Losing the debate on global warming

Written By: - Date published: 12:03 pm, April 15th, 2012 - 155 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster - Tags: , ,

I’m going to just repost in full a post by guest author Hugh Pickens on Slashdot:

Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, says that public skepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus. He says that without public support, it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change. ‘The science has become stronger and stronger over the past five years while the public perception is has gone in completely the other direction. That is not an accident,’ says Hansen. ‘There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.’ Hansen’s comments come as recent surveys have revealed that public support for tackling climate change has declined dramatically in recent years. A recent BBC poll found that 25% of British adults did not think global warming is happening and over a third said many claims about environmental threats are ‘exaggerated,’ compared to 24 per cent in 2000. Dr. Benny Peiser, director of skeptical think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, says it’s time to stop exaggerating the impact of global warming and accept the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change. ‘James Hensen has been making predictions about climate change since the 1980s. When people are comparing what is happening now to those predictions, they can see they fail to match up.’

A very depressing read.

Just on that last point, however, the voice of the deniers as wrong as usual. Hansen’s predictions from 1981 were spot on:

30-year-old global temperature predictions close to spot-on
A bit optimistic, actually

In the ongoing debate over climate change, it’s at times a good idea to check in with historial predictions made by climate modelers and see how well they have been able to predict global warming – which is exactly what a pair of researchers at the Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut (KNMI) have done.

Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma “stumbled across” – their words – a paper in the August 28, 1981 issue of Science, written by a septet of climate modelers, which modeled a number of scenarios that projected global mean temperatures up to the year 2100.

The lead author of that paper, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, was the now-famed and/or now-reviled James Hansen, currently working at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

“It turns out to be a very interesting read,” Oldenborgh and Haarsma say of the paper in their blog post on RealClimate. …

Oldenborgh and Haarsma took the 1981 paper’s projections, and overlayed upon them known temperature increases since 1981 as determined by the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, and using the KNMI Climate Explorer research tool.

“Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed,” write Oldenborgh and Haarsma, comparing the results favorably with the far more sophisticated coupled-model CMIP5 simulations.

The 1981 paper, the KNMI researchers conclude, is “a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The ‘global warming hypothesis’ has been developed according to the principles of sound science.”

Right in 1981 and still right today. But it looks like being right doesn’t matter.

155 comments on “Losing the debate on global warming ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richard 1
    15 April 2012 at 12:12 pm

    The word you want is “Losing”.

  2. Oscar 2
    15 April 2012 at 12:40 pm

    No wonder especially when Nasa scientists ask for empirical evidence to be used

    Science should be used to reveal universal principles, not to assist mankind in its folly which is precisely what’s happening here.

    It gets warm, it gets cold. The entire southern ocean is a heck of a lot colder this year than it has been in the past due to increased albedo during perihelion. Bad news bears.

    Wrap up warm this winter. The snow storms of 2012 will make last years look like a piss in the park.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1
      15 April 2012 at 12:54 pm

      Oscar you are a dupe: not a single one of those retired scientists and engineers has a qualification in Climatology – they have no expertise whatsoever. If the fact that they worked for NASA bolsters their credibility in your eyes, why is Hansen’s not similarly enhanced?

      Hansen’s 1981 paper is shown by the empirical evidence to be the most accurate projection at the time. It still underestimated the trend by about 30%, probably because of uncertainties over aerosols.

      Climate models have been accurately forecasting future trends since 1896.

      I bet you respond to this by regurgitating some lies you have read, but here’s a challenge for you: support your bullshit with peer-reviewed references – (hint – you haven’t got a shit show because the peer-reviewed work shows the opposite of the crap you are dribbling).

      Dribble dribble, Oscar.

      • Oscar 2.1.1
        15 April 2012 at 1:03 pm

        Dribble dribble yourself

        Did I say I support them? No. I simply stated that the reason why the warmists are losing the debate to the skeptics is because of actions like this.

        I’m a coolist fwiw. Still disagree with the ceaseless allegations that CO2 is the worst GHG. CH4 is worse than CO2. If you really want to keep going down that path, just stop breathing and do us all a favour. You’ll feel better about yourself then won’t you? Knowing that your death will contribute less CO2 to the atmosphere due to your not breathing.

        It underestimated the trend as we haven’t had any major warming since 1998. We’re well into a cooling cycle and if a northern hemisphere volcano goes this summer, well, we’re all fucked really.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1.1.1
          15 April 2012 at 1:16 pm

          Wrong. Simply and egregiously wrong. Where is the source of your error? Published peer-reviewed work or your whole argument is nothing but a big bag of air.

          CO2 is considered by many to be “worse” than CH4 because it persists in the atmosphere for so long by comparison. Others consider CH4 to be “worse” because it blocks more IR (1 molecule of CH4 = about 40 of CO2). Both are greenhouse gases however.

          What the fuck are you talking about “underestimated the trend because we haven’t had any major warming”? Quite apart from the fact that your statement is a lie, Hansen’s paper forecast less warming than has actually occurred – please try and keep up.

          L(1-α) = εσT^4 isn’t going to change to suit your ignorance.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2012 at 1:47 pm

            PS: nice to see my prediction – that you would repeat some lies you’ve been told rather than cite some credible sources – come true. I think I forecast your trend with 100% accuracy.

        • aotearoean 2.1.1.2
          15 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

          Oscar’s posts are straight out of the climate denier handbook.

          1.  Sound like you are relying on the science.
          2.  Ignore the science. 

      • Chaz 2.1.2
        17 April 2012 at 8:35 pm

        What’s a climatology qualification Kotahi? If there is such a thing as a degree in climatology it’s an invented construct which probably occurred over the last five years as the pro warning fanatics desperately tried to recover from having been caught out fiddling the numbers, which includes our own climate nazis at Niwa.

        Anyway, Global warming is yesterday’s cause. Haven’t you heard, today it is all about ‘Climate Change’. This is an interesting approach which allows any kind of weather at all to be tut-tutted at as ‘proof’ of the terrible CO2 and the damage capitalism is doing to the world.

    • Jenny 2.2
      15 April 2012 at 2:24 pm

      If the pattern follows the recent Northern Hemisphere winter, then indeed there will be massive snow storms, but a short winter.

      The reason, warmer seas, more evaporation, meaning more precipitation of all types.

      • Oscar 2.2.1
        16 April 2012 at 8:40 pm

        One small flaw there Jenny..


        The Seas are COLDER these days.

        • mickysavage 2.2.1.1
          16 April 2012 at 8:46 pm

          Um no, one particular sea is colder and this is within expected fluctuations.

          The thing that really annoys me about CCDs is that they will grasp hold of the most slightest of straws, like yesterday in Dunedin was a bit chillier than normal so therefore climate change is a load of crock.

          You guys really have to do better than that. 

          • Oscar 2.2.1.1.1
            17 April 2012 at 8:14 pm

            Pacific ocean SST is trending downwards outside of the normal range. To be expected with greater albedo and less sunlight hitting the surface to warm it up.

            Whats the effect of all that cold ocean air getting pushed up by southerlies to interact with the warm moist northerlies

            More snow, more hail. Colder winter.

            • McFlock 2.2.1.1.1.1
              17 April 2012 at 8:21 pm

              Wow. Where does all the air for the southerlies come from?
                  
              And does the Pacific Ocean temperature always equal the average global temperature?
                  
              Idiot.

  3. Kotahi Tane Huna 3
    15 April 2012 at 12:43 pm

    As some wit put it: “the problem with Hansen is he’s never been wrong.”

    One day I hope Charles and David Koch and others face prosecution for mass murder and crimes against humanity.

    • muzza 3.1
      15 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

      The real problem of course is one of trust, credibility and propaganda!

      People have become to weary of being lied to, and hit in the wallet only, and so forth, not to mention the non stop barrage of information available on every conceiveable angle and topic imagineable, this simple causes people to turn away regarldess if the underlying truth of the situation has been the prevailing debate leader.

      TPTB can do what they like, they can get people to think what they want them to, and believe almost anything, and governments simply inact the instructions by proxy, which usually just ends up hitting people in the pocket, by taxes and by higher prices….Until there is some clear localised leaderhsip, and I am not talking about an ETS, then this is a battle that people will simply ignore!

      Its the classic boy who cried wolf scenario, where people have become too jaded, lost and disenfranchised to give a toss about so called leadership!

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.1
        15 April 2012 at 2:38 pm

        Not all governments are equally ineffective, but the real leaders – in terms of taking actions that will bring about change – are the insurance companies.

        • muzza 3.1.1.1
          15 April 2012 at 3:20 pm

          Bloke you are aware that the insurance companies are the banks right?, same crew!

          Also the same crew who own the big oil companies that some people blame for the missinformation about whatever they believe climate change, global warming or whatever todays buzzword is, or is not!

          Until you understand the links between these industries and the level of control over them, and any other industry you can name, you will forever be wondering just why nothing ever seems to change in a meaningful way!

          The only way we will get, is what the bank owners want, and how’s that working out for the world!

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2012 at 7:11 pm

            I’m so lucky I have you to explain it for me. Meanwhile, in the real world…

            • muzza 3.1.1.1.1.1
              15 April 2012 at 7:28 pm

              As usual, little more than a quip telling little if nothing about how its all going to save the planet…because you have no idea how the financial world hangs together, or how its controlled…more to the point, how its controls humanity!

              I will repeat myself….the solutions will be what the bank owners want, not necessarily working functional solutions driving behaviour for the greater good. But as the brainwashing exercise has clearly worked on so many, so they are primed to swallow the solutions seen coming since well before Kyoto…

              Keep repeating Bloke …THE BANKERS WILL SAVE US!

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                15 April 2012 at 8:24 pm

                Dimwit, I didn’t say anything about “how it’s going to save the planet”. Your faith that the “solutions” will be dictated by bankers is touching.

