most influential drivers of decisions behind how we act (as individuals) on climate change, with around 15% of New Zealanders claiming cost is a trigger for action compared to only 6% claiming knowledge was a factor.

      No wonder Redbaiter didn’t link: he’s distorted the survey findings. My question is whether he’s doing it deliberately, because he’s fundamentally dishonest, or whether he’s simply a witless parrot.

      In any event, his purpose here is to derail the conversation.

      The study he’s lying about, on the other hand, is worth reading, in that it hints at some possible ways forward.

    • Anne 11.2
      12 September 2015 at 6:17 pm

      Dear boy,
      I would trust 97% of the world’s climate scientists any day to an unacceptably large number of pig-ignorant NZers of which you appear to be one.

      • Bazza 11.2.1
        14 September 2015 at 9:39 am

        Do you do know the source of the 97%? It was a 2 minute survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists. Only 3000 bothered responding. They took the subset of scientists who had more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals & 97% of them supported the global warming question. Since you quoted the 97% of scientists supported global warming, I guess you know the number which was 75 out of 77 scientists. Science is not a consensus but a study of theories backed up by proven & repeatable tests, basically facts not computer models that have been proven wrong again & again.

        • lprent 11.2.1.1
          14 September 2015 at 12:41 pm

          …but a study of theories backed up by proven & repeatable tests, basically facts not computer models that have been proven wrong again & again.

          And that is where you reveal yourself to be wrong and a complete dingbat about earth sciences.

          The computer models of climate haven’t been “proved wrong” because they were never intended to be perfectly correct. Only gormless idiots like yourself ever suggested that they should be that accurate down to the last 10th of a degree or for a particular minute across in a decades long cyclic model, or to a millimeter.

          What climate models were intended to do was to display the known data about things that affected climate, and produce a measure of the risk of various climatic outcomes. That allowed both the identification of the risk levels for people making political decisions, and it allowed scientists to identify when lower probability outcomes happened so that they could look more closely at those processes.

          They were never intended to be the ‘word of god’ that the blinkered illiterate morons like yourself seem to expect them to be. They are measure of probability – a range of shades of grey, something that black and white bigot like you have problems in understanding. Anything more than a binary choice appears to be beyond you. That is the realm of the other idiots of our culture – computers.

          Now you will probably whine about me describing you accurately. That is because you can’t argue without someone else providing you lines to parrot like a bird brained tape player. Whereas I trained in the relevant science before I turned to being a programmer.

          • Bazza 11.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 9:55 am

            I hope you are a better programmer than you are on constructing logical arguments which is a worry when programming is highly dependent upon logic. Especially loved the line “That is the realm of the other idiots of our culture – computers.”
            IPCC & politicians are using their computer models to promote global warming so the accuracy of the models are critical to the people of this world.
            From what I have seen none of the computer models predicted the pause, 15 – 18 years depending on the temperature set, in the rise of global temperatures that even the UK Met office have confirmed is occurring.
            What about the prediction of stronger hurricanes hitting the USA.
            So where may they be going wrong with the computer models?
            Dr Kesten Green & Professor Scott Armstrong two, leading experts on forecasting, stated that the modeling procedures the IPCC uses to create their of climate change projections violated 72 of 89 relevant forecasting principles.
            Now this is why the science has to be right, the Western world want to shutdown coal fired power stations & stop 3rd world countries from building them. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/home-fires-the-worlds-most-lethal-pollution-2192000.html
            Stoves and open fires are the primary means of cooking and heating for nearly three billion people.
            In India, some 400,000 people die each year from the toxic fumes.
            In Africa, 500,000 children under the age of five die from pneumonia attributable to indoor air pollution, according to the WHO.
            And in Afghanistan, smoke from cooking and heating fires killed 20 times as many people in 2010 as did the ongoing conflict.
            Wasting money on flawed computer predictions while millions either die or suffer major health risks every year is criminal.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 10:41 am

              There wasn’t a pause. If you followed the science you’d know that.

              Ditto for hurricanes.

