Local right wing media on climate change

Written By: - Date published: 10:23 am, July 18th, 2015 - 139 comments
Categories: articles, climate change, disaster, Environment, farming, global warming, Media, science, sustainability, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUAGy1hXV8I

Mike Hosking has been on holiday lately and Newstalk ZB have brought in Jack Tame to do his Mike’s minute slot. The change has been enjoyable.

Tame’s final effort which you can see here allowed him to rail against the world’s inaction on climate change.  He was blunt in his analysis and said that as a species because of our failure to do anything significant about climate change we are heading towards potential extinction.  He did not think his views were extreme.  He merely reflected on the information he had been exposed to and what he had experienced.  The tipping point is now.  Either we wake up and do something so that we can leave a half decent world to our kids one day or we face catastrophe.

And with a 2 degree increase in average temperature such issues as Auckland housing market, dairy payouts and zero hour contracts will not matter.

Earlier this month he criticised the Government’s proposal for a 11% reduction in GHG emissions to be taken to the Paris Climate change talks later this year.  He mentioned the almost unanimity of support for a significant and aggressive reduction in greenhouse gas production and how timid the Government’s target was in comparison.  He talked about how some of our proudest moments happened when we stood up and took a stand.  Womens suffrage, the anti nuclear movement and opposition to apartheid were referred to.  He concluded by saying the 11% was not nearly enough.

Normal transmission will be resumed next Monday when Hosking returns from holiday.  But for a few brief moments the spark of recognition of the seriousness of climate change has lit the newsrooms of Newstalk ZB.

But to return to right wing business as usual John Roughan’s column in this morning’s Herald is a startling effort.

He seems to accept that climate change is occurring.  But he does not think that it will be such a big  problem.  Although even he thinks that the Government’s proposed target is not enough.

Climate change went well down the world’s agenda after the global financial crisis because economic problems were more important. The subject is coming back now as governments prepare for a December conference in Paris that will attempt to set new targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. A capped emissions market is an efficient precaution. I think New Zealand could bear a cap more respectable than the Government plans to take to Paris.

The final few sentences of his post descend into farce.

But if the worst that can happen is a rise of a metre in sea levels and a few degrees in mean temperatures over a century, I think we’ll cope.

The climate does seem to be changing. Auckland’s past two summers have been unusually long and lovely, this winter is unusually cold. Droughts and floods we can handle.

Science says otherwise, but not the sort of science that sends a probe to Pluto. Climate science is on a political mission.

That may be more exciting, more lucrative possibly, but I find all sciences more credible when their mission is the endless one into the unknown.

Unfortunately the reality is that climate change will not bring us slightly better barbecue weather.  Adverse weather including presumably the floods in Whanganui, disastrous farming conditions, inundation of low lying areas and the threats to our transport networks already pose significant problems to the country.  And we are only just starting to see the effects.

 

139 comments on “Local right wing media on climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dv 1
    18 July 2015 at 10:37 am

    The article was a mix of bizarre confusion.

    • Mrs Brillo 1.1
      18 July 2015 at 5:47 pm

      Some days John Roughan is bizarre, other days he is confused. So if today he is both, he might be getting his act together at last. Or not.

      But the point of this post is to identify why so large a portion of the New Zealand media are peddling an AGW message.

      Could it be that they rely heavily on motoring advertising? And that climate change scientists, by contrast, have no advertising budget?
      Enquiring minds want to know.

      • Mrs Brillo 1.1.1
        19 July 2015 at 12:47 pm

        I beg your pardon.

        In the above comment I used AGW in its former sense of ANTI Global Warming, ie, denialist, but it seems some of the comments that follow are using it to mean (presumably) ACCELERATED Global Warming.

        Guess we’d better agree on some new descriptors, to avoid confusion.

        • Macro 1.1.1.1
          19 July 2015 at 1:05 pm

          Anthropogenic Global Warming ie the Heating of the Earth caused primarily by human activity. Geologists are now beginning to talk of the end of the Holocene and the beginning of the Anthropocene.

          Our species’ whole recorded history has taken place in the geological period called the Holocene – the brief interval stretching back 10,000 years. But our collective actions have brought us into uncharted territory. A growing number of scientists think we’ve entered a new geological epoch that needs a new name – the Anthropocene.

          http://www.anthropocene.info/en/anthropocene

          • Mrs Brillo 1.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2015 at 2:43 pm

            Obviously the acronyms move on on a daily basis and we need to actually type out the full words rather than rely on them.

            • Macro 1.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2015 at 3:35 pm

              I have to say that AGW has been used for quite some time for Anthropogenic Global Warming – ever since the 1990’s as far as I can recall, and it is the most commonly used meaning of the acronym – see here:
              http://www.acronymfinder.com/AGW.html
              I do see that other meanings have been given to it, but in the scientific community, where the acronym first originated, when referring to the heating of the Earth, it has always meant Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    • Fustercluck 1.2
      19 July 2015 at 11:54 am

      The article was a mix of confusion because that is the whole point: Keep people, especially those that care about the planet as confused as possible. That way they will limit the debate to the agreed terms, i.e., the amount of CO2 in or to be released into the atmostphere in the hope that this will somehow prevent climate change. Keep the masses following the Al Gore model. Well folks, when you let plutocrats frame the debate you have already lost!

      At the risk of getting banned from this site again for taking an alternative view on climate change, I offer the following:

      1. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so no matter what we do.

      2. Severely restricting our CO2 output will not change the above.

      3. Focusing on CO2, especially the model of using markets to regulate CO2 permits industrial powers to pay ineffective lip service to being ‘green’ while continuing to pillage our ecosystem for private profits.

      I suggest that we stop obsessing about CO2 which is, in terms of environmental destruction, at best a lagging indicator and instead focus on regulating industry in effective and immediate terms with a view to slowing or halting the daily process of ecosystem destruciton.