                The fact is the banks are doing sweet fuck all. The insurers at least are removing cover in areas they consider to be too high risk. This is the only response anyone has taken so far that will actually impact on day-to-day life.

                I am becoming increasingly confident that starvation and extreme weather will be the most effective “solutions”, although no doubt peak oil will also play a part. The changes that are coming will be forcible, not voluntary.

                • Jackal …
                  15 April 2012 at 8:48 pm

                  I really don’t see how an argument that the bankers are only interested in short term disaster capitalism when every recent study shows there are already massive costs from the effects of climate change. They cannot hope to continue to benefit from a financial mechanism that is based on productivity from things in the real world.

                  People make money from producing things. I tend to side with Kotahi Tane Huna when he/she says that insurance companies will be a driving force in formulating climate change mitigation. However banks will hopefully also be looking after the ability of their debtors to meet their obligations.

                  Farming and horticulture is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Many producers have hefty mortgages, which they can only pay when their production is adequate. muzza’s argument amounts to: Banks want people to default on their mortgages. Personally I don’t think that is the case.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    15 April 2012 at 10:28 pm

                    …and yes exactly Jackal – money talks, especially when it comes in the form of relentless uninsurable costs. It will become harder and harder for dimwits to maintain their positions – physically let alone philosophically.

                  • muzza …
                    16 April 2012 at 7:47 am

                    Actually Jackal, that is not my argument – It has nothing to do with money whatsoever, this is the catch. Money does not talk any lanuage other than control!

                    Why would anyone care about money when they own the money system!

                    Defaulting on mortgages…..banks will not give a stuff about that long term.

                    Agriculture/horticulture – Yes they are susceptible, but that’s ok because Monsanto will take care of the worlds food requirements right, easy !

                    Only when people understand accept the links between the industries, will they be able to see what the truth is in the situation being “played out!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 8:59 am

                      Only when people voluntarily submit to pre-frontal lobotomies will they be able to have the same delusions as Muzza. FIFY.

                • muzza …
                  16 April 2012 at 7:35 am

                  “Dimwit, I didn’t say anything about “how it’s going to save the planet”. Your faith that the “solutions” will be dictated by bankers is touching.”
                  – Again the petty insults, when talking about what you do not comprehend – Banks own the insurance companies, they are the same companies, stop thinking so fundamentally wrong bloke!

                  “The fact is the banks are doing sweet fuck all. The insurers at least are removing cover in areas they consider to be too high risk. This is the only response anyone has taken so far that will actually impact on day-to-day life.”
                  – Banks are doing sweet FA, that is the whole point, and yes removing cover in , which will force more people into ever smaller living areas, while whole swaths of countries are deemed unliveable etc because people/companies will not be able to get insurance. You can’t see where this is all going can you!

                  “I am becoming increasingly confident that starvation and extreme weather will be the most effective “solutions”, although no doubt peak oil will also play a part. The changes that are coming will be forcible, not voluntary.”
                  – Yes they of course will play a part in being used against humanity in order to further round up the cattle. I love the way you have been so brainwashed into thinking so simplistically. Youre in a large club, don’t worry Bloke. Force = Tyrrany, and yes its all pre-planned and working very well in your 2 dimensional cranium!

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    16 April 2012 at 8:29 am

                    Yawn. In future, Muzza, please spare me the tiresome conspiracist bullshit you believe. Oh, and watch out, you’ve Illuminatii hiding under your bed!!

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 9:02 am

                      No there isn’t Bloke – geez!

                      Great explanations/understanding of the interworkings in the “financial sector” yet again by the way.

                      It’s all ok, you have it totally under control, and the insurance companies will force the changes that save humanity!

                      Yup they will force the changes you got that right!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 9:51 am

                      Obviously you can read, but can you comprehend? You are so full of shit Muzza – quote where I have said that anything is:

                      “totally under control, and the insurance companies will force the changes that save humanity!”

                      Hint – you can’t, because I didn’t say that.

                      What I said was that they are making “the only response anyone has taken so far that will actually impact on day-to-day life.”

                      Can you see the difference between those two positions? Are you a paranoid twit much?

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 10:44 am

                      Obviously you can read, but can you comprehend? You are so full of shiiit Muzza – quote where I have said that anything is:

                      “totally under control, and the insurance companies will force the changes that save humanity!” –

                      -Actually it was a toungue in cheek response to the reek of arrogance which permeates from your posts on here!

                      Hint – you can’t, because I didn’t say that.

                      – That’s right but it was my response to your lack of understanding about the ties between the banks and insurance companies…seriously dude nothing at all conspiratory in that, they are the same companies, sheesh!

                      What I said was that they are making “the only response anyone has taken so far that will actually impact on day-to-day life.”
                      – Correct, the financial systems will/are used to control all apects of human activity.

                      Can you see the difference between those two positions? Are you a paranoid twit much?
                      – Argh the reek of the online egomaniac…Good thing you have no influence on my life or anyone near me mate…You could do a good impersonation of a politician, all bluster and no farken idea at all!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 11:34 am

                      What “lack of understanding about the ties between the banks and insurance companies”?

                      I reject your entire premise, that these links somehow invalidate the actions that the insurance companies are taking.

                      “…the financial systems will/are used to control all apects (sic) of human activity”…in your mind. How’s that working out in Iceland?

                      Can you not see the trucks driving through the great big hole in your argument? AGW is interfering with the ability of these systems to function at all – it makes no distinction between public utilities, bank assets and Koch brother property and will degrade them indiscriminately.

                      Your delusions of “control” are simply that – delusions. Your fantasies of evil banker conspiracies are simply that – fantasies. Your narrative is myopic and bears no close examination – further down the page you can be found asserting that there are people who believe “that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet” – a group that simply do not exist anywhere. When challenged to cite some evidence you blither and waffle and suggest that I nominate some people to be murdered, but you still can’t support your bullshit with anything but more bullshit. You embody it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 April 2012 at 11:50 am

                      it makes no distinction between public utilities, bank assets and Koch brother property and will degrade them indiscriminately.

                      yes it will. That’s why the billionaires of the US are buying resilient farmland and hard productive assets in countries like NZ. Like anything else, money doesn’t necessarily stop disasters from happening, but it gives you a damn sight more options to respond to them.

                      Your delusions of “control” are simply that – delusions. Your fantasies of evil banker conspiracies are simply that – fantasies.

                      So its a coincidence that ordinary people, their taxes, the treasuries of their sovereign nations and worker pension funds have all been pillaged to add to the banking system’s bottom line?

                      And the fact that Italy and Greece (and NZ) had investment bankers installed as their heads of state – sometimes completely undemocratically – is also coincidental?

                      Perhaps you should read about the struggles that multiple US Presidents had against the banking cartel in the 1800’s and early 1900’s to get your bearings.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 12:05 pm

                      No, CV – the banks and the monied are reliant on the resources Earth provides the same as you and I. They may be able to buy temporary comfort but that too is a lottery – the “resilient farmland” is far from guaranteed to maintain that status.

                      I know it’s comforting to see the world as ruled by all-powerful secret chiefs, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just another security blanket – you want someone to be in control, because the reality is too messy.

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 12:32 pm

                      Your delusions of “control” are simply that – delusions. Your fantasies of evil banker conspiracies are simply that – fantasies.

                      – Thanks for showing your incredible arrogance yet again!

                      Your narrative is myopic and bears no close examination – further down the page you can be found asserting that there are people who believe “that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet” – a group that simply do not exist anywhere.

                      – Well these guys gave it a crack, but that was not really what I was getting at. As usual your arrogance at forcing what you perceived me to be saying , is coming through loud and clear.

                      When challenged to cite some evidence you blither and waffle and suggest that I nominate some people to be murdered, but you still can’t support your bs with anything but more bs. You embody it.

                      – Thats right you arrogantly challenged me, on an incorrect assumption that you were able to read my mind through my words.
                      -You embody a snivelling little twerp, who can’t comprehend that the only murder that is happening, and will happen is/will be at the hand of forced solutions, provided by your climate change gods, through population reduction, that is the logical outcome of where this is headed.

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 12:56 pm

                      “These guys gave it a crack” – no, they didn’t, they showed that changes in cosmic rays do not account for recent warming.

                      “that was not really what I was getting at.”

                      Oh I see, when you said that “the biggest fiction is believing that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet” you meant something else entirely. As though your argument wasn’t inarticulate enough already.

                      I’m not going to try and figure out who you think my “climate change gods” are, since on the one hand I don’t have any, and on the other, after the above exchange I have no idea whether the words you have employed bear any relation to the notions in your mind.

                      I doubt you do either.

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 1:11 pm

                      “I know it’s comforting to see the world as ruled by all-powerful secret chiefs, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just another security blanket – you want someone to be in control, because the reality is too messy”

                      – Actually its not comforting at all, and I can’t speak for CV, but in no way do I want anyone to be in control of humanity, least of all those who are the so called world leaders…who are the puppets of the global elite people refer, again nothing at all conspiratory in that!

                      You seem to be enthused that the insurance companies are “taking the lead (control)”

                      So who is it that seems to need the security blanket of having someone in control OAB!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 1:29 pm

                      taking the lead != control

                      Let’s see what I really wrote shall we?

                      “Not all governments are equally ineffective, but the real leaders – in terms of taking actions that will bring about change – are the insurance companies”

                      Can you see how this differs from the notion that I think the insurance companies are “in control”?

                      Let’s employ a sports analogy – even the amateur league has a winner. I’d better spell it out for your benefit – our efforts at mitigation are amateurish and ineffectual, but the actions of the insurance companies are the least amateurish and ineffectual to date.

                      Slowly the light is dawning? No?

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 2:18 pm

                      taking the lead != control

                      – Yes actually as I said, money only speaks one language, control! Well done you’re catching up!

                      Let’s see what I really wrote shall we?