              I note your self-serving false dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

              • Bazza …
                17 September 2015 at 11:05 am

                UK Met office released a paper in 2013, “Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat
                over the most recent 15 years to 2013.” Since they are still flat that makes 15 years. According to the National Hurricane Center, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. The last major hurricane strike was in October 2005, so in the last 10 years on average there should have been 7 category 3 or higher hurricanes to strike the USA.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  17 September 2015 at 11:30 am

                  NOAA says nah.

                  Are you aware that “frequency” and “intensity” mean different things? Try a dictionary.

                  • Bazza …
                    17 September 2015 at 12:27 pm

                    2010 12 hurricanes, 5 major. 2011 7 hurricanes, 4 major. 2012 10 hurricanes, 2 major. 2013 2 hurricanes, 0 major. 2014 6 hurricanes, 2 major. 2015 2 hurricanes, 1 major. Definitely look like the intensity & numbers are increasing /sarc. Re the study, key findings are that the frequency & duration have all increased since the early 1980s which is when the satellites started to measure data for hurricanes, what a surprise. Loved the next section of the report where they talked about winter storms where they have increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s in USA. Now I know why they went from Global Warming to Climate change.

                • lprent …
                  17 September 2015 at 11:55 am

                  Averages and cherry picking specific geographical locations are rather irrelevant when you are dealing with global climate. Most climate patterns involving oceans are measured in decades. So a 30 year period from 1970-2000 might have many processes cycle within it with far more of the resulting events occurring and coinciding. A 15 year period will have far less probability of having that happen.

                  Climate is a fast geological event. But it is slow on human standards. Climate events also contain more energy than humans (especially the ignorant like you) really understand.

                  Just to give you an idea about exactly how timescales and distances that climate operates over – have a look at the el nino effects in aussie. El nino is important because it is a major heat release from the pacific ocean, and one that affects us from half of the world away (unlike the very limited geographical spread in the Atlantic).

                  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninocomp.shtml
                  The 12 strongest el nino events that affected there were in
                  1905 1914 1940 1941 1946 1965 1972 1977 1982 1991 1994 1997.

                  Notice the large gaps and clustering. There was a gap of more than 25 years in the early 20th. A gap of just a year in the 1940s. Trying to do an “average” on so few points is essentially meaningless.

                  If you looked at the effects in different parts of the Pacific land areas, you’d find that different effects happened in different time as at different intensities. It is only by looking at the overall effect in the whole area for any given year, and over decades that you can get any idea what has happened.

                  The same applies in the Atlantic. Heat releases can happen with hurricanes that hit the Caribbean, South America, even Africa, and most never hit land at all. To measure hurricanes by the number that hit the US eastern seaboard is completely stupid. What you are looking at is the prevailing winds. Not the heat releases. If you wanted to look at those, then you’d need to look across the whole Atlantic.

                  On one hand you are comparing averages of two different time durations on long duration cycles, one of which is shorter than many of the climate processes you are measuring. On the other, you cherry pick a single small area out of a much larger affected area.

                  So your comment is meaningless drivel by a scientific idiot. How much more stupid could you be?

                  Please learn to think about the information you are reading rather than being a mindless parrot who unthinkingly squawks it like a mating call done by a peabrained bird.

            • lprent 11.2.1.1.1.2
              17 September 2015 at 12:07 pm

              I have no idea why you think that programming is about logic. It isn’t. But like most of your half-arsed ideas, it appears to be just something you heard somewhere (probably from an elderly relatives what their grandparents understood about 1890 with the Hollerith machines) and never ever bothered to bypass your endemic laziness to think about.

              For the vast majority of what we do when programming it is about being able to visualizing the structure and processes of what we are trying build or maintain, and being very good with languages at various levels for business analysis to writing code and libraries in the language(s) of choice.

              Logic is just a tool that we use when you get down to lowest possible level. When we do write pure logic code, we then stuff it in a library function with a good interface, and then just use it as a building block for decades afterwards.