      And example:

      If we commodify CO2, then there is not barrier to fracking, merely a cost to burning the products of that process. If we adopt a principle of properly protecting all freshwater on our planet then fracking becomes effectively impossible. The oil stays in the ground and is not burned, hence less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, if that is what is important to you.

      Another:

      If we adopt a principle that Appalachian mountaintops are precious old-growth deciduous forest environments, then open-cast mines do not happen and the coal stays in the ground and is not burned, hence less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, if that is what is important to you.

      Another:

      If we value forests and do not allow wanton clearcut then the trees are not slashed and burned, CO2 remains sequestered, hence less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, if that is what is important to you.

      Meaningful and effective international regulation of industry will slow/halt environmental destruction and automatically restrict greenhouse gasses. Focusing on the gasses and ignoring the need to restrain industry (financed by rapacious capital) essentially hands the debate to those that value profit ahead of our collective survivial.

      FFS people! Wake up!

      Have a nice day.

  2. Redbaiter 2
    18 July 2015 at 10:41 am

    Hey Mickey-

    Roughan and Hosking are not right wingers. They’re left wingers smart enough to know the global warming scam has run out of legs.

    So many polls show the public are not buying it.

    It is starkly clear that Labour are not only flogging a dead horse here but it is something that is very much holding them back from electoral success.

    You can get votes off National and outflank them by giving up this lost cause.

    • mickysavage 2.1
      18 July 2015 at 10:44 am

      Gee RB where do I start?

      Hosking is still a climate change denier. I was referring to his replacement Jack Tame as you can see in the video.

      Have you seen this from Bloomberg on the freakish year of climate change records?

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-17/the-freakish-year-in-broken-climate-records

      • Redbaiter 2.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 11:20 am

        Mickey, I’m trying to give you good advice here.

        Most of the public know AGW is a scam and therefore you’re pissing into the wind by continuing to push it.

        Turning voters away from Labour for the sake of some shiny arsed out of touch bureaucrats in the UN. Who are more interested in their careers than whether Labour gets power in NZ or not.

        You can get Key easily if you would just see some strategic sense. He’s stolen all of your ideas, so you have to steal those that should be his.

        You can get him on the flag change. No one wants it. You need to hit him much harder on this vain folly based on Key’s personal needs.

        He shouldn’t be spending public money on this personal issue. He shouldn’t be using the office of Prime Minister to push it. He should lobby for flag change using his own money when he is gone from parliament.

        You can get him on untrammeled immigration by cashed up immigrants from the People’s Republic of China seeking a safe port for their dodgy cash. Man, NZ has been labeled by the Chinese authorities as one of the top three nations where criminals are laundering money. They’re wrecking the NZ economy and National are with them, and you guys are too bogged down in ideology to make voting capital from this??

        Then there is AGW. So many voters out there are yearning for a party who will give them a no vote on this. If you give up this nonsense you can drop the price of electricity, gas and petrol and diesel. A sure fire vote winner.

        There are hundreds of thousands of votes in it, and you could even get farmers on your side, especially after National’s blunder with their new HSE regulations.

        Give up AGW as a cause and you will sweep back into power. It is a cause holding left wing govts out of power all over the globe. Break free of this millstone and you’ll get back onto the govt benches, guaranteed.

        BTW, CO2 levels have always fluctuated wildly regardless of the activities of humans.

        See the chart that shows this.

        • red-blooded 2.1.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 12:17 pm

          Golly, clearly “red-baiter” actually has the interests of the Labour Party and the wider Left movement at heart. He/she’s just trying to give us all some honest, helpful advice… And of course we all know that science is directly informed by public opinion. If we all just disbelieve hard enough, we’ll be all right. Nothing can happen to us if we don’t believe it will; right, red-baiter?

        • maui 2.1.1.2
          18 July 2015 at 12:49 pm

          Oh look, Tony Abbott’s PA is here.

          • Rodel 2.1.1.2.1
            18 July 2015 at 3:17 pm

            Nah! That was Hoskings , wasn’t it?

            Must agree. It was a pleasant break. I actually watched some of 7 sharp without getting irritated.

        • dv 2.1.1.3
          18 July 2015 at 1:40 pm

          That was the chart from Twitter. Twitter is your valid scientific source then.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.4
          18 July 2015 at 3:52 pm

          I’m trying to give you good advice here.

          No your not, you’re trying to pass lies off as truth.

        • BM 2.1.1.5
          18 July 2015 at 5:16 pm

          I agree.

          That there is the road map to power.
          Not that the left will follow it.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.5.1
            18 July 2015 at 5:41 pm

            And apparently that road map doesn’t include doing what’s right. This is probably why only the unethical and immoral RWNJs follow it.

          • Wensleydale 2.1.1.5.2
            18 July 2015 at 10:24 pm

            Power won’t matter much when you can’t go outside for fear of spontaneous combustion.

        • Macro 2.1.1.6
          18 July 2015 at 5:38 pm

          Oh Red – I see you conveniently left two other complimentary graphs off. Sea level, and Temperature, for the past 1 billion years.
          Just so you can correct your Post that you link too; here is some peer reviewed science to help you correct your mis-information:
          note particularly figure 5
          http://www.curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter10/Ency_Oceans/Sea_Level_Variations.pdf
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
          Note that when Carbon dioxide levels were last at 400ppm 25 million year agohumans did not exist and seal level was 11 + metres higher than today. There is such a thing as Earth’s energy imbalance, you might like to bone up on some science to see why your protestations here are simply bullshit.
          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

        • Lara 2.1.1.7
          18 July 2015 at 6:03 pm

          You do realise that humans have only been on Earth for the last 4 million years, right?

          That graph you link to, you do realise it covers over 500 million years, right? And that land masses and life forms have changed one helluva lot in 500 million years?