                      “Not all governments are equally ineffective, but the real leaders – in terms of taking actions that will bring about change – are the insurance companies”

                      Can you see how this differs from the notion that I think the insurance companies are “in control”?

                      – What do you think being a “real leader taking actions that WILL bring about change” , might actually be Bloke, and what do you consider use of the the word “WILL”, might involve! A leader has to take CONTROL of a situation, by definition this is what it means. How that control is taken and utilized in future in debateable, surely even you must comprehend that !

                      Let’s employ a sports analogy – even the amateur league has a winner. I’d better spell it out for your benefit – our efforts at mitigation are amateurish and ineffectual, but the actions of the insurance companies are the least amateurish and ineffectual to date.

                      – It’s almost as if no-body is really taking it seriously eh Bloke, hmmm wonder why that might be! PS ,that was a terrible analogy bro!

                      Slowly the light is dawning? No?

                      – No, the light is a very long way from you, but keep searching, because it really is all about the light!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 4:10 pm

                      Muzza your every response is nothing but vague self-aggrandising unsubstantiated waffle, relying on information you claim to have that no-one else understands, but you can’r actually articulate your way out of a paper bag.

                      “No-one is taking it seriously” is simply yet another example of your ridiculous generalisations – reality check the whole point is that insurance companies are taking it seriously enough to refuse to provide cover. Why don’t you pause for an hour or two to get to grips with that?

                      It’s taken you almost all day to actually take note of the meaning of my initial comment, and make an effort to comprehend it, and still you fail the simplest reality check. Duh!

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 4:24 pm

                      Muzza your every response is nothing but vague self-aggrandising unsubstantiated waffle, relying on information you claim to have that no-one else understands, but you can’r actually articulate your way out of a paper bag.

                      – No its just things I understand that you don’t Bloke, thats your problem, don’t hate the player!
                      – Use of the word “waffle” while thinking about your sports analogy, brought foward another word, which also applies to you – Hypocrite!

                      “No-one is taking it seriously” is simply yet another example of your ridiculous generalisations – reality check the whole point is that insurance companies are taking it seriously enough to refuse to provide cover. Why don’t you pause for an hour or two to get to grips with that?

                      – If you think I don’t comprehend that, then you don’t really understand the next line down!
                      – You don’t really understand when someone is extracting “The Michael” do you!

                      – The fact you still are going on about the insurers, show just how little you comprehend!

                      It’s taken you almost all day to actually take note of the meaning of my initial comment, and make an effort to comprehend it, and still you fail the simplest reality check. Duh!

                      – Taking the piiiss out of you , has been both easy, and entertaining!
                      – You are a very long way from being as clever as your online ego wants others to believe it is!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 4:32 pm

                      PS: I note that low intelligence predisposes people to feel comforted by notions of order, control, and hierarchy.

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 4:41 pm

                      “PS: I note that low intelligence predisposes people to feel comforted by notions of order, control, and hierarchy”

                      – Hilarious, and a classic example of lacking intuitive understandings!

                      You do realise that the enthusiasm you mentioned earlier for the insurers (taking the lead), does indicate that you indeed have/require a notion of “order, control and hierarchy”, surely you can see the parodox in that!

                      Woops, I take it back – low intelligence, of course you can’t!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 4:45 pm

                      …and still not a single substantive argument from you. Just an endless stream of unsupported tripe. Since you don’t actually understand my point – you couldn’t even quote it without making up utter fantasies – you have less than no chance of taking the piss out of it.

                      Keep dreaming of how the secret chiefs are controlling your life, won’t you.

                      PS: You do realise, don’t you, that my “enthusiasm” is all in your mind?

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 5:20 pm

                      “…and still not a single substantive argument from you. Just an endless stream of unsupported tripe. Since you don’t actually understand my point – you couldn’t even quote it without making up utter fantasies – you have less than no chance of taking the piss out of it.”

                      – And yet arrogantly, you are still demanding that I provide evidence to you, for incorrectly interpreted comments about what you can’t , it seems, ever comprehend.

                      “Keep dreaming of how the secret chiefs are controlling your life, won’t you”

                      – Nah, I’ll leave the wet dreams to you, it sounds like you need the release. What is amazing though, is once you are able to see through the charades, it really can have positive influences on how you live your life. To use a sports analogy that perhaps you can understand. Being able to analyse the opposition, allows one to form and effective match strategy…comprehend that one ok? How about this one…Just play whats in front of you! You have to understand whats in front of you though first eh! The first analogy helps with the second, I hope it helped you Bloke!

                      “PS: You do realise, don’t you, that my “enthusiasm” is all in your mind?”

                      – You do know what “extracting the michael” is right? Woops I take that back, low intelligence, of course you don’t!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 8:07 pm

                      Riiiiggghhht, so you don’t mean anything you say, and any error you make is defined later as “taking the Michael”? How thoroughly dishonest convenient. Truthily pathetic.

                      To recap, I have merely pointed out that of all the responses to climate change to date, insurance companies refusing to cover certain areas is perhaps the strongest – affecting about 200,000 homes in England and Wales alone, for example. Apparently that pushed some of your little buttons and off you went, making up stupid condescending responses to stuff I didn’t say. Several hours later my entirely mundane and uncontroversial observation still stands on its merits, and you are still thrashing around talking shit.

                      During all this time, you still don’t get it: I understand exactly what you are saying – that “Banks own the insurance companies, they are the same companies” (demonstrably wrong – they are not “the same companies”), that “…the financial systems will/are used to control all apects (sic) of human activity” (again how’s that working out in Iceland. And Venezuela? And Brazil? *crickets*).

                      There’s the thing see? I understand what you are saying, I just think you’re wrong, and since you have offered precisely zero credible support for your notions, is it surprising?

                      Cue another little tanty.

                    • muzza …
                      16 April 2012 at 8:51 pm

                      – Still trying to force your ideas down someone’s throat, the mear concept that there could be things going on that you can’t rationalise is simply too much for you to comprehend, your whole premise is laughable. Those countries you mention, you know whats wrong with using them surely? Do tell me then OAB seeing as you seem to know better here is a dead easy one to google for you. Who owns Lloyds of London? – Let me give you a clue – It may/may not involve the same Bank (along with others) that I worked for in London last year , while aligning “Anti Money Laundering” frameworks, you seem to know so much about without working on! While you’re there, have a look at who owns Old Mutual Finance and best check out Skandia too, starter for ten!

                      Thing is bro, you like to try use little lines through words, hoping that it might bolster your status, cutesy words like tanty, and button pushing, you would not know where to begin to push mine. In the need to show just how strong your position is, you have totally missed the fact that I have not disagreed with you about the insurance companies leading – I actually agreed with you! I just happen to come from a different angle, and you seem to think its a good example citing 200,000 homes now won’t be insured, like that a good thing to have people forced to move under such circumstances….

                      You keep wanting to recap why, because you have to try so hard to prove you’re point, but I don’t give a fuck mate! Are you so weak, that I can wring a whole afternoon out of you while doing nothing more than taking the piss, and highlighting your massive online ego, and having a good laugh along!

                      I’ve got some real work to do now, but thanks for contributing to my studies, you make wonderful subject matter – I’ll leave you to get the last word in, let’s see if the ego can resist the bait!

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      16 April 2012 at 9:38 pm

                      You’re very responsive for someone who doesn’t give a fuck. In fact as I recall it was you who started this entire merry-go-round.

                      You keep repeating that the bankers are in control, and that you are tirelessly monitoring their every move (from your secret office perhaps?), but you still don’t get my point:

                      The Greenhouse Effect is out of their control, their machinations are no guarantee of salvation, their skill set in global finance (or money laundering for that matter) may not be very useful when it comes to building resilient communities.

                      The current financial model requires more-or-less constantly increasing returns – the banks rely on this. Climate change will more than likely lead to persistently decreasing returns (mass starvation, extreme weather, etc) over the foreseeable future – can you see how it might not be part of the big plan to control everything?

  4. Bill 4
    15 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

    He says that without public support, it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change.

    And so the question arises as to why public support is needed for changes to be made? Afterall, the governments in our ‘representative’ democracies implement unpopular policies and changes ‘every day’.

    Clearly, Hanson is implying that our governments are the block to the required changes. And so the next question is; why would they block implementation of needed change?

    The answer is always the same. Our governments primary purpose is to manage (some would say crisis manage) the economy. And our economy, with all the power and wealth it affords the powerful is the basic and fundamental problem. It is the economy that has encouraged and even dictated that those things resulting in climate collapse happened in the past, happen today and will continue to happen in the future.

    Are our governments going to act against the professed interests of the rich and powerful? Of course not. Not willingly anyway.

    Next question. Is it possible to exert enough pressure on our governments to act? In asking that question it’s necessary to take into account that those exerting the pressure will first of all have had to acknowledge that they themselves will be subject to radical and wide ranging changes in their lives. Think of all the factors in your life that are dictated by the economy. Are you willing to walk away from all those things?

    I’m guessing you’d be reasonably happy to walk away from the mortgage – if you could guarantee your long term residency in your house. And I guess you might be willing to walk away from your job – if you thought you could avoid levels of hardship. And I’m guessing that all the consequences, such as no retirement fund, no savings and so on would be taken on board – if you thought delinquency wouldn’t come a-knocking in later years.

    But the bottom line, I think, is that unless you dispense with the ‘ifs’ in that previous paragraph and just do what in your heart of hearts you know needs to be done…that is, unless you stop justifying the continuation of your present circumstances then there is absolutely no way that enough pressure will be exerted on governments.

    Sure, they’ll be castigated and criticised at various junctures on their path of adequate inaction. And I dare say that some of the inevitable approbrium will come from you. You who did nothing or nothing much. You who just kept on with the straight, narrow and safe life waiting for actions from institutions whose very existence was, is and always will be predicated on preserving and maintaining the root cause of the problem.