              And I have to compliment you on your complete lack of logic in another comment. Like this one you have an appalling ability to parrot meaninglessly
              http://thestandard.org.nz/key-and-abbott-are-prepared-to-sacrifice-the-pacific/#comment-1071769

              • Bazza …
                17 September 2015 at 2:19 pm

                So as I said & you agreed programming, the actual process of writing code is logic.

                • lprent …
                  17 September 2015 at 4:37 pm

                  No I didn’t agree. Well over 95% of the work of programming has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with whatever problem you are building systems to solve. Since all but the simplest of those have to do with people, organisations, and network standards (that are decades old and designed for different hardware) that are using the hardware and software a programmer is working on, logic is the very least of the skills that a programmer needs.

                  Besides that logic is very simple compared to the series of greys that the other parts of the system need. The only ‘programmers’ who have a problem with writing logic in code are students. But they have problems with just about everything. Which reminds me, it is nearly bloody Callaghan fund intern time again.

                  BTW: I’d suggest that you never try to put words into my mouth or those of others again. When I am moderating I will ban for that. It is a classic troll fire starter technique. I ban very very hard for people that do that. Logically it is the second most common path to a permanent ban. Read the policy.

                  • Bazza …
                    18 September 2015 at 9:28 am

                    My original comment was “programming is highly dependent upon logic”
                    Please note the words programming & highly dependant.
                    The purpose of programming is to find a sequence of instructions that will automate performing a specific task or solving a given problem.
                    What you do to get to that point I agree with is analysis & requires a variety of soft skills.
                    Now re the banning threat,
                    So your comments to me like these are fair & okay.
                    “So your comment is meaningless drivel by a scientific idiot. How much more stupid could you be?”
                    “rather than being a mindless parrot who unthinkingly squawks it like a mating call done by a peabrained bird.”
                    “blinkered illiterate morons like yourself”
                    “something that black and white bigot like you have problems in understanding”
                    “providing you lines to parrot like a bird brained tape player”
                    “But like most of your half-arsed ideas, it appears to be just something you heard somewhere (probably from an elderly relatives what their grandparents understood about 1890 with the Hollerith machines) and never ever bothered to bypass your endemic laziness to think about.”
                    I read the policy & where do your comments to me fit in relationship to “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks”
                    Have a good day & this will be my last comment on this site.

  12. One Anonymous Bloke 12
    12 September 2015 at 4:29 pm

    “Key and Abbott are prepared to sacrifice the Pacific”

    No, they aren’t. If there’s anything that can be learned from the politics of AGW it’s that our “leaders” are ill-prepared.

  13. Bill 13
    12 September 2015 at 4:33 pm

    The Pacific, along with much else, has already been sacrificed.

    2 degrees is in the rear view mirror and the 1.5 degree call by Pacific Island leaders confuses me. Any call to limit future warming that doesn’t take latency into account is just plain fcking stupid….calls for 1.5 or 2 degrees essentially come into that category now.

    John key and Abbot aren’t sacrificing the Pacific – they’re maintaining a comfortable myth about future prospects (something about having cake and eating it). That makes them something far worse than stupid.

    • Macro 13.1
      12 September 2015 at 5:00 pm

      Totally agree bill. there is no way we can limit warming to less than 2 degrees – we already have 1 degree now and more to come even if we stopped emitting GHG today! Sea level with 400 ppm as it was 25 million years ago is at least 11 m above current levels – just how long that will take is of course moot. But WAIS and Greenland are unstable and the rise could be quite quick (decades not centuries) if those two go.

      For those who wish to read further:
      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4699
      Significant sea level rise a certainty.

        • Macro 13.1.1.1
          12 September 2015 at 6:10 pm

          🙂 hehehe – maybe I might move there – if it wasn’t for their gun laws, and a political system even more idiotic than ours. Oh! and a crap health system, and an incarceration rate higher than anywhere in the world, and killing people who kill people because killing people is wrong, and….
          Nah! I’ll take my chances here – I’m 75m above sea level at the moment.

          • lprent 13.1.1.1.1
            13 September 2015 at 12:28 am

            I’m 87m above sealevel. Provided East Antarctica doesn’t melt significantly and unexpectedly (they’re still looking at that) this place should be safe from sea level rises. The increased storm activity and severity might cause issues though.