          Crikey. That chart proves yes, CO2 levels change over time, but if you want to look at the time of human existence I would suggest that looking at C02 levels over the last 4 million years may be a better idea.

          That would show you the environmental conditions that humans have evolved in, have evolved to survive in, and have lived in for the entirety of our existence.

          And then you would see also that CO2 levels now are higher than they have ever been during our entire history as a species. The last time it was this high, sea levels were a helluva lot higher than they are now. There’s a lag, ice takes time to melt and water takes time to absorb energy.

          Even a 1m rise in sea levels is going to see a lot of rather poor over populated countries under water. Creating rather a lot of refugees. Even if we are okay in our little corner we may be inundated by desperate floods of people.

          I don’t think this is going to end well. Voting isn’t gonna fix it.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.7.1
            18 July 2015 at 6:06 pm

            for the last 4 million years

            Try the last two hundred thousand or so, for hominins.

            • Lara 2.1.1.7.1.1
              18 July 2015 at 6:25 pm

              True. I was being very generous in my use of the entirety of the evolution back to our common ancestors, Australopithecus.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 July 2015 at 6:30 pm

                I always go with 40-60k – the earliest known Arts. Something people can relate to 🙂

                • Lara …
                  18 July 2015 at 7:03 pm

                  I guess.

                  As a person with a BSc in Biology I’m so used to considering it from an evolutionary point of view, from when we probably started to walk upright, use tools and came out of the forests.

                  I forget so often that other people don’t think like that…

                  That’s okay.

                  • lprent …
                    18 July 2015 at 11:41 pm

                    You should see my reactions to climate change deniers. My BSc was in earth sciences back in 1978-1981 – not that I ever really used it professionally. And I have been on the net ever since. Where long experience gives a person a very good toolkit for seriously annoying people.

                    I am a teeny bit harsh. After abusing trolls, tearing stupid* deniers apart is my second favourite sport.

                    I consider it to be an evolutionary filter.

                    * I tend to leave the intelligent but deluded ones to the regular commenters.

                  • Poission …
                    19 July 2015 at 11:51 am

                    As a person with a BSc in Biology I’m so used to considering it from an evolutionary point of view, from when we probably started to walk upright, use tools and came out of the forests.

                    The emergence of Australopithecus ,was at concomitant period of significant climate change the mid Pliocene.

                    Here with co2 levels similar today,the sealevels were significantly higher as were surface temperatures.There was a significant transformation of the surface landscape in Africa from rainforest to savannah.

                    Some thinking is that Australopithecus began to walk upright,to both prevent drowning in wetlands and to reduce the surface area of the body’s exposure to sunlight (and accompanying water loss) the former (sunburn) being a response to a supernova and ozone loss.

                    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/06jan_bubble/

    • Paul 2.2
      18 July 2015 at 12:39 pm

      zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3
      18 July 2015 at 1:49 pm

      What a load of paranoid drivel. Woo! Science is a big conspiracy!

      Egg.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    18 July 2015 at 10:56 am

    John Roughan is completely correct – if the worst of it is merely 1 metre in sea level rise and an increase in mean temperatures, she’ll be right.

    Of course, that’s not the worst of it.

  4. Bill 4
    18 July 2015 at 11:06 am

    Climate science is on a political mission.

    Not in the way Roughan reckons though. The IPCC essentially fudges to give ‘feel good’ reports. Most major reports play the same game.

    1. Assume that carbon capture and storage will become a really existing and working piece of technology and factor that into reports.

    2. Increase the allowable emissions for 2 degrees and throw the term ‘likely’ around the show…ie, talk of climate change in terms of probabilities in the 1:3 – 1:2 range. Hardly science.

    3. Incorporate CO2 reductions of no more than 5% into reports (political pressure)…to do that, double global emissions allowances and throw in CCS.

    And so it goes.

  5. Robert Atack 5
    18 July 2015 at 11:33 am

    The only way the planet is not going to see + 2 C is if it doesn’t go to + .5C ops
    The average is now so close to +1C it doesn’t matter, and with this supper El Nino ‘we’ could easily see +1.5 within 6 months? Add the end of particulate production – collapse of industrial civilization – the planet could be @ +2 inside of 18 months ?
    Throw in a 50 GT burst of CH4 …. well ?
    400ppm CO2 = +6C baked in
    There is no precedent in the speed the environment has reached 400 ppm this time, but I guess each extinction event is unique, ours will just be the fastest and most severe. And maybe with the radiation, it will have the most lasting effects?

  6. Poission 6
    18 July 2015 at 11:56 am

    The arctic anomaly today is .59c, the antarctic anomaly is -2.49c a factor of 5 differential.

    http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/DailySummary/GFS-025deg_NH-SAT5_T2_anom.png

    • Macro 6.1
      18 July 2015 at 12:24 pm

      and your point is??

      • Poission 6.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 12:32 pm

        rt comment,

        Parts of the North pole are hitting 1 -2 C at the moment ? How bad is that?

        As a binary problem,if a positive arctic anomaly is bad,would a large antarctic anomaly of an inverse sign be good?

        • Macro 6.1.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 12:38 pm

          I’m sure you will have been told this before – but weather (such as you link to above) is not climate.

          • Poission 6.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2015 at 1:12 pm

            You better explain that to RT above. A moment ( being a noun) pertaining to the present point in time ie the weather singularity.

  7. Ad 7
    18 July 2015 at 12:12 pm

    There’s a roiling lack of confidence in the entire developed world right now.
    Middle East getting worse.
    Saharan Africa going backwards.
    UN swamped.
    Democracy retreating rapidly in North Africa.
    Continental Europe stagnating, China decelerating.
    International incoherence on climate change.
    Australasian economies at tipping point.

    Actually, this is a great time for Labour.

    Never waste a crisis.