    The debate hasn’t been lost. The debate takes second place to peoples’ insecurities and fears; peoples’ insistence on clinging to the familiar and finding excuses and justifications for doing so. (eg, “not my fault the government won’t act.”…”wish the government would do something”……”what do you expect me to do?”…”if I buy this lightbulb…” And so on.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      15 April 2012 at 2:52 pm

      +1

    • Slap Shot 4.2
      16 April 2012 at 11:54 am

      I’m not sure you are right. I would say that a majority of the world’s rich people and corporations stand to lose a lot of money in the long run from climate change, and would not be greatly impacted by the means necessary to curb emissions (which are wildly exaggerated). For example, it is difficult to see how Apple or Google would suffer that much.

      This in my eyes is solely a political fight. The right will do anything to prevent large scale public policy questions become scientific questions rather than matters of opinion. How do we know this? Well, they come out with hyperbolic versions of this all the time (environmental Stalinism, etc.). What they are really whining about is the settlement of public policy questions by appeal to facts.

      It’s imperative for the right that the big social and political questions are never subordinated to the tribunal of the natural sciences, because that would be game over for them.

      • Bill 4.2.1
        16 April 2012 at 6:01 pm

        And is there a left leaning government anywhere in the world that has enacted any substantial social or economic policies on the back of an understanding of climate collapse? Just one? Anywhere?

        p.s. When I say ‘substantial’ I mean something that is much more than attempts to mask ‘adequate inaction’ by throwing consumer choice or some diminished consumer choice at the whole problem.

  5. Jenny 5
    15 April 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty…

    If we want to solve the climate problem, we must phase out coal emissions. Period.

    James Hansen

    New Zealand must set the pace. No other modern industrialised country in the world is better placed.

    No population is more skilled in the method of mass peaceful protest that can force vested interest and government to back down.

    Our battle cry

    “Coal Kills, Kill Coal”

    “Denniston must never start”

    “Pike River must never be restarted”

    All coal imports and exports must be made illegal through legislation.

    • Bob 5.1
      15 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

      Here’s a question… If we dug up every last piece of coal possible from everywhere in NZ, strip mined anywhere, how much of the worlds coal consumption would it equate to?

      From wiki we have 15 billion tons of coal all up and world consumption is 8 billion tons a year with 900 billion tons world wide still in the ground, if anyone thinks the world isn’t going to dig it up and use it at some stage then they are dreaming and the tiny amount we have is insignificant. Why not create some jobs, charge some tax, make some export earnings and sell it to the world, if we don’t there is another 885 billion tons they can get somewhere else.

      • McFlock 5.1.1
        15 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

        Isn’t that rather similar to the self-serving minimising statements a meth dealer might make?

        • Bob 5.1.1.1
          15 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

          A overly tough analogy perhaps?

          Ok, yes it is self-serving, if by self-serving you mean making some income for the country so we can pay nurses, teachers and police more. Build schools, buy brain scanners and employee miners, engineers, sparkies etc etc. I know its boring stuff but lifes a bitch sometimes and reality can be harsh.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1
            15 April 2012 at 4:25 pm

            if by self-serving you mean making some income for the country so we can pay nurses, teachers and police more.

            Don’t kid me, any extra revenue from that resource extraction is going into the pockets of the 1%, not into some poor sappy teacher’s pay.

            • Bob 5.1.1.1.1.1
              15 April 2012 at 4:35 pm

              A completely different argument all together. In an ideal world I’d like to see the maximum possible revenue from coal sales go directly into the crown accounts. I am all for maximizing return to the crowns coffers.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.2
            15 April 2012 at 4:41 pm
             
             

            And drug dealers spend their money on their families’ health, too.
                  
            We all know mining is self-serving.
                 
            It’s the statement that I was referring to as self-serving. The statement along the lines that our actions are less bad because lots of other people do it too, that it would happen whether or not we took part, so why shouldn’t we get a piece of that action?
                
            The same justification used by petty criminals and the “labour [almost] did it too” brigade.
              
            But the thing is that we aren’t responsible so much for the actions of others, but we sure are responsible for our own actions.
             
             

             
          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.3
            15 April 2012 at 6:16 pm

            We don’t need to sell off the resources we have to pay for anything as we have enough resources and know how to ensure that everyone in NZ has enough – we just need to economise correctly. Your way just leaves us without any resources and without the capability of looking after ourselves. In other words, your way will just leave us all in poverty.

      • Jenny 5.1.2
        15 April 2012 at 4:14 pm

        Here’s a question… If we dug up every last piece of coal possible from everywhere in NZ, strip mined anywhere, how much of the worlds coal consumption would it equate to?

        Bob

        Bob, admittedly New Zealand’s total possible emissions are only minor. But it is our example that is powerful.

        If New Zealand can do it, any advanced hi tech industrial country can do it.

        If New Zealand does it then populations around the world will be demanding of their government’s too.

        Someone has to be first.

        Why not us?

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1
          15 April 2012 at 4:21 pm

          If we go to a low energy per capita economy, we will also go to a low economic activity per capita economy. The two go hand in hand.

          And you can’t successfully transition to low carbon infrastructure without burning carbon and investing energy first to do it.

          Please don’t keep re-asserting your points without covering off these points.

          • Jenny 5.1.2.1.1
            15 April 2012 at 5:43 pm

            CV, I am glad to see that you think it can be done and should be done.

            I have tried to briefly, cover off the three points you raised, here. I would be grateful if you (or for that matter, anyone else) would critique them.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.1
              15 April 2012 at 6:06 pm

              1) As a phosphate fert replacement, bio char only contains the phosphorus from the bio mass it is created with. Where is that P going to come from? Where are you going to get the thousands of tonnes of biomass for the manufacture of bio-char? Where are you going to get the energy for the pyrolysis process?

              2) Re: the aluminium smelter you said “Surely the simplest and most logical thing to do, would be to close it down.”

              Here you propose simply reducing our export earnings and reducing economic activity in the economy. Of course, I accept you can suggest this same approach for virtually anything which produces GHG emissions, leading us to a low GDP per capita economy.

              3) “A vast scaling back of Marsden Point would be possible with a big switch to public transport in all our major cities and towns. ”

              Sure. You would have to invest $10B – $20B in public transport infrastructure, and accept that the energy and materials you need to build that infrastructure will create a lot of GHG emmissions.

              CV, I am glad to see that you think it can be done and should be done.

              I think your pathway can be done, but it will cause a general failure of the NZ economy within a timespan of ~5-6 years.

              • Colonial Viper …
                15 April 2012 at 6:16 pm

                I see on the web that the world largest bio-char facility, so claimed, was closed down as a fraud scheme.

                http://www.patrickpretty.com/2010/05/04/the-modern-ponzi-federal-judge-orders-parties-not-to-harass-receiver-in-mantriaspeed-of-wealth-case-dozens-of-companies-now-ensnared-in-litigation/

                I can find no bio-char production facilities in the world which exceed a production of 1,000 tonnes per year. Which makes me think its not a scalable, feasible technology.

              • Jenny …
                15 April 2012 at 8:29 pm

                Capitalist Economy – Biosphere, Capitalist Economy – Biosphere.

                Hmm?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 April 2012 at 8:38 pm

                  You missed the point.

                  Which is that the proposed largest bio-char facility in the world was a physical fraud – it could produce nothing, and was never going to do so.

                  Your bio-char is a fantasy, I can’t see a production facility big enough anywhere in the world to create what is needed to fertilise a 5,000 ha. farm.

                  Happy to be proven wrong. List a few biochar facilities in the world capable of producing more than 1000 tonnes of biochar a year.

                  • Jenny …
                    15 April 2012 at 9:24 pm

                    I think you missed the point.

                    Coal extraction has to end.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      15 April 2012 at 9:31 pm

                      All I know is that you can’t do it with bio-char, and without phosphate and nitrogen fertilisers, agriculture as we conduct it now in NZ is all over.

              • Jenny …
                15 April 2012 at 9:19 pm

                How biochar works is still not completely understood, perhaps it acts as a catalyst. The fact remains it is a proven miracle soil improver.

                As for the thousands of tonnes of biomass our exotic forests could be a good source.

                The energy for the pyrolysis could partly come from the gasification of the wood itself.

                The profits from the aluminium smelter mostly go to their overseas owners, along with all the taxpayer subsidised electricity. Getting rid of the smelter would be a net gain for the country.

                I dispute the amounts you say are required for public transport. It is about the same that is currently being wasted on Roads of National inSignificance. Even by your admission these huge motorway projects are pointless in the age of peak oil. Switching this money to public transport would make perfect sense.

                As to the collapse of the economy in 5-6 years I predict that is exactly what will happen if we do nothing. What we need is a Green New Deal to save the economy.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 April 2012 at 9:33 pm

                  As to the collapse of the economy in 5-6 years I predict that is exactly what will happen if we do nothing. What we need is a Green New Deal to save the economy.

                  Then don’t sweat it, this will do all the heavy lifting for you in terms of GHG emissions reduction.

                  As for the thousands of tonnes of biomass our exotic forests could be a good source.

                  Can you show me a single example of bio-char production using any of our common exotic trees as a source material.

                  • Jenny …
                    15 April 2012 at 11:16 pm

                    I am not going to nit pick about technicalities I have no real expertise in.

                    Possibly you are right, and I am going down the wrong track trying to suggest a coal substitute so that heavy industry that relies on coal can continue.

                    But the point is, coal use has to end.

                    Globally it is the number one cause of climate forcing.

                    It is dangerous to mine and deadly for our climate.

                    It has no redeeming features. If there are no substitutes then industry will have to do with out it.

                    If we make a forceful example, our closest global neighbour and the nation with greatest per capita producer of coal sourced C02 would be forced to sit up and take notice.

                    • Jenny …
                      15 April 2012 at 11:26 pm

                      As James Hansen said:

                      Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty…

                      If we want to solve the climate problem, we must phase out coal emissions. Period.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 April 2012 at 1:29 am

                      This is bullshit.