            At this point, based on the known geological evidence about previous melts, the Greenland and the West Antarctica ice sheets have a significant risk of collapsing in the next 50-200 years (geological evidence can’t resolve teeny time periods). Certainly that is what appears to be happening. I’d pick Greenland as being largely ice free at the end of summer in a few more decades. West Antarctica is starting to look damn fragile with the water intrusions. As usual the IPCA is way too conservative.

            East Antarctica looks more stable. But since the geological evidence of such a catastrophic melts is sparse, we really don’t know.

            • Pasupial 13.1.1.1.1.1
              13 September 2015 at 1:13 am

              LPrent & Macro

              You personally may inhabit land that is sufficiently elevated to escape submersion. However, you have to ask yourself; what about the roads and other infrastructure that supply you with resources? Unless you also have many solar panels, satellite feeds, and some means to produce food, then you are going to be as starving and cutoff as any other climate refugee.

              It may not be your intention, but I’ve often heard people say that they’ll be alright when the deluge comes because they’re far up enough to escape the waves. This seems to be fundamentally missing the point that the social and economic collapse caused by climate change will have a far quicker impact on most peoples lives than the water itself. Especially; “the increased storm activity and severity”, that will make horticulture difficult.

              • Macro …
                13 September 2015 at 3:24 pm

                “However, you have to ask yourself; what about the roads and other infrastructure that supply you with resources?”
                Yes I’m well aware of that P. I was being facetious – the Thames coast road – one of my favourite stretches of NZ known as the pohutukawa Coast will be inundated and impassible. The wetlands I and 20 others are planting next to the new Kopu Bridge will be gone, and the sea bird coast and feeding grounds for the Godwits before their epic flight north to their breeding grounds in Alaska will also be lost. (ps I saw a white heron just the other day – my third sighting – rather special)
                The Hauraki Plains are particularly under threat and even now with constant argriculture, the land (what was the largest North Island wetland/swamp and 9 m of peat) is sinking at the rate of around 10cm per decade. The land is also suffering from rising salinity and will soon be desert. So much for our sustainability! As for the “rivers” that drain into the Firth, they are now more like sewers and the breeding grounds for snapper and other fish in the area is now so polluted the fish stocks of the Hauraki Gulf are at around one 10th of what they were even 50 years ago. Only the dog fish (small sharks) remain.

    • mickysavage 13.2
      12 September 2015 at 7:42 pm

      I am afraid you are right. I would hope that our leader could at least be aspirational …

  14. Smilin 14
    12 September 2015 at 4:56 pm

    Well it shows again the arrogance and contrived ignorance of both PMs the jobs are climate changed u pair of bent bastards

  15. weston 15
    12 September 2015 at 6:25 pm

    the sight of the three freaks in designer suits in the vid above is paticularly sickening given their power and total lack of empathy for the pacific islanders Three evil clones could be an apt title for them .I learned a long time ago never trust a man in a suit and i sure wouldnt trust that lot !!!

  16. Mike the Savage One 16
    12 September 2015 at 7:36 pm

    The world is ruled by many dinosaur minded idiots, I observe.

    Abbott stunned me before, with his total stupidity, and Key seems keen to compete with Abbott for who is the “better” climate change denier. Yesterday he was quoted on TV as being not so sure whether sea level rise would be the major risk to Pacific island states.

    A priority for Kim John Key is always to have his face on the front page of a paper or other media report:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/71939731/john-key-front-page-news-in-papua-new-guinea

    As for climate change and any threat to the South Pacific, Mr Key seems little moved, rather busy with more fishing quota deals:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/pacific/283938/little-movement-on-climate-at-pacific-islands-forum

    As for human rights, more “pass” by the Shining Leader of Aotearoa NZ Inc:
    “Human rights abuses in West Papua were also up for discussion at the retreat and Key’s view that a fact-finding mission wasn’t needed hadn’t changed.”
    (see the stuff.co article)

    Most important is this coverage of our Shining Leader of Greatest Wisdom:
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/-i-look-nice-key-enjoying-his-coverage-in-png-media-as-islands-slam-nz-policies-q10079

    Do not mess with the Great Leader, he has POWERFUL friends, so sleep well, dear NZers.

