Monckton not worth debating

Written By: - Date published: 9:45 am, July 17th, 2011 - 74 comments
Categories: climate change, making shit up, science - Tags: ,

Oh joy, Monckton is back in town:

Plans are under way to pit outspoken climate sceptic Christopher Monckton against top New Zealand scientists in a debate designed to stir up controversy.

A climate change sceptics group is trying to arrange a visit by the high-profile British peer on the back of his trip to Australia. … During the visit, a “high-profile” debate would hopefully be held, seeing Lord Monckton go head-to-head with a climate scientist. “We have not had that debate on global warming and the necessity for action in this country. We’ve just not had it.”

I’m all for scientific debate of course.  But you can’t have a scientific debate with Monckton, because  he’s a serial liar:

‘Chemical nonsense’: Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton’s attack on climate science

Nine ‘profoundly wrong’ claims made by Ukip deputy leader refuted by climate experts in a document filed with US Congress

A coalition of leading climate scientists yesterday filed a 48-page document to the US Congress refuting an attack on climate science made earlier this year by the Ukip deputy leader, Lord Christopher Monckton.

The detailed rebuttal addresses nine key scientific claims made by Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic, to a house select committee hearing in May. It includes the responses of 21 climate scientists who variously conclude that Monckton’s assertions are “very misleading”, “profoundly wrong”, “simply false”, “chemical nonsense”, and “cannot be supported by climate physics”. …

“For those without some familiarity with climate science, [Monckton’s] testimony may appear to have scientific validity,” said yesterday’s response to Monckton’s claims . “We have therefore undertaken the task of soliciting responses from highly qualified climate scientists in each of the areas touched upon in Monckton’s testimony … In all cases, Monckton’s assertions are shown to be without merit – they are based on a thorough misunderstanding of the science of climate change.” …

During his congressional testimony in May, Monckton was mocked by a Democratic congressman for claiming that he was a member of the House of Lords during a previous committee hearing appearance in 2009. Last month, the clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should stop referring to himself as a member of the House of Lords.

Debate climate change by all means. Maybe this guy would like to try his luck. But my suggestion to scientists in NZ is not to give this particular charlatan the oxygen of publicity.  Meanwhile, in other news

 

74 comments on “Monckton not worth debating”

  1. tc 1

    Yeah but according to sideshow John this is just another one of those ‘opinions’ that you can feel free to adopt if it suits your purposes……evidence and fact aren’t to be considered as its all about the opinion.

    • Nailed in one tc. God help us if for political purposes Key chooses the mad monacle …

    • McFlock 1.2

      Shonkey should probably tell Tuvalu to get some science advisors who’ll tell them they’re not in trouble. Or up to their ankles in it.
       

      • Vicky32 1.2.1

        should probably tell Tuvalu to get some science advisors who’ll tell them they’re not in trouble. Or up to their ankles in it.

        Wasn’t the Tuvalu claim one of those made by Al Gore, and later refuted, to the point that Gore’s film was not after all allowed to be shown in schools? Just askin…

  2. Bill 2

    On the basis that all publicity is good publicity, surely it would be good to have a high profile debate with this guy. Get the media in tow and then, instead of the usual scenario of putting a horribly civilised and reasonable scientist up to front matters, get an uncivilised ‘tell it as it is’ and quite happy and willing to rip out jugulars scientist to front.

    • burt 2.1

      Agree, the only reason I know of for strongly opinionated people to shy away from a debate is because they are scared they won’t win. I though the science was settled, the decline was hidden and enough raw data was destroyed to make the believers feel confident to take on anything.

    • NickS 2.2

      Two words: Gish Gallop.

    • Georgecom 2.3

      Yup. Get Mr Monckton on the spot and put up an expert who is used to a bit of street debate and dissect the Lord piece by piece. Thoroughly discredit him (by telling the truth). That’ll leave the denialists with only Don Brash in their corner. Don can then set about dismantling their infrastructure like he is dismantling ACT.

  3. BR 3

    “Monckton not worth debating”

    Well certainly Al Gore didn’t think so.

    Bill.

    • burt 3.1

      Of course Al Gore was prepared to take it on – he had the modified data and pretend hockey sticks on his side. We are still claiming the hockey stick is real aren’t we – the science was settled when that was produced and it’s still settled now right ?

      • NickS 3.1.1

        Thank you burt for showing how shitastic your experience with dealing with denialists in debate is, and also a general fail at theory of mind.

        The key problem with debates is that they’re more about connecting with the audience than they are about teh evidence, which allows for a wide variety of fallacious rhetorical techniques to be deployed to win audience support. Which leads to scientists without debating experience a bit dead in the water, allowing creationists, HIV denialists, Vaccines cause Autism gits and climate change denialists to “win” debates. Especially when dealing with non-specialist audiences who lack background info, plus often the cognitive tools to pick up on informal and formal fallacies.