                      Without coal and without oil and without any viable energy alternatives and infrastructure in place, the entire basis of the modern NZ economy stops.

                    • Jenny …
                      16 April 2012 at 6:58 am

                      Without coal and without oil and without any viable energy alternatives and infrastructure in place, the entire basis of the modern NZ economy stops.

                      Colonial Viper

                      The collapse of the capitalist system like the collapse of the communist system could be compared to the collapse of the biosphere. Not!

                      We will have to make our choice and make our choice soon.

                      As Churchill said:

                      If you don’t fight when victory is certain and your losses will be light.

                      Then, you will have to fight when your victory is not assured and your losses will be heavy and grievous.

                      There may even be a worse case scenario.
                      You will have to fight when your defeat is certain and your losses will be devastating and unbearable. Because it is better to die fighting than to die surrendering.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 April 2012 at 9:07 am

                      Sorry, but our democracy will not choose a path which will lead to rapid economic disintegration.

                      You’ll have to bring about a system of government more like a dictatorship to enable the changes that you want.

                      Edit – Or perhaps convince the NZ population that we are in a war time circumstance and to find and follow in lockstep with a charismatic leader like Churchill.

  6. Bob 6
    15 April 2012 at 3:30 pm

    I think the debate is being lost, perhaps if it had been termed ‘Climate Change’ from the start rather than Global Warming the response would have been different, the use of GW boxed the argument into only a rise in temperature which has been a struggle to ‘prove’ and easy to disprove.

    The Climate does seem to be changing, how much is result of human actions versus any number of other natual possibilities is harder to determine. I don’t think it’s going to be ‘solved’ either, most of the Western countries solutions seem to be around carbon taxes and the like to force people to use less stuff and the reality is that as a planet we have to all use less stuff for it to have any affect and that just won’t happen, everyone wants more stuff!

    There is also the elephant in the room which is the population, 3 bill in 1970, 6 bill now, 9 bill by 2050… all wanting more and more stuff… how is this not a bigger concern than anything else? Resource consumption will continue to go up and up until it crashes and there is stuff all anyone can do about it, population control on a global scale is more unlikely than just about anything else.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      15 April 2012 at 3:55 pm

      We’re not going to get to 9B population.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      15 April 2012 at 6:38 pm

      …in temperature which has been a struggle to ‘prove’ and easy to disprove.

      It’s been proven quite conclusively.

      The Climate does seem to be changing, how much is result of human actions versus any number of other natual possibilities is harder to determine.

      Been proven within 90% probability, IMO, well beyond reasonable doubt.

      Population is a problem especially considering that for capitalism to work there always needs to be a bigger population.

    • lprent 6.3
      16 April 2012 at 7:25 am

      They are all the same thing. Greenhouse gases cause global warming. The energy from that drives climate change. The climate change from global warming can be anything from air and sea currents shifting as they are indirect dispersers of heat, to glacial ice melts causing with consequences in fresh water and seawater salinity.

      The problem for humans is our civilisations base technology, farming, is heavily reliant on the relatiely stable climate conditions of the last 10,000 or so years. We have pretty well destroyed that stability in the future with our existing changes to the atmosphere (when the oceans start yielding bak their buffered CO2 the climate will really shift). The question now is how much damage we are going to cause to agriculture and fishing over the next decades as the oceans ability to buffer our crap is reduced.

  7. Robert Atack 7
    15 April 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Lets face it, not one politician (should read lying fuckwits) is going to stand up and say the age of growth is over, otherwise they would have to admit Kiwi Saver is a dead duck.
    So ‘we’ will continue to destroy your children’s environment for as long as we can, all it takes is fictional money to pay for our demise, ie a fisherman can keep raping the oceans long after the catch isn’t worth catching, due to banks artificially keeping him in business, this ‘system’ works brilliantly for all planet fucking activities, no profit in x …. just borrow more money to stay alive until x is totally fucked.
    The real good thing is ‘we’ might have as little as 25 years left

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOq2A_SGTYA&context=C4ede05aADvjVQa1PpcFNu8fItfeoAvEuuMWHNYFEMwTBzs15Le1c=

    If we use a ruler to graph ‘our’ rise since 1970 then we have gone up about 300 mm, in 2007 – 08 we plunged 5 mm, according to Nicole Foss ( http://theautomaticearth.org/ ) as far as bubbles go, we still have 295 mm left to fall, hang on, the next 5 years are going to be very interesting.
    Which brings a couple of Chines saying to mind
    “May you live in interesting times” and “I can eat your child and you can eat mine” 🙂

    • Johnm 7.1
      15 April 2012 at 7:23 pm

      True, for Kiwi Saver to work there must be a growing economy. Growth ended in 2008 and the whole debt based International financial system is collapsing from a growth based credit/debt bubble now unrepayable for ever.

      Right since WW11 Cheap Oil supply exponential expansion along with debt based money credit supply expansion has enabled the rape of the Planet.

      We’re stealing from the resources and wealth of future generations leaving them poorer; Intergenerational theft.

      The upswing was exiting now it’s hangover time. The 1% are making sure they’re ok: They own most of the Politicians.

  8. spammer 8
    15 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

    I don’t think the argument is necessarily being lost (it definitely isn’t scientifically) but for a common person to admit to themselves that they need to make significant lifestyle changes for the good of the planet they really need to notice the effects of global warming for themselves. The same applies for politicians, unfortunately at the point we see significant climate change in New Zealand it could be too late.
    Another thing that i think hinders public perception on climate change is the idea that CO2 is a pollutant which is an idea most people find hard to swallow, i know it isn’t really but greenhouse gasses are generally portrayed as pollutants in the media.

    • Jenny 8.1
      15 April 2012 at 6:11 pm

      I would also disagree that “the argument is necessarily being lost”. Most people are aware of the issues, but obviously because it is so far away from their everyday lives and so huge they cannot imagine that there is anything they can do about it.

      If there is a problem that is to big and that you can’t address as an individual you have to put it to the back of your mind. This is only common sense.

      In my opinion…. What is really missing is the political will from those who could and should be giving a lead to do so.

      Even the Greens.

  9. james 111 9
    15 April 2012 at 5:44 pm

    They are losing the debate because the facts are now getting out to the Public and they realise it Climate change is a massive Con.
    That is why 33,000 scientists have signed a petition to say it is not based on fact but rather scientific inventivness to gain funding. People are being conned by major corperations who are using Climate change as a revenue gathering machine.

    • aotearoean 9.1
      15 April 2012 at 5:47 pm

      33,000 scientists?  Please give a reputable link for this claim.  Any one will do.  Even an irreputable link will suffice because your claim is so far off the planet you must be from a different dimension.

      • james 111 9.1.1
        15 April 2012 at 6:03 pm

        My pleasure Aotea here you go will accept your apology

        The facts discussed in this article are not the authors imaginings”There is one big fact you left out and that is the world has not warmed since 1998 I would say the author is imagining the world is heating up that makes every thing he has said just pure and simple crap but I don’t expect you to believe what I say, lets see what your Alarmist mates have to say on the topic (not my mates but yours).In early 2008 why did the World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, tell the BBC average global temperatures have not risen since 1998? Has he changed sides or is he stating the facts?and lets not forget the climate gate e-mails which said”The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”Funny that statement I would have thought that the lack of global warming was a good thing not a travesty!or why would 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition,including 9,029 with PhDs saying that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,methane or other Green house gasses is causing or will,in the foreseeable future,cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.Moreover,there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”
        What are the Qualifications of Signers you may ask,
        Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

        The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

        All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

        • McFlock 9.1.1.1
          15 April 2012 at 6:09 pm

          Well you obviously cut&paste from somewhere.
          Shame you didn’t provide what was asked for.

        • aotearoean 9.1.1.2
          15 April 2012 at 6:12 pm

          Links, James give us links.  We need to be able to assess the level of crap associated with your claims and right now it is rather whiffy.

          • felix 9.1.1.2.1
            15 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

            If he pastes the whole thing a third time would that be satisfactory? 😀

            • aotearoean 9.1.1.2.1.1
              15 April 2012 at 6:25 pm

              It would satisfy me that he is a blithering idiot beyond redemption …

              • felix …
                15 April 2012 at 7:35 pm

                I know, if I paste enough text they’ll have to assume I know something they don’t. Have to be a lot though, more than anyone could possibly read. 3 or 4 paragraphs even…

        • aotearoean 9.1.1.3
          15 April 2012 at 6:42 pm

          James is this your source?

          Kev from Australia? 

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.4
          15 April 2012 at 6:48 pm

          Seems to be the standard BS from Climate Change Deniers which means that you’ve been had – again.

          Here you go, the truth.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.2
        15 April 2012 at 6:28 pm

        OMG james III fiction writer extraordinaire.

        • muzza 9.1.2.1
          15 April 2012 at 6:48 pm

          The biggest fiction of course comes in in believing that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet – We can influence the state of it alright that much is obvious, but thinking we can control what the wider universe will ultimately deliver is something which most people don’t like to think about.

          Much easier to believe that we are at the top, and in control, nothing else going on out there I’m sure, its all just as straight forward as we are told, because some other “smart human beings” are in the know, and that makes us nice and safe!

          Control of information is always the playbook, regardless of the debate, its always about control!

          • Vicky32 9.1.2.1.1
            15 April 2012 at 6:53 pm

            The biggest fiction of course comes in in believing that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet

            Yes, true!

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1.2.1.2
            16 April 2012 at 9:23 am

            “The biggest fiction…believing that planet earth is functioning as a standalone entity, where only humans can influence the state of the planet.”

            What are you talking about Muzza? There is a whole category of denialist arguments out there that hold that there is no way humans can be affecting the state of the planet. “Climate has always changed”, they say.

            Climatology offers a range of forces that affect climate, from solar irradiance to apparently emergent behaviour in the carbon cycle, and of course human activities. Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis” informs debate in many fields.