    • Macro 7.1
      18 July 2015 at 12:28 pm

      The crisis of drought that well affect dairy farmers this summer will be too much for many. Our milk powder republics economy is heading for disaster.

      • Ad 7.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 12:48 pm

        Sorry to sound like Joyce, but the effects will be uneven.

        – Bay of Plenty won’t give a damn as the horticulture sector is booming
        – Auckland simply won’t care
        – Wellington region is perfectly stable
        – Central Otago is booming
        – Nelson also booming
        – Hawkes Bay both wine and horticulture are fantastic

        Some places were permanently depressed already, but I think we know where they are. Just get your Deprivation Index out.

        The places that will really feel the dairy drop the hardest will be:
        – Canterbury, with the rebuild boom coming off, and the dairy conversions deep into the Southern Alps foothills
        – Northland
        – Southland
        – Buller Gorge part of West Coast
        – Waikato and King Country
        – Taranaki

  8. anon in newsroom 8
    18 July 2015 at 12:59 pm

    “Normal transmission will be resumed next Monday when Hosking returns from holiday. But for a few brief moments the spark of recognition of the seriousness of climate change has lit the newsrooms of Newstalk ZB.”

    Hi, I actually work at ZB, and frankly, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about with regards to the politics of our newsroom. Here’s the thing that everyone misunderstands – programmes (i.e Mike Hosking/Leighton Smith etc) and the news (i.e that thing that happens at the top of every hour) are not one and the same.

    Presenters and producers of shows may have political opinions, and they happily espouse them on air. The newsroom does not espouse political opinions on air and online. Every story is played straight down the middle. So to say that “a spark of recognition…has lit the newsrooms” is totally false. We routinely run stories on the subject of climate change in the bulletins and on the website. Seriously – look for yourself. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/search-results?keyword=climate+change

    They are balanced and based on a combination of factual evidence and what experts and politicians have said. Or, to put it more bluntly, they are proper news stories.

    • Sable 8.1
      18 July 2015 at 1:18 pm

      Thats super duper wonderful. We are all so glad to hear it…….thanks for taking the time to reassure all the doubters like myself……By the way can you explain where you get at least some of the scientific facts from to back up the “opinions” you present on climate change?

    • Mrs Brillo 8.2
      18 July 2015 at 1:53 pm

      News = 5 minutes per hour
      Bigots, rednecks, advertisers, vested interests = 55 minutes per hour.

      Old economists’ dictum: an elephant and rabbit stew, made in proportions of one elephant to one rabbit, is going to taste pretty much like elephant stew.

    • maui 8.3
      18 July 2015 at 1:53 pm

      What I would be interested to know is how many of those climate change stories from your website actually made it into your hourly news bulletins? Hardly any?

      Could you do something else for me, can you start counting from now on how often a Green politician or anyone else presenting a view on action on climate change has their sound bite on your news bulletin? It would be interesting to compare that with how often a status quo National politician or business person gets their sound bite on.

      Could you also count the number of times you air a news item that presents a green perspective without a countering right-wing narrative to go alongside it. Compare that with how many times you present a right-wing narrative news item without any counteracting argument.

      Good to know that you believe for 1 minute in every hour the non-bias of the station shines through.

    • Bill 8.4
      18 July 2015 at 1:56 pm

      They are balanced and

      3 out of the 10 people we spoke to, do not believe in the existence of hats. So we are giving 50% of our airtime on hats to guys who not believe in the existence of hats.

      (Was that kinda line from John Oliver? mbe.)

    • mickysavage 8.5
      18 July 2015 at 3:02 pm

      Sorry anon my comment was meant to reflect Hoskings’ world view rather the reporters’ world view. Although Newstalk ZB seems to be a major source of anti climate change comment.

    • The Other Mike 8.6
      18 July 2015 at 3:30 pm

      Well Anon I am also pleased to hear that. I worked in Commercial radio for well over thirty years as an announcer (gave up in mid 2000s when the corporate takeover started killing all our jobs and went non-commercial).

      All I can say is it must be disappointing for you and all your newsroom friends nowadays to deal with fact based reality for 5 minutes – only to hear Mike, Larry, Leighton et al deny any credence to 99% of the world’s climate scientists – as well as bash a very large percentage of our own population for stuff they had no choice in.

      You may console yourself with the fact that US right-wing spouters like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Liely, Faux News (average viewer age is 72) etc are a dying breed – as their audience dog whistles only now appeal to old folks who are, well, dying. It is only a matter of time till it happens here.

      I hope your masters at Clear are paying attention.

    • Redbaiter 8.7
      18 July 2015 at 3:34 pm

      @anon in newsroom

      I very infrequently listen to ZB because its far too left wing for anyone who isn’t to the left of Joe Stalin.

      I don’t know who does the news in the weekends but you should fire their arse because he/ she is nothing but a Green Party propagandist.

      And how many middle of the road listeners do you think you loose through pandering to the few nut case lefties who like to ring up and complain at the slightest hint you may utter something that isn’t approved Marxist cant?

      All your talk back hosts other than Leighton are Progressives, and I can’t bear to listen to them. Haven’t for years. Apparently that bimbo you have on in the mornings is really bad.

      The only person who wouldn’t think ZB was a left wing rat’s nest might be Fidel Castro. Maybe you could get Kerri to ask him next time she takes her holidays in Cuba.

      • The Other Mike 8.7.1
        18 July 2015 at 4:37 pm

        Sorry, which station are you listening to again? Can’t be same ZB I listen to. Sorry Red – you ‘loose’!

        Try your deflection elsewhere.

      • mickysavage 8.7.2
        18 July 2015 at 4:42 pm

        Hey Red is it true that you think that 99% of the population are virulently left wing?

    • aidan 8.8
      18 July 2015 at 4:10 pm

      bullshit

  9. Sable 9
    18 July 2015 at 1:15 pm

    So the Herald columnist has an advanced science degree or maybe he is basing his comments on scientific evidence from????