    And do NOT forget, to shop at Bunnies, Hammer Software, Mitre Zero and get your gear for the weekend, besides of all the specials at Countdumb and Pak’n Slave, where there are many specials, infotainment and infomercials free to view on all channels, through the night and into the mornings.

  17. Mike the Savage One 17
    12 September 2015 at 7:51 pm

    Just keep a watch on when Master Kim John Key will put his beach house at Omaha on the market! That will send you the informed warning signals, that also many beach properties in New Zealand will face erosion and further flooding in the not too distant future:

    http://www.omahabeach.co.nz/tonkin-and-taylor-report.php

    “In July 2005 Rodney District Council adopted the Tonkin & Taylor Report which required information be placed on Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports of many Omaha properties highlighting possible flood risk.”

    Mr Key is rather “hum” on this, so I suppose, he has a plan, a well worked out plan, following advice by respected Tonkin and Taylor and others, to do the right thing, in the right time, to exit when and where needed, so he can prepare his one way flight to probably better elevated islands territory in Hawaii.

    And for those islanders who have not bothered “saving” and “preparing” for the future, stuff them, Mr Abbott and his Immigration Minister made that very clear.

  18. Mike the Savage One 18
    12 September 2015 at 8:11 pm

    St Stephen’s Ave in Parnell in Auckland, including number 107, are more elevated than Omaha Beach, so Key is SAFE there, and I wonder, how high his Hawaiian home is above sea. I am sure he will have considered it all, being a smart calculator, for his and his family’s own sake:

    “The Keys returned to build a $5 million mansion in St Stephens Ave – “the house that Merrill built”, John would call it. They had a beach house at Omaha north of Auckland, they kept their London house and they bought a Hawaiian holiday home for a reported US$3.2 million in the exclusive Wailea resort on Maui.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10543277
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281699

    PS: I once lived in the area, and St Stephen’s Ave is fairly elevated.

    So again, those “islanders” better learn to make smart decisions, like a “smart” currency trader did.

  19. Lloyd 19
    12 September 2015 at 9:19 pm

    Couple of points no-one else has made.

    Higher CO2 levels are making the oceans more acidic. Destroying corals and fisheries with acid sea might affect pacific island nations more or faster than the sea level rising. (Cyclones and Tsunamis raise the sand level on atolls}

    Global climate change is likely to make most o Australia drier. New Zealand may be faced with a version of the Syrian Crisis (drought is part of the Syrian problem), except our refugees will be Aussies, looking for a wetter climate. Abbott is a bird shitting in his own nest. Key is just a silly seagull.

    If the atolls survive it might be Aussie refugees pleading to land on atoll nations,

    • Macro 19.1
      12 September 2015 at 9:27 pm

      We already have an influx of Australian farmers heading here forced off their farms in Aussie because of persistent drought – anecdotal at this stage, but more than one or two.

  20. katipo 20
    13 September 2015 at 4:52 pm

    From the Independent.
    “Climate change talks in Paris our ‘last chance’, say Pacific islands: ‘This is not politics, it’s survival’
    The Pacific island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising sea levels have issued a desperate plea to Australia and New Zealand, their energy-guzzling neighbours, and the wider world”….

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/climate-change-talks-our-last-chance-say-pacific-islands-this-is-not-politics-its-survival-10490376.html

  21. fisiani 21
    13 September 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Read the heading on the homepage.
    The words many and most are clearly there.
    How can you claim you did not write them?

    [lprent: FFS: So it appears that you are saying you read the excerpt and never actually read the post? That is bad enough. But your allegation said quite clearly (my italics)

    Yes you did write many and most. You simply edited the original post. Cheap trick to try to cover up sloppiness.

    You notice that? You alleged that he edited the post after it was posted. That is clearly a lie. Now you are saying what? The excerpt was the only thing you read? That the excerpt wasn’t edited after the post was posted?