            But where are these people who believe that “only humans” can affect Earth? I think you are making them up.

            • muzza 9.1.2.1.2.1
              16 April 2012 at 9:33 am

              It’s all about blame the human being. Human beings are a parasite, and their numbers need to be controlled or culled – we will get both, and in fact historically and presently, we have control and culling!

              Maybe you can volunteer your family and friends to be removed Bloke, you know, help save the planet!

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                16 April 2012 at 10:17 am

                deleted – meant for thread above – or perhaps the “reply” function is bust…

              • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                16 April 2012 at 10:21 am

                Yawn, you witless tiresome bore, but where are these people who believe that “only humans” can affect Earth?

                They don’t exist.

                • Oscar …
                  16 April 2012 at 8:54 pm

                  They’re called warmists

                  “only mankind has the ability to control the climate with the vast burnoff of CO2”

                  Nevermind the fact that previous epochs that have come long before the Anthropocene Age had far far higher levels of CO2 in abundance.

                  What more evidence do you need, dimwit, that for mankind to continue to grow plants is that CO2 is necessary, in fact, vital, for ALL life on earth.

                  The argument was lost with the shitheads that followed Gore after his “inconvenient” lie, when consumerism began to take hold of the green side, and the entire ideal of Sustainbility and living life in balance started to get lost again.

                  Mankind has lost their way, and the balance of the cosmos is out of order. Personally, I can’t wait for people like you to be affected in the next great die off. After all, more people died in the recent northern hemisphere winter than in the last great heat wave. Bring on the ice age. I’ve got my plot of land in the far north which should be about optimal for growing enough feed for vegetarians and keeping a few animals for the savages that think they need to eat meat.

                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                    16 April 2012 at 9:13 pm

                    Hard to tell where you’re coming from there champ. On the one hand you dispute the findings of Climatology, on the other you are preparing for future climate disruption.

                    “Previous epochs” had far higher levels of CO2, but not for the last 2.1 million years. You have lost your way, and your balance is non-existent.

                  • RedLogix …
                    16 April 2012 at 9:20 pm

                    Nevermind the fact that previous epochs that have come long before the Anthropocene Age had far far higher levels of CO2 in abundance.

                    Well Oscar you are reading all the wrong places. Here is a news item, quite recent in fact, from Victoria University. It’s worth quoting in full because it directly contradicts your claim:

                    Future generations could face sea levels 20 metres higher

                    Published 20 March 2012

                    Even if we manage to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations could face sea levels 12 to 22 metres higher than present, according to new research.

                    The research was published today in the journal Geology, by Professor Ken Miller of Rutgers University (New Jersey) and an international team including New Zealander Professor Tim Naish from Victoria University of Wellington.

                    The researchers studied sediment cores in Virginia in the United States, Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific and the Whanganui region of New Zealand.

                    They investigated the late Pliocene epoch—2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago—which is the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were two degrees higher than they are now.

                    “We know that global sea levels at this time were higher than present, but estimates have varied from five to over 40 metres higher,” says Professor Naish.

                    He says the team analysed the position of the sea level 3 million years ago and concluded that it was extremely likely—with 95 percent confidence—that sea level peaked 10-30 metres above present, with a best estimate of 22 metres.

                    “Whanganui holds one of the world’s best geological archives of global sea-level during the warm climate of the Pliocene and is a key data set in this new study,” says Professor Naish, who has been conducting research there for the last 20 years.

                    Professor Naish also led an international team to Antarctica as part of the ANDRILL Project to drill beneath the floor of the Ross Sea in 2006 and discovered that the Antarctic ice sheets retreated significantly during the Pliocene epoch.

                    “What we’re seeing is that the evidence of Antarctic ice sheet collapse is consistent with evidence for sea-level rise in this new study,” says Professor Naish.

                    Professor Ken Miller, who led the study, says that sea-level rise would take time.

                    “You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” he says.

                    “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to 1 metre) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers, and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica.”

                    Still, says Professor Naish, the study calls into question the sensitivity of the earth’s large ice sheets to temperature change and shows that the natural state of the earth under carbon dioxide already attained in the atmosphere is one with sea levels around 20 metres above present.

                    “If the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not abated, and humans were to disappear from the planet and return in 2000 years, they would find a world where the oceans have risen 20 metres,” says Professor Naish.

                    You might want to note that the people involved, Tim Naish in particular, have spent their career in the field actually gathering the data…doing the science as contrasted to merely speculating about it. This is why I listen to these people.

                    • Jenny …
                      16 April 2012 at 11:40 pm

                      Thanks for that Red, I would just like to quote from a small part of your contribution.

                      “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to 1 metre) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers, and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica.”

                      This is the sort of time scale that we can comprehend as human beings, because for those of us alive now, this is the world that our grandchildren will inherit.

                      A one metre rise doesn’t seem much, but all studies suggest it will be catastrophic. Salt water intrusion in to fertile flood plains, plus storm surges will destroy the ability of many low lying countries to feed their populations.

                      Not to mention the complete inundation of many of low lying Pacific and Indian Ocean and Caribbean Island Nations.

                      More heat means more energy in the environment means increased and more violent storms, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, coupled with drought, meaning more crop failures and famine on a global scale.

                      Acidification of the Oceans by the rising levels of dissolved CO2 will see a drop in the Ocean’s productivity, this coupled with other forms of pollution will see a collapse in global fisheries.

                      Looking beyond the human time scale:

                      In a thousand years, if the Business As Usual fanatics like Colonial Viper have their way, the remaining human survivors will be living in isolated groups as hunter gatherers, trying to survive in a severely degraded natural environment. Without science and medicine, human extinction would be a certainty being only be a matter of time.

                    • Colonial Viper []
                      17 April 2012 at 12:57 am

                      In a thousand years, if the Business As Usual fanatics like Colonial Viper have their way, the remaining human survivors will be living in isolated groups as hunter gatherers, trying to survive in a severely degraded natural environment.

                      All I’ve done is point out that you’ve missed critical steps in your thinking process and that you’re pouring time and energy down an approach which is a guaranteed FAIL in our democratic system.

                      People will not choose the sudden economic decline you are advocating for.

                    • Jenny []
                      17 April 2012 at 7:03 am

                      The sudden economic decline I am advocating would be nowhere near as harsh as that implemented at the outbreak of World War II.

                      i.e. Achievable

                      All that is missing is the political will.

                    • Oscar []
                      17 April 2012 at 8:16 pm

                      So the 3 new glaciers in Japan that were non existent 10 years ago are a direct cause of the warming effect. More like cooling to me.

                      And Red, that article doesn’t even take into consideration the Carboniferous period where sea levels were lower than today due to greater ice sheets http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

                      As for your article, it’s unlikely that sea levels will rise 20 m as they were supposed to have risen 5 – 10 meters by now, and displaced 100m refugees according to IPCC in 2000.

      • jaymam 9.1.3
        15 April 2012 at 9:27 pm

        This is the major problem with alarmists. They don’t bother to read any non-alarmist sites. They don’t keep up with the latest research. They don’t know what Gleick has done.
        There are most definitely more than 30,000 scientists (i.e. people with a science degree) who don’t believe that carbon dioxide has caused or is causing catastrophic climate change. Therefore there is NO CONSENSUS, therefore anyone who say “the science is settled” is uninformed or a liar.
        James Hansen is a liar. You should ignore him.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1.3.1
          15 April 2012 at 10:12 pm

          “The latest research” – citation, dimwit.

          Quote one (just one) false statement that James Hansen has made, but please, don’t be a fool – make sure he really said it so I don’t have to school you.

          “Catastrophic climate change” is the latest climb-down in the sure but steady series of dimwit (you call yourselves “skeptics” but that’s just bullshit) defeats. Five years ago it wasn’t happening at all, but now you cling to a new blankie. Frightened child.

          Science is not an opinion poll: who gives a toss what 30,000 people think if they can’t submit their findings to peer review like everyone else has to? Are you really that easily duped? I note that in the real world, developed nations have academies of science, not one of which doubts the fact of anthropogenic climate change.

          As for Gleick, your ignorance knows no bounds: Gleick has been roundly criticised from all sides for his actions, but his biggest mistake was in bothering to engage with the Witless Institute at all: if they have findings they can share them in the literature the way everyone else has to, or they can twist and spin lies to fool morons, but why confuse their effluent with credible research unless you’re an idiot with an axe to grind?

        • Richard Christie 9.1.3.2
          16 April 2012 at 12:15 am

          This is the major problem with alarmists. They don’t bother to read any non-alarmist sites.

          What ? Forget “non alarmist” sites, for that matter forget “alarmist” sites. Science isn’t conducted on websites you moron. You want the science go to original the sources, and no, that doesn’t include your poster-boy “Never was Member House of Lords” Chris Monckton

          They don’t keep up with the latest research.They don’t know what Gleick has done.

          Jaymam, instead of buzzing in and laying eggs of denier PRATTS and then flying off again, how about you explaining to readers just how Gleick’s recent behaviour has influenced the outcome of scientific climate research in anyway whatsoever.

          There are most definitely more than 30,000 scientists (i.e. people with a science degree) who don’t believe that carbon dioxide has caused or is causing catastrophic climate change.Therefore there is NO CONSENSUS,

          Oh the stupid, you have no idea how science proceeds.

        • lprent 9.1.3.3
          16 April 2012 at 9:23 am

          jaymam: two points.

          Now what you seem to be incapable of grasping is that scientists specialize. They don’t all work in the same areas and a chemical engineer has about as much chance of understanding the melting characteristics of an Antarctic iceflow or the intermixing boundary of a cold bottom hugging current as you have – ie not at all.