  10. maui 10
    18 July 2015 at 2:19 pm

    I get the feeling that continual economic crises or large ones are going to be the main shapers of getting our climate under control, not from a green shift. We probably are too late to transition to clean energy now on a global scale (although I still believe we should do it anyway), so collapse is going to do the job for us. World food shortages and price hikes due to climate extremes and oil price rises are going to play a part in disintegrating country’s economies.

    • Lanthanide 10.1
      18 July 2015 at 5:02 pm

      The GFC was the starting gun to the beginning of the end of industrial civilisation.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 7:24 pm

        nice way of putting it. And the GFC came within 2 or so years of peak conventional oil. Not a coincidence, I think.

        • Lanthanide 10.1.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 10:10 pm

          It’s kind of hard to say, especially with hind-sight of the shale oil/gas boom in the US. And obviously the recession led to a drop in consumption as well.

          Certainly high gasoline prices in the US would have helped precipitate their mortgage implosion of houses in exurbs, but the proximate cause of the GFC was obviously financial fraud on a vast scale and it I think it’s a little hard to directly tie that back to oil.

          • Colonial Rawshark 10.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2015 at 11:32 pm

            the increasing financialisation of the US economy since the 1980s has been IMO, quite heavily driven by the increasing difficulty in making big money via real world industrial and manufacturing activity (heavily influenced by resource and energy pricing), and increasing ease in making big money via ‘financial innovation.

            Yes I agree with you that its difficult to definitively and absolutely tie different ‘megatrends’ together.

  11. Kevin 11
    18 July 2015 at 5:25 pm

    Whether catastrophic and if-we-don’t-act-now-it’d-be-too-late AGW is happening or not, the Left has absolutely and totally failed to sell the public on it.

    They have failed to convince the public that AGW is happening.

    The have failed to convince the public that if it’s happening it’s something the public should be concerned about.

    They have failed to convince the public that if it’s happening and that if it’s something the public should be concerned about that the solutions put forward are worth it.

    Here’s what I would do:

    Find the top climate scientists who don’t accept AGW and explain why they’re wrong without being derogatory. Show them respect. Don’t call them deniers.

    With regards to contrary evidence explain why it doesn’t disprove AGW. Again be respectful and most importantly don’t shoot the messenger. If we hear something like “what do expect from something sponsored by big oil” we’re going to turn off.

    Come up with solutions that isn’t just tax us into socialism by taxing business out of business.

    Of course I expect no one to actually take what I’ve said to heart but to continue viewing critics of AGW as dangerous deniers and in the hands of Big Oil…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1
      18 July 2015 at 5:30 pm

      There are no top climate scientists who deny climate change or its anthropogenic origins.

      AGW will drive businesses out of business faster than any tax yet invented. The very notion that taxes kill business is dubious at best.

      Can you name a critic of Physics who isn’t in denial and/or paid by fossil fuel companies? While you’re at it perhaps you can explain why you’re demanding that the Left solve the problem rather than the people who pay lip service to “personal responsibility”.

      • Kevin 11.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 6:05 pm

        3% of climate scientists don’t believe in AGW. What I meant was find most credible of that 3% and tell me why they’re wrong.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 6:08 pm

          Name them, and I’ll help you Google their work for a small fee.

        • lprent 11.1.1.2
          18 July 2015 at 11:58 pm

          Since they all seem to have different opinions about why AGW is wrong, perhaps you had better put a few up as a starter.

          BTW: the most common hypothesis about their differences appears to be that it depends on which industrial/religious lobby group they are employed by. So could you please include that datum in your list.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2
      18 July 2015 at 5:44 pm

      If you’re genuinely interested in public perceptions of climate change here is some further reading from NASA. However, I expect you will cling to your existing beliefs like a security blankie, instead.

      • Kevin 11.2.1
        18 July 2015 at 6:09 pm

        I don’t have any beliefs regarding AGW. However I do believe that science isn’t about numbers and that even if only one person doesn’t believe in AGW, that one person, until proven otherwise, could be the one who is right.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 6:17 pm

          Ah, that’s your fundamental error. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in probability.

          Charitably, I am prepared to offer you a once-only trial of the google search terms to employ: “settled science”.

          If you need further assistance we’ll first have to discuss how you will compensate me for the mind-numbing stupidity I’ll be required to endure.

          • Kevin 11.2.1.1.1
            18 July 2015 at 7:54 pm

            “Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in probability.””

            Wrong.

            “If you need further assistance we’ll first have to discuss how you will compensate me for the mind-numbing stupidity I’ll be required to endure.”

            This sort of attitude is why people turn off.

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

            Pick one and explain to me what is wrong about their opinion.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1.1.1
              18 July 2015 at 8:10 pm

              “Wrong”.

              Nope. Not wrong – an expression of fact. Mathematics deals in proof, science does not.

              As Einstein famously remarked, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

              As for your list (which doesn’t look like the whole 3% are listed to me. Did the others get cold feet or are the list’s authors mendacious? You are oblivious to these things), I’ll Google their work for you once you transfer funds into an escrow account of my choosing. What’s your budget for me doing your homework for you?

              • Kevin …
                18 July 2015 at 8:27 pm

                Science deals in proof. If something can’t be falsified then it’s not science. Hence AGW isn’t science.

                “As for your list (which doesn’t look like the whole 3% are listed to me. Did the others get cold feet or are the list’s authors mendacious? You are oblivious to these things), I’ll Google their work for you once you transfer funds into an escrow account of my choosing. What’s your budget for me doing your homework for you?”

                You do realise that with that attitude you’re actually turning people off, don’t you?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  18 July 2015 at 8:33 pm

                  Sob sob, people might not like me, sob sob.