    The excerpt is not the post. The excerpt has to be a very small number of words, usually 50 to 60 maximum. In this post, it was a précis in 59 words of a post of 760 words. It is highly unlikely to put the full argument in the excerpt, which is why we generally don’t write posts of 59 words, but instead write posts of hundreds of words.

    Nothing about the post, including its excerpt, was changed after its publication to “cover up” what he wrote. That is what you alleged and that is what you finally got banned for.

    Excerpts are are not posts. They are teasers to get people interested enough to read the post and its details. They are not there for fuckwits like you to make false accusations about the actions of our authors because you screwed up and didn’t actually read what they wrote in the post.

    Even more than ever, it is pretty damn clear that the reasons for your ban were entirely your own lazy fault for not reading the post. ]

  22. Chez 22
    14 September 2015 at 5:05 pm

    “Realistically, you’re so far into the future that’s not an issue that we’re going to face in the next year or two,” he said.

    The words that comes out of JK’s mouth does not surprise me anymore. This guy we call the “leader” of our great nation thinks that climate change is nothing to worry about at least not for the next year or two. Climate change was doomed to happen, although it is a slow process it is not something that we can ignore or move to the side for the mean while. Think back to the years 2002-2004 when a whole village had to be relocated inland in Vanuatu. Anyone remember that? It was a cause of a tectonic subsidence and sea level rise. That is just one of the many examples of the warning signs that mother nature is telling us!! Many problems has already occurred in the past proving that it will most likely to occur again in the near future. So what I am trying to say is that NO Mr. Key you’re not being realistic at all if you think that this problem is so far into the future that we don’t have to worry about it for now!

    If JK is so worried about economic growth then maybe he may need to wake up and realise that we (New Zealand) is also surrounded by water and we all know that Antarctica is slowly melting too. “The precise measurements suggest West Antarctica shed some 209 billion metric tons (230 billion tons) of ice each year between 2009 and 2012” (Oskin,B.2014). So we should consider our Pacific neighbours cry for help because we could end up being in the same position. At the end of the day you can’t take wealth to the grave with you.

    • Brent 22.1
      16 September 2015 at 10:57 am

      Honestly I have no idea why Key hasn’t been impeached by the House of Commons yet.

      [lprent: We don’t have a House of Commons perhaps? We have a House of Representatives. We have not been a colony of the UK for quite some time.

      BTW: all new handles and ’email’ combinations require a moderator to release them. Wait as there is no need to create a different handle. It simply makes you look suspicious to moderators as trying to use multiple psuedonyms just makes you look like a troll. Both of your pseudonym’s comments have been approved with probation. This means that any new comments by you will require moderator approval. I suggest that you pick which single handle you wish to use. And read the policy and the about.

      Once you have a comment approved without probation you will be free to post comments at will, but always subject to the policies of this site. ]

    • Sarah 22.2
      16 September 2015 at 11:13 am

      Given that the vast majority of New Zealanders and Australians have access to the internet, I don’t see any more excuses turning a blind eye to the detrimental effects and predictable results of CC. Wait no longer and educate everyone you know and/or set as an example. NZ’s recent protest against the secrecy of the TPPA deal reached the surface of global news. Why don’t we stop waiting on these clowns to do something and support the movement ourselves.

    • John Cena 22.3
      16 September 2015 at 2:00 pm

      If we’re talking about survival here and are inevitably approaching doomsday, people like Key and Abbott might just be playing their cards correctly.

      No one had a choice where to be conceived nor which socioeconomic state one would begin his/her life – and despite these two factors, there are plenty of success stories of families and individuals fleeing to much more stable governances for a brighter looking future financially. Clap clap to them.

      Yes, I agree we have had many warnings in the hundred years that’s passed, however the numbers show there is no stopping to the rise of the global temperatures. Where to put the blame? Procreating frenzy (poor family planning or due to treating children as future investments) which results to demands of natural resources increasing exponentially, Pop culture nurturing our young ones, and(but not limited to) the sum of the middle to upper class population’s greed.