          I have a BSc in earth sciences from decades ago. We received extensive training in areas related to climate change. In other words I know roughly what the debate was about inside of the earth sciences when this paper came out (I graduated in 1981). But I’m still just a lay person in terms of climate debate. I have a vague understanding on the factors that happens to be better than most. But I don’t work in that field.

          The ‘CONSENSUS’ that is referred to doesn’t apply to all scientists. It doesn’t even apply to many geologists, meteorologists, soil scientists, geochemists etc who are in related fields. It applies to climatologists who specialize in the science of climate. The rest of the scientists observe and point out holes from their fields and the climatologists look to see if they need to revise the theories. That is what science is about. It is a process that you clearly do not understand.

          AND

          The list you are referring to is just bogus. It was compiled by people as ignorant as yourself about science from several sources. These include flawed reading of the detail in scientific papers disagreeing on points with the reader clearly not even understanding what the paper. To taking the entire membership of groups like chemical engineers when a paper in their journal urged caution on political actions related to climate change. Quite simply if that was your criteria for disagreement, then anything goes.

          If I wrote a post here saying that a measurement of swell at the mouth of Doubtful Sound on one of our installations was different from what the weather office said, then some fuckwit like yourself would add me to the list as disagreeing with climate change.

          Virtually every ‘scientist’ mentioned in that list when asked will tell you that they have no idea how they got on it, and would have refused permission if they’d have been asked.

          The list is a con-job specially made up for idiots like yourself who don’t know anything about ‘scientists’ and have this moronic illusion that they all work on the same thing.

          Basically you are a scientifically ignorant idiot.

          • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.1.3.3.1
            16 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

            Earth scientist comes out against AGW:

            “A measurement of swell at the mouth of Doubtful Sound on one of our installations was different from what the weather office said.”

            Be careful, lp, it sounds like you might have used a trick to hide the decline. We’d better take a look at all your emails just to make sure 😉

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.3.4
          16 April 2012 at 6:53 pm

          Why would we read non-alarmist sites? They’re all lying.

          What we read is the scientific research and articles that accurately report that research.

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      15 April 2012 at 5:56 pm

      james 111: yawn.

    • Bill 9.3
      15 April 2012 at 9:18 pm

      What’s with the fucking pantomime?

      We are (you might say) standing in a great big tunnel and there’s a light coming closer and brighter. And some people, it seems, prefer to defer taking evasive action in order that they convince ‘everyone’ that the light is in fact a big bloody train hurtling in our direction.

      And those people, having deferred taking the action they knew had to be taken because they just had to prove a point, will be just as dead as those who argued that the light wasn’t attached to x tonnes of metal.

      Point proved. Pointlessly.

      And I wouldn’t mind so much if it wasn’t that there are so many of you buggers blocking up this tunnel that I can’t fucking move!

  10. lulu 10
    15 April 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Hi Jenny,

    Just FYI we consume quite a lot of coal now in New Zealand, most of it imported. We burn it to make electricity – so much so that you would probably be in the dark if we didn’t. See

    http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/modelling/new-zealands-energy-outlook

    Summary stats:

    Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
    Generation (GWh) 41,514 42,123 42,284 42,306 42,081 43,401 44,367
    Coal 5,481 5,176 2,956 4,515 3,082 1,933 2,643
    13% 12% 7% 11% 7% 4% 6%

    If we get mean hydrology, electricity from coal will run steadily at 4-6% of total generation. It won’t be mean.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      16 April 2012 at 12:52 pm

      Under Jenny’s proposal of zero coal we will have rolling 30 minute black outs around the country a couple days a month.

      • Jenny 10.1.1
        16 April 2012 at 5:28 pm

        Closing the aluminium smelter at Bluff would cover most of the short fall as you well know.

        Admittedly there will have to be other measures as well, as I have already stated. I am not going to spoon feed you, with what these measures may be. But the people in this country are not noted for being dull unimaginative thinkers, in fact the opposite. Innovation and invention and optimism and courage has to be the key note.

        In my opinion Defeatism, and Denial in the face of this crisis are the two sides of the same coin.

  11. lostinsuburbia 11
    16 April 2012 at 11:27 am

    Four points – you can’t burn millions of years worth of previously sequested carbon (in oil, gas, and coal) throughout the industrialised age and not think that nothing would happen. That carbon was buried and effectively removed from the atmosphere. We’ve managed to reintroduce it in a geological heartbeat.

    Secondly, even if you don’t “believe” in climate change, why should you keep on burning pollutants? Its not only carbon dioxide/monoxide coming out of that exhust/chimney. Switching to cleaner energy sources will cut back on other harmful pollutants coming out of our transport, power stations, and factories (well that factories that are left here). This has the benefit of improving local air conditions and reducing the health impacts of air pollution.

    Thirdly, there is strong consumer demand for green products. Even if climate change was wrong, it makes good sense to target these affulent consumers with our products.

    Lastly, with the increasing costs of fossil fuels and the questions over their long term availability, we need to switching to more sustainable forms of energy anyway. We already have to spend up large on importing oil and will soon enough have to do the same with natural gas. Increasing demand for these fuels and dwinding international reserves mean that will be spending a lot more in the future. We should moving towards alternatives before its too late.

    Reducing GHG emissions are important in itself, but its also important to recognise all the other benefits you get – reduced long term energy costs, greater energy security/resilience, and new markets for our green products.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      16 April 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Thirdly, there is strong consumer demand for green products. Even if climate change was wrong, it makes good sense to target these affulent consumers with our products.

      No it doesn’t as doing so will remove all the resources we will need to rely upon to maintain our own society in the Post Peak environment.

  12. aerobubble 12
    16 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Heat built up by transforming trapped hydrocarbons into gases that alters the capacity of the atmosphere to retain heat, will inevitably increase the cooling weather machines (storms). Like a refrigerator, those places where the planet discharges heat into space will get colder (continents), those places that retain heat will get warmer (oceans). This is why we see the loss of sea ice in the North Polar Sea while we see colder Antarctica interior. As this heat-cooling cycle become more pronounced we will find continents getting harsher winters while coastal regions will see more flash flooding, rising sea levels, etc. Get with the program people, destruction of Human kind.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      16 April 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Get with the program people, destruction of Human kind.

      Human kind will be around for a long time IMO; our civilisation as we know it on the other hand – that is likely to be a completely different story.

      • lostinsuburbia 12.1.1
        16 April 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Our civilisation will probably come to a crashing halt with the exhaustion of easily accessible energy and mineral supplies anyway. To quote Sir Fred Hoyle,

        “It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned ”

        Our rampant greed as a species will probably save the planet (and doom our advanced society) rather than any alturastic actions.

        • bad12 12.1.1.1
          16 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

          Theres more then enough ”easily accessible” energy supplies all around us and it need not be that energy that is drilled mined and sold,

          The Sun comes up every day just the same as it has done so over the millenia, and, the rain falls from the sky at the same considerable rate as it has always done, (perhaps even more so in places),

          Inherent within both is enough energy to sustain society as we know it without in fact having to alter that society markedly,

          Water in itself is a vast supply of energy,water passed through a generator equals electricity,processing that same water after it has passed through a generator and using the electricity thus produced to power an industrial process creates Hydrogen Gas,

          Burning Hydrogen Gas reverses the industrial process used to create that Hydrogen Gas creating water vapour as steam as a result of such burning,

          To take that one step further,in sufficient bulk when burned, Hydrogen creates water vapour as steam which in itself can be the motive power to turn a generator and create electricity,

          The humans in their infinite capacity for stupidity simply chose the wrong energy supplies…

          • lostinsuburbia 12.1.1.1.1
            16 April 2012 at 2:19 pm

            There is nothing currently that can beat the embodied energy of hydrocarbons. Not only that, but the flexible nature of organic chemistry means that they be used as the building blocks for a wide range of products.

            Hydrogen is banded about as a the solution for our fuel problems. However, it is difficult to produce at a major scale and is costly. While some effiencies may be achieved as technology is improved, it is unlikely to be the panacea to our problems.

            Using hydro dams to produce hydrogen is also problematic as the electricity they produce must be replaced with other sources. That includes additional power stations and new grid connections/lines. Also, with climate change, our weather patterns will change. This will affect our current hydro schemes – with increased chance of drought conditions limiting their use.

            Solar/photovoltatics are also part of a wider change in energy supply. However, again they have problems. They are reliant on plastics and other industrial products but as supplies of those products decrease the ability to provide adequate supplies of PV will be hampered. Also, there are difficulties in producing efficient batteries to store excess energy produced by PV.

            Even with the advance of new energy technologies, we are facing an energy constrained future. This is particularly true given the large energy inputs needed for food production and transport.

            There are no easy solutions to these problems. It will take significant population decline, decreases in individual consumption, increased energy efficiency, improved farming practices (based on reduced/smarter use of fertilizers and pesticides) and technology advancements to make it out of the mess we find ourselves in.

            Though I am a cynic and can’t see much changing given that Governments don’t like to mess with the status quo and we are organised around an economic system that requires growth in consumption.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.1.1
              16 April 2012 at 2:26 pm

              Yep the energy density and ease of storage of hydrocarbons is unrivalled. A litre bottle of diesel can do the same work in 10 minutes as what it takes half a dozen strong men to do in a 12 hour day.

            • bad12 12.1.1.1.1.2
              16 April 2012 at 3:30 pm

              Sunlight can also be used to produce Hydrogen Gas from water, while the use of solar power is not wide-spread now there can be envisaged a time in the future when all houses are fitted with a solar array to provide at least part of the energy needs of the average home,

              At present we tend to view Solar Energy from a point of view of harvesting such through the use of solar panels,

              There of course is the ability to magnify Solar Energy far beyond the simply transfer that occurs via use of solar panels,

              A child’s magnifying glass being the perfect example of such magnification of raw solar energy,

              Perhaps in the future we may come to see as we do with arrays of wind turbines, arrays of large magnifying glasses producing steam to generate electricity…

              • Colonial Viper …
                16 April 2012 at 3:53 pm

                All true but solar is still a highly diffuse energy source compared to hydrocarbons.