                  Kevin, since you know better than Einstein, can you tell me what an “error bar” is, and how it applies to the forecasts collated by the IPCC?

                  Nope, you can’t, and I’m not going to help you this time.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  18 July 2015 at 8:38 pm

                  “if something can’t be falsified it’s not science” – which part of greenhouse Physics are you saying can’t be falsified, Kevin?

                  • Lanthanide …
                    18 July 2015 at 10:15 pm

                    Kevin’s sort of misunderstanding of what science is and subsequent use of that misunderstanding as some sort of arguing point is really boring.

                    I wonder if he actually believes what he’s saying?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.1.1.2
              18 July 2015 at 8:48 pm

              One more for the “too funny” files: Kevin’s link yields the following little gem:

              …last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read out Bellamy’s letter. I don’t think the response would have been published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity: “This is complete bullshit.” A few hours later, they sent me an email: “Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are possible.” He had cited data that was simply false, he had failed to provide references, he had completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world’s glaciers are retreating.

              Oh Kev, when your own citation debunks your dribble it’s time to stop dribbling 😆

          • lprent 11.2.1.1.2
            18 July 2015 at 11:53 pm

            Oh come on. It is fun teaching people that they have to up their game when they start using dumb analogies and half remembered trivia that they read in time at the dentists office when they talk about science. You never know – one of them could stumble on something useful by accident instead of merely parroting the same old crap…

            I always love it when they try to squirm away from the risk analysis.

        • RedLogix 11.2.1.2
          18 July 2015 at 6:21 pm

          Yes that is true Kevin; your one poor maligned individual could be right. But in this case you don’t get to find out until too late.

          What you are arguing for is the exact equivalent of betting your everything you own – your very life even – on the rankest outsider coming home first.

          And no reality isn’t going to let you change your bet after this race is run.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.2.1
            18 July 2015 at 6:23 pm

            Kevin will probably get hit by a tree first.

          • Kevin 11.2.1.2.2
            18 July 2015 at 7:56 pm

            Let’s be honest here. AGW isn’t science. It’s political.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.2.2.1
              18 July 2015 at 8:24 pm

              Yawn. You’re displaying your ignorance, puppy.

              Every single prediction made by Climatology has come true. Nights have warmed more than days. Winters have warmed more than summers. The Arctic more than the Antarctic. The frequency and energy of extreme weather events. The migration of species. Ocean acidification.

              There are two possible reasons why you think science that is many decades old could be “political” – you’re a fuckwit, or you’re a lying fuckwit.

              Which is it?

            • Lanthanide 11.2.1.2.2.2
              18 July 2015 at 10:20 pm

              Here’s a resource that will help you learn more about climate change. It’s quite short, but should be very informative for you:

    • BM 11.3
      18 July 2015 at 6:51 pm

      Even if AGW happened as predicted, people still wouldn’t swing in behind the cause.

      Why?, because there’s nothing we can do about it,
      may as well just keep calm and carry on.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1
        18 July 2015 at 7:01 pm

        there’s nothing we can do about it,

        The mask slips, and “personal responsibility” is revealed as a self-serving right wing lie. Again.

        • BM 11.3.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 7:04 pm

          Bollocks, there’s nothing any one in NZ can do about AGW.

          That’s why it will never get any traction and is a waste of time pursuing politically.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.1.1
            18 July 2015 at 7:06 pm

            Apart from inventing ways to alleviate and adapt to it, and using our 5-eye status to wage war on denier scum, what have the Romans ever done for us?

          • RedLogix 11.3.1.1.2
            18 July 2015 at 7:07 pm

            Mate you’re a genius!

            Of course the solution to the problem was under our noses all along. Just divide the world up into say 2000 or so countries the size of New Zealand – and poof the problem goes away!

            Shit why didn’t some clever science dude think of this sooner.

      • RedLogix 11.3.2
        18 July 2015 at 7:03 pm

        Congratulations BM! You’ve hit Stage 4 !.

        Only one more to go 🙂

  12. Smilin 12
    18 July 2015 at 6:13 pm

    The Global F C aka a bunch of rip off warmongering, fly by nighter power hungry financial con artists, creaming it off the power they had to steal from the honest and dependent masses with no responsibility or accountability for their actions now we have them in power all over the world
    I could go on
    They are criminals in perpetuity like what they stole they owe it perpetuity
    Until the honest run the world again which is a mere byte in the history of this world since 1945

  13. Lara 13
    18 July 2015 at 6:18 pm

    Here’s the thing about AGW though. And we need to stop arguing with those who swallow the propaganda which is undoubtedly being generated by the multi trillion dollar fossil fuel industry, because WE DON’T HAVE TO.

    Link to appropriate vid which explains this simple idea. But here’s a quick explanation:

    AGW is either happening and real, or it’s bullshit. We can either choose to act, or do nothing.

    That gives us four possibilities:

    1. AGW is bullshit + we do nothing = no gain, no loss, business as usual. Yay!

    2. AGW is bullshit + we act to reduce CO2 in atmosphere = expensive costs in action, some gains from new green technology, but fossil fuels out of business. Worst case scenario major economic depression or recession.

    3. AGW is all true + we act to reduce CO2 in atmosphere = we go through a major economic depression but our civilisation is saved and we have new technologies.

    4. AGW is all true + we do nothing = massive displacement of populations, global famine, war, extreme weather events result in massive destruction… a very unpretty collapse of our civilisation.

    Clearly, option 4 is dire and must be avoided.

    But it seems we’re hoping for option 1, or as close to it as we can get. Which is pretty stupid really.

    • RedLogix 13.1
      18 July 2015 at 6:35 pm

      Lara,

      Yes that’s the kind of analysis I did in my head in about 20msec about 20 year ago. It’s not that I’m all that clever or better than anyone else; it’s just how people with even a basic science/tech education are trained to think. We almost intuitively estimate the Expected Outcomes and can choose to act accordingly.