      We as a specie, had plenty of time to mend our planet’s wounds. We still have a chance, though only very little. At the end of the day (today), John Key is still our Prime Minister, taking in refugees is not an ideal action for him. He is well aware a huge sum of the NZ population are very unhappy with the way he’s governing the country. And with more refugees moving into the country, someone is bound to complain – either the refugees struggling to get employed(when the time comes they have to jump in to the NZ workforce) or the citizens of NZ complaining about all these refugees taking “their” jobs. Either way it’s going to be interesting.

      • Chez 22.3.1
        19 September 2015 at 12:37 pm

        Interesting argument you have put up there “John Cena”. You have mentioned that there is only one thing to blame for the damages to our earth and that is.. “Procreating frenzy (poor family planning or due to treating children as future investments) which results to demands of natural resources increasing exponentially”.

        You cannot blame CC solely on procreating ! Everyone of us has been a significant part of this damage! either by turning our cars every morning or chopping down trees. I personally think It is very ignorant of you to blame it on procreating and calling it a “frenzy”. Some people hold dearly religious beliefs which they believe in bringing every human being into this world if God is willing . This means that abortion or any kinds of contraceptive is not an option (but lets not get onto this topic for now as it could get very catty soon enough!)

        What I’m trying to say is that we as individual human beings are all to blame for climate change , just because it has not affected our country YET. does not mean it is not our “fault” and that we should not help our pacific neighbours! Or would you rather wait until we are affected too and then change your opinion about this decision????

        • John Cena 22.3.1.1
          20 September 2015 at 9:42 pm

          How come you only focussed on only one out of my other named culprits of climate change? with my two other culprits, I’ve figured I’m also pointing fingers at the middle class and the upper class citizens. So yes, in my response I am saying, and I will be blunt this time around, it is us, the humans, who’ve added too much salt and lemon to the wound.

          We are the predators who became pests. We shall go through another extinction and there will be new dominant species to run the next generation of Earth life, that is, if by that time the sun is not twice as hot as it is currently and our planet still isn’t a ball of Lava.

          We accept the refugees or not, we will all end up with the same fate. What’s important now, is how much sympathy does the NZ government have for these refugees.

  23. Olga 23
    14 September 2015 at 11:44 pm

    Surely, John Key could perhaps do a bit more to show a little more empathy towards the whole refugee crisis. What can be translated from his statement about the climate refugee situation is the lack of urgency and priority towards them. The future of these people rely on the “now”. The future cannot wait as its actions rely on the present’s doings. Maybe New Zealand’s investment into the Pacific’s development on sustainable energy should be reviewed. Potentially because it might not be alleviating these sinking island atolls from the harsh tremors of the global warming effects. Is John Key doing enough?

    His leadership ought to show where his weaknesses lie and what with the rejection of raising the Syrian refugee quota to more than 750? However, New Zealand has not increased its refugee quota since it was first set at 800 almost 30 years ago, in 1987.

    Yes, his reasoning provides that we as a country have been allowing refugee immigration for quite a long period of time. Also Key’s self-held belief that if New Zealand were to invite the influx of refugee immigrants into its country, then it would need to better its services before increasing the intake. To add more salt to the wound, these same Syrian refugees must face much harsher plights as human beings fighting for a means of survival like literally. Whilst we citizens might also fight for a means of survival in differing contexts, what must be noted is that refugees fleeing these war zones in particular must now fight twice as hard to maintain basic necessities which we might be so privileged to. Things like security, shelter, food and emotional understanding are all jeopardized. Yet even its nearby bordering countries are so unwilling to accept them to the extent that Hungary vows to arrest refugees who come into contact. With a crisis like this concerning refugees, the most humane thing that could be done is look into the issues and do something about it. After all, these are other human beings who just like us have a right to the basic needs in life. And thus, the quota of the Syrian refugee intake should be doubled. This begs a clear cut but evocative question; What if we were in refugee’s shoes?

  24. Philj 24
    17 September 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Well at least Abbot can now go and fight a few more forest fires this summer. With the extra time he has…