                Capturing a single day of sunlight is not really going to compete with 10 million years of sunlight, heat and gravity as stored in a barrel of oil.

              • lostinsuburbia …
                16 April 2012 at 3:58 pm

                I think you are missing my point that supplying everyone with PV or similar could be quite difficult – particularly when viewed from the global demands for those materials. The same goes for other advance tech given their dependence on rare earth metals and other substances.

                As for using solar on wide scale for creating steam (for turbines) it doesn’t get past the ittermitent nature of solar and other renewables. It is difficult to store their energy outputs when demand is low.

                I can’t see NZ having major power plants based on solar, any solar uptake will be based on small home or business based systems.

                New Zealand does very well in using renewables (mostly hydro) to produce the base load of its electricity supply. Its peak demand where we have a problem and currently rely on coal and gas to ensure supply. Unfortunately without practical energy storage from many renewables, we will be relying on fossil fuels for our peak demand for the forseeable future. This is particularly true given out peaks are often at winter evenings when there is no sun (maybe some wind but that can’t be relied on).

                Its the storage problem that needs to be solved – but again, storage systems usually involve signficant resources and can be highly toxic.

                • bad12 …
                  16 April 2012 at 4:20 pm

                  Solar Thermal Power tho does just that, solar thermal first looks to create storable heat and from that stored heat generates electricity in generators used now to burn gas,

                  The point of storing the heat generated from the Sun and then creating electricity from it is that such stored heat is still capable of generation after the Sun goes down,

                  Obviously country,s with desert areas will have a far higher capability for electricity production through this method than New Zealand,(in the US its estimated that 300 odd square miles of Solar Thermal plants could provide all of that country,s electricity needs),

                  Of course we could simply produce Hydrogen Gas using Solar Thermal energy production and produce electricity with the Hydrogen Gas during the peak periods when the Sun aint shining,

                  Solar Thermal power is being produced in a number of country,s ,(the neighbours apparently have a small operational Solar Thermal plant),air coolant systems while reducing the yield of the plant can be used reducing water usage by 90%…

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    16 April 2012 at 5:20 pm

                    Of course we could simply produce Hydrogen Gas using Solar Thermal energy production and produce electricity with the Hydrogen Gas during the peak periods when the Sun aint shining,

                    There’s no way we’d ever do that. The energy loss would be too great to make it worthwhile. Better off with standard lead/acid batteries.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      16 April 2012 at 7:30 pm

                      Nickel iron batteries are far more long lasting than lead/acid. A high quality NiFe battery will last 30-40 years with minimal maintenance. Its the way to go.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      16 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

                      Yes, I know, that’s why I used lead/acid as the example 😛

                    • bad12 …
                      16 April 2012 at 10:41 pm

                      Really,how so???, if we were to simply build such infrastructure with the use of printed money then it is in fact free energy,its only cost being that of maintenance and transmission/transport,

                      What’s being produced now from Solar Thermal generations is simply plugged into the various national grids in the country,s producing it,

                      Spain had a bit of a celebration recently when one of its many Solar Thermal generators managed to store enough heat to generate for a 24 hour period without further heat transfer from the Sun,

                      The University of Missouri,(we think we got that one right), is said to have made a breakthrough in the tech where they have developed some form of nano-technology that allows for all the spectrum of light from the Sun to be harvested at the same time using the same material which of course will make Solar that much more efficient,

                      Shit ‘efficient’ we hate that word…

            • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1.3
              16 April 2012 at 5:16 pm

              Also, there are difficulties in producing efficient batteries to store excess energy produced by PV.

              Don’t need batteries. When the sun shines the use of hydro diminishes which keeps the hydro lakes full. Well, that works until the damns are gone then we’ll need batteries.

              Though I am a cynic and can’t see much changing given that Governments don’t like to mess with the status quo and we are organised around an economic system that requires growth in consumption.

              /agreed

      • Jenny 12.1.2
        16 April 2012 at 5:49 pm

        Human kind will be around for a long time IMO; our civilisation as we know it on the other hand – that is likely to be a completely different story.

        Colonial Viper

        Without our civilisation we won’t last that long.

        90% of species that have ever existed have become extinct.

        Our civilisation gives us an edge over all other species that have ever existed. A science that lets us foresee the future, an education system that lets us recall the past and banishes superstition, medicine that lets us at the very least blunt the force of epidemics and pandemics and more than not, stopping them completely.

        All of this was hard won over many generations, the loss of all this could easily prove fatal.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.2.1
          16 April 2012 at 6:50 pm

          It’s not our civilisation that gives us that edge but the fact that we’re intelligent and social animals. Our civilisation is a result of those two characteristics but it’s been taken too far by those who are, interesting enough, not intelligent and social – people otherwise known as RWNJs.

          All of this was hard won over many generations, the loss of all this could easily prove fatal.

          We won’t lose it all and we won’t die out. Hopefully, we’ll learn the lessons that we didn’t learn after the collapse of the Roman Empire – the lessons of living within the physical limits set by the environment.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.2
          16 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

          Without our civilisation we won’t last that long.

          You might be speaking for yourself and your social circle; you’re not speaking for mine however.

          • Jenny 12.1.2.2.1
            16 April 2012 at 7:53 pm

            So, let me get this straight. Are you are advocating that we dig it all up, and burn it all up, and wreck the environment and the basis for continuing civilisation, because you believe there may be some survivors?

            • Jenny 12.1.2.2.1.1
              16 April 2012 at 10:45 pm

              CV I can’t believe that you could be so selfish. The projected deaths from climate change are estimated to be in the Billions, and mostly in the third world.

              But because you believe that you and yours will be amongst the lucky survivors, you support the continued mining of coal and reckless drilling for oil, just so you and yours can have a few more decades of decadent luxury.

              You should be ashamed.

            • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.2.1.2
              16 April 2012 at 10:55 pm

              I’m not advocating that, I’m saying you can’t stop it without declaring something akin to martial law.

              Because in a democracy people will not vote for your dramatically reduced incomes, power outages and brown outs, owning a horse for their main source of transport, and spending 40 hours a week tending gardens to get enough food for their family.

              Are you are advocating that we dig it all up, and burn it all up, and wreck the environment and the basis for continuing civilisation, because you believe there may be some survivors?

              There are going to be survivors. The human race may be gone in 200,000 years, but not in the next 50.

              Barring a major extinction level fuck up of course…

              • lostinsuburbia …
                17 April 2012 at 10:51 am

                Capitalism is a beast that devours itself. As resources become more scarce we will face a situation where it will become profitable to mine/extract more and more marginal deposits of oil, gas, and minerals. Ironically, given the energy and resources needed to extract these marginal deposits, the depletion of resources will be sped up.

                This is particularly true when you look at oil and biofuel production. For instance historic oil production from the Saudi oil fields has had an energy return on energy investment (EROEI) of around 100:1 ie 100 barrels of oil produced for every barrel of oil used to extract it. Where as the Alberta oil sands have an EROEI of around 3:1. Biofuels like those produced from corn in the Midwest USA have a similar EROEI to that of the Alberta oil sands. And both of these “alternative” fuel sources use prodigious amounts of water (and the depletion of global fresh water resources is another important issue – but outside this current debate).

                I don’t agree with this process as we should be rationalising our use of our resources to get the best long term use out of them. However, given our current economic models of society we will continue on our merry way to destruction.

            • aerobubble 12.1.2.2.1.3
              19 April 2012 at 1:10 pm

              Remember the program people. Destroy humanity. Australian outback will turn into a green oasis in a world of cold ice locked northern hemisphere continents. Australians will be the next super power, the 22 century super power.

              NZ will be colder and where they send their convicts.

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    16 April 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Besieged by Climate Deniers, A Scientist Decides to Fight Back

    Now, however, my colleagues and I are fighting back, a task that is made easier because the findings that have made us the targets of climate change deniers have only been further validated as CO2 levels continue to rise and the world continues to warm. This is also true when it comes to the research behind the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which is what first prompted attacks on me and my colleagues.

    The science keeps becoming even more undeniable.

  14. Jenny 14
    16 April 2012 at 7:16 pm

    We’re a nation of discoverors and inventors. Think Rutherford, the Hamilton jet, the rotary milk shed.

    But are we throwing that away? Five-hundred of our top scientists signed an open letter saying lack of funding and opportunities are forcing many to move overseas or go to extreme lengths just to continue their research.

    Mark Crysell found one couple who have resorted to selling off the country’s first ever organic farm to help fund the search for a malaria cure when public funding ran out.

    Plus, Professor Ian Reid from the Auckland Medical School on whether New Zealand is doing enough to stay competitive.

    Close Up: Monday, April 16 2012

  15. Jenny 15
    17 April 2012 at 7:35 am

    I also believe to achieve this outcome, will require an expansion of democracy not a contraction.

  16. Jenny 16
    18 April 2012 at 7:16 am

    The peoples interest gets pushed aside as the world’s autocratic military powers compete to;
    “Put out fire with Petrol”

    Documents show how deadly serious the scramble for Arctic resources has become.

    “As ice cap melts, militaries vie for Arctic edge”

    Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever – Exercise Cold Response – with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden’s highest mountain.

    The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers – Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland – gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional security issues.

    None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and – if push comes to shove – military muscle to enforce rival claims.

    ERIC TALMADGE Associated Press April 16, 2012

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_THE_NEW_COLD_WAR?SITE=MNROC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    “…. the terrible irony of it is that instead of seeing the melting of the Arctic ice cap as a spur to action on climate change, the leaders of the Arctic nations are instead investing in military hardware to fight for the oil beneath it. They’re preparing to fight to extract the very fossil fuels that caused the melting in the first place. It’s like putting out fire with petrol.”

    Greenpeace

    Where is their mandate? Where is the consensus? Were is the democracy?