      But one glimpse into a crowded casino, stockmarket, racecourse, pokie machine palace – quickly tells you how many people still cannot, or choose not to, engage in this kind of fundamental calculus.

      Most people are hard-wired for short-term reward and heavily discount future consequences.

      This is not a science problem anymore. It is not even really a political one; it’s a problem that relates to how human intelligence evolved and the critical blind-spots and trip-hazards which litter the crawl-spaces of our unconscious minds.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1
        18 July 2015 at 7:04 pm

        Let’s start with the low-hanging fruit: the deliberate marketing of lies for personal gain by specific known individuals.

        • RedLogix 13.1.1.1
          18 July 2015 at 7:09 pm

          Part of me quite warms to the ‘low hanging’ imagery you paint there OAB.

      • Kevin 13.1.2
        18 July 2015 at 8:02 pm

        It’s not calculus, it’s game theory.

        And it’s fundamentally wrong. Replace AGW with “The world is going to experience massive world wide flooding in 2025 so we have to build giant arks and build them now!” and hopefully you’ll see why.

        • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.2.1
          18 July 2015 at 8:07 pm

          You’re going to play a game of brinksmanship against Mother Nature? Stupid is as stupid does.

          • Kevin 13.1.2.1.1
            18 July 2015 at 8:22 pm

            If someone tells me to chop off my arms or else I will die, I want to make sure that they’re not bullshitting me.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.1.1.1
              18 July 2015 at 8:26 pm

              The person who told you that business as usual is “your arms” is the liar. And you’re the dupe. And here you are all puffed up and proud of your dupehood.

        • Lara 13.1.2.2
          18 July 2015 at 8:41 pm

          Nope. That makes no sense.

          No one is saying that the world is going to experience massive flooding in 2025. No scientist is that specific. That’s not what they’re saying.

          And yeah, I do understand the science.

          They’re quite specifically saying that the increase in concentration of gasses which absorb energy (basic physics) is leading to more energy in our atmosphere. Which has effects on the climate and sea levels.

          Trying to replace the concept of AGW with “the world is going to experience massive world wide flooding in 2025 so we have to build giant arks and build them now” does nothing whatsoever to make the premise I posited fundamentally wrong. Nothing.

          • Kevin 13.1.2.2.1
            19 July 2015 at 9:50 am

            Your argument is that whether or not AGW is happening is irrelevant and that we should act anyway just in case. It’s basically the precautionary principle. Another way of expressing it is saying we should believe in God just in case there is a hell.

            God + believe = heaven
            God + not believe = hell
            No God + believe = good christian
            No God + not believe = nothing

            • RedLogix 13.1.2.2.1.1
              19 July 2015 at 10:10 am

              Yes – that is essentially Pascals Wager

              But in this case you are not taking a bet on whether God exists or not – you are betting against 97% of the large number of qualified experts who are telling you something about the physical world we live in.

              Using the same scientific method that brought you – oh the very computer you are typing on.

              • Kevin …
                19 July 2015 at 10:33 am

                I get your point. But for current purposes I’m saying that you can’t just leave out the “97% of scientists say …” and say we should accept AGW is happening, “just in case”.

                • RedLogix …
                  19 July 2015 at 11:09 am

                  I’d suggest that where you are still going wrong is that you’ve got a blind spot around what constitutes actionable knowledge. You are looking for proof where none can exist.

                  Only a relatively small fraction of human knowledge can be described as ‘absolute truth’. For instance – if B is longer than A, and C is longer than B – then it is absolutely true that C is longer than A. (Given the usual meaning of the word ‘longer’). This is the sort of abstracted truth which in the field of mathematics are called ‘proofs’.

                  But the vast majority of sciences do deal with abstractions in isolation. When we are talking about knowledge of the physical world we almost never know anything with absolute certainty. And the idea of an abstract ‘proof’ is simply not applicable.

                  What we do get from science is an interpretation of the physical world, or a model, which we test to see how closely it can represent the real world. Good models have a high probability of predicting the real world.

                  For instance, quantum mechanics is just a model, but it is good enough to reliably let technicians build solid state electronics. Yet no theoretical physicist would describe our current mode quantum mechanics model as either complete or even necessarily the only version which may be right.

                  And for the same reason no-one describes our current models of CO2 and climate as absolute ‘proof’. It’s like using a ruler to find out how heavy something is – completely the wrong tool for the job.

            • Lara 13.1.2.2.1.2
              20 July 2015 at 8:38 am

              No. That’s not what I said at all.

              And yes, I understand the precautionary principle.

              I said quite clearly that we need to consider the possibilities which have been outlined by the scientists, the people who analyse the evidence and spend their lives doing so. And I gave a brief outline of that scenario.

              It’s not just that it is possible, it’s that it’s a possibility which has been outlined in some detail.

              As far as I know science has not given reasonable evidence for the existence of God. None at all actually. So the two things are NOT the same.

      • Colonial Rawshark 13.1.3
        18 July 2015 at 8:02 pm

        But one glimpse into a crowded casino, stockmarket, racecourse, pokie machine palace – quickly tells you how many people still cannot, or choose not to, engage in this kind of fundamental calculus.

        A guy like Lee Kuan Yew and his inner circle could.

        Ah well, so much for our highly educated, foresighted elites.

  14. philj 14
    18 July 2015 at 10:39 pm

    Kevin, are you a highly educated man?

    • Kevin 14.1
      19 July 2015 at 7:54 am

      Are you saying only people who aren’t highly educated would question AGW?

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1
        19 July 2015 at 11:46 am

        Mate, if you are under 30 years old, you’re going to see the full brunt of climate change fuck the world. Enjoy the ride.

  15. johnm 15
    18 July 2015 at 11:39 pm

    Hi MickeySavage

    There are many out there, scientists as well who believe that even if we stopped fossil fuels 100% now it’s still too late, CC has its own momentum now. Hope they’re wrong. The Paris talks are just icing on the grim facts.

  16. Kevin 16
    19 July 2015 at 7:52 am

    The global warmist argument in a nutshell:

    99% of the top climate scientists believe that AGW is happening and if we don’t do anything we’re doomed. And besides, even if we’re wrong we’d have gotten rid of all those pesky CO2 spewing private businesses and made the world a whole lot greener. So we may as well act.

    And I dare anyone to tell me I’ve got it wrong.

    • RedLogix 16.1
      19 July 2015 at 10:31 am

      Almost. The narrative is a lot more nuanced than this.

      and if we don’t do anything we’re doomed.

      But let’s break that down a bit. Nope we are probably not doomed to immediate extinction. Most likely some humans will survive. Not everyone agrees, but I’m an optimist at this point.

      But depending on exactly how much temperature rise we cause we can reliably predict a cascade of increasing consequences. Most of the ones involving rises in the 3 -6 degC range pretty much imply the end of the kind of industrial civilisation as we know it, mass die-off of humans and other havoc that will spoil your afternoon.

      The planet itself will sail on blissfully and eventually stage a recovery at some point in the distant future. Whether that does involve humans still being here is a gamble we’ll just have to take. As I said above I think it will, but only because we’ve survived some pretty close extinctions in the past (down to just a handful of breeding pairs the geneticists tell us) – so we have record.

      even if we’re wrong we’d have gotten rid of all those pesky CO2 spewing private businesses and made the world a whole lot greener.

      Well the atmosphere doesn’t care whether the carbon came from a private or public sector source. Indeed the USSR and the PRC have emission records as bad as anywhere else. This is a challenge to all humans regardless of economic ideology.

      But it is an especial challenge to capitalism, because it fundamentally depends on the entirely idiotic and absurd notion of infinite growth to justify itself. (What you actually get is a series of booms and busts, but that’s another story.)

      But this is the fundamental reason why the capitalists have so fervidly attacked the AGW science. It took a while, but eventually they realised that AGW science was indeed the first major existential threat to their ideology. It is of course impossible to reconcile the idea of infinite growth in a fossil-fuel powered economy – with the science telling them that have reached a physical limit.

      Hence the politics.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2
      19 July 2015 at 1:37 pm

      No Kevin, not “believe” – they have evidence from real world data. Greenhouse gases absorb energy at certain wavelengths, for example: that’s isn’t a model it’s an observable – measurable – fact.

      When you carelessly cited David Bellamy’s embarrassing ignorance of glaciers, did you read the rebuttal? You think the Glacier Monitoring Survey are using a model to get their information?

      Bellamy appears to be ignoring Botany, never mind Glaciology.

      These are not “beliefs”, they’re observations. So, are you arrogant and stupid enough to say they’re not happening?

  17. northshoredoc 17
    19 July 2015 at 11:28 am

    I find debating the effect of increasing CO2 levels and climate change a bit like the vaccine debate, a bit of fun but ultimately fruitless and depressing as it is very difficult if not impossible to change peoples entrenched views even with an increasing level of scientific evidence and consensus.

    • Colonial Rawshark 17.1
      19 July 2015 at 11:40 am

      climate change is research based on the physical sciences; research on treatments is based on human created technologies applied to widely varying circumstances. Not very similar.

      Or to put it another way: the former is much more real science than the latter which is far more based on human and social conventions.

      • northshoredoc 17.1.1
        19 July 2015 at 12:01 pm

        Both are based on a scientific method with defined inputs and measurable outputs, both have a very large body of scientific evidence and vocal proponents and opponents.

        • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.1.1
          19 July 2015 at 1:26 pm

          no, medicine is more a stochastically reliant social science which attempts to understand complex organic systems in largely mechanistic ways (you described this has having predetermined sets of measurable inputs and outputs) whereas the science involved with AGW is that of the natural physical sciences whcih obey clearly definable and modellable physical laws.

          • northshoredoc 17.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2015 at 1:43 pm

            LOL a social science… medicine is clearly a biological science which is a subset of the chemical sciences which is a subset of physical sciences.

            You are a classic example of a person who’s prepared to believe the science, but only the science that agrees with your preconceived bias.

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2015 at 2:00 pm

              no, at a certain point the knowledge makes a transition from being a physical science to being a socially applied technology.

              So while molecular physiology has close ties in with biology, the treatments which eventuate from the discoveries of molecular physiology as applied in your local community hospital become a socially applied technology.

    • RedLogix 17.2
      19 July 2015 at 12:03 pm

      Or as I said above:

      This is not a science problem anymore. It is not even really a political one; it’s a problem that relates to how human intelligence evolved and the critical blind-spots and trip-hazards which litter the crawl-spaces of our unconscious minds.

      If nothing else this great debate is a sterling moment to gain a better understanding of how the human mind works en-masse as it were. If we could figure out how to avoid keeping on making this same dumb mistake we’ve collectively made over and again in our history – then it would have been worth all the aggravation for once.

      But here is the thing also nsd.

      As much as I’m a creature and beneficiary of the scientific method, I’m also aware of it’s limits. Phenomenon that would have been purest magic to our ancestors mere centuries ago are now routine, daily technologies we all use.

      And given that science is never complete, I have to leave open the possibility that what we currently consider magical or delusional – may one day be properly understood, modeled and become routine technologies.

      For instance there is good archaeological evidence that various individuals knew how to make batteries going well back into antiquity. But until the scientific method was able to correctly model electricity – these ancients could only ever use them as amusing toys. Yet hidden within these playthings, remained a truth waiting to be discovered.

      For this reason I’m willing to keep open the possibility there remain many things in this world, that we currently regard with narrow scientific disdain – which may yet surprise us.