        • burt 3.1.1.1

          Right, so if the person who wants a debate might have more chance of influencing the audience then it’s not a good idea to debate with them… I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned the hockey stick.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

            If Monckton wants a “debate” he can publish his research is a peer reviewed journal. Of course, as none of his “research” passes even basic credibility testing he won’t get any published. Which is as it should be.

            The climatologists have already “debated” (used scientific methodology based on the actual facts) Anthropogenic Climate Change and have come to the conclusion that there’s a better than 90% chance that it’s happening and that we’re the cause of it.

            Monckton, and the rest of the denialists, aren’t about debating but causing confusion and doubt amongst the scientifically illiterate population so as to prevent solid policy being legislated that would require them to do everything necessary to protect the environment and cut their profits.

            • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.1.1

              The climatologists have already “debated” (used scientific methodology based on the actual facts) Anthropogenic Climate Change and have come to the conclusion that there’s a better than 90% chance that it’s happening and that we’re the cause of it.

              There’s a wee bit of redundancy there… isn’t the very meaning of anthropogenic that ‘we’re the cause of it’?

              Monckton, and the rest of the denialists, aren’t about debating but causing confusion and doubt amongst the scientifically illiterate population

              So, I am scientifically illiterate. You convince me! I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change… (I anticipate being flamed, because next to abortion/gay rights, this is perhaps the hottest button issue for some people. 😀

              • terryg

                Hi Vicky,

                Depending on your level of science education, that task ranges from relatively straightforward (assuming you have the equivalent of an undergraduate education in at least one of these subjects – heat & mass transfer, thermodynamics, statistics, chemistry, botany, geology – and a modicum of the rest) to monumentally complex, assuming no formal science training whatsoever.

                NB: when I say “the equivalent of” I specifically refer to on-the-job training, actually DOING stuff; Uni is just one way to learn things.

                The problem is, its bloody complicated. Explanations to lay audiences tend to be shorn of almost all scientific content, making them little more than waffly stories. And it can be hard to tell a bullshit waffly story from one based on facts – especially bullshit spoken with earnest conviction.

                This is actually how idiots like monckton get away with spinning their bullshit. He specifically relies on the fact that almost no-one who listens to any of his talks will actually read the papers he references. If you take the trouble to do that, you will find that in almost every case the paper actually says the opposite of what monckton claims. But it takes time and effort to do that, and most people just dont bother. He sounds credible (to the lay person), and gives lots of references, so it must be true, right?

                Put it like this: almost every climate scientist in the entire world agrees that its real, its happening and we’re doing it. and thats many thousands of individuals. Those who disagree number in the dozens (how many academics in NZ have come out in support of Chris de Freitas? AFAIK you can count them on the fingers of one spatula).

                Now think of it like this: if 99% of all the worlds oncologists said “X causes cancer” would you believe them, or the 1% who think its fungus and can be cured by drinking bleach?

                And lets not forget there are currently ~6,500,000,000 people on the planet right now – in 1800 it was about 1,000,000,000 – essentially NONE of whom used fossil fuels at all.

                • Vicky32

                  OK, you say ‘almost every climate scientist agrees’… but you don’t give me any reason to agree with them! It’s not all that long ago, that “every geologist agreed” that Alfred Wegener was a nutjob, and that continental drift couldn’t possibly be true… 🙂 Truth is really not a popularity contest!
                  I really  don’t think that humans have had, or even can have, any effect on the earth’s climate – and I am getting seriously unhappy that so many otherwise sensible people are bellowing “Arrgghh, climate change! There are only two answers – sterilise the 3rd world, and then let’s all go nuclear!”
                  The “the only possible way of salvation from climate change is to build nuclear power stations, and then let’s make sure the poor can’t undermine our efforts by continuing to use coal/wood” people seriously worry me…

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    So, I am scientifically illiterate. You convince me!

                    Wouldn’t it be better if you just listened to the scientifically literate people (ie, not Monckton and the denialists) who have studied the phenomenon (climatologists) and believe them? It’s why we have specialists in the community – because no one person can know everything.

                    It’s not all that long ago, that “every geologist agreed” that Alfred Wegener was a nutjob, and that continental drift couldn’t possibly be true

                    Science doesn’t give absolute answers and it’s subject to change but, ATM, our scientists best knowledge is that there’s a better than 90% chance that we’re causing climate change.

                    Truth is really not a popularity contest!

                    No it’s not. It’s not subject to anybodies belief either.

                    I really don’t think that humans have had, or even can have, any effect on the earth’s climate…

                    No, it’s not that you “don’t think” humans can – it’s that you don’t believe and you don’t want to believe and yet the facts show quite clearly that we can. NZ has lost between 70% and 80% of it’s native forest cover, Europe is probably closer to 90% (and huge amounts of that was cleared before the Industrial Revolution), Britain shifted to coal because they’d run out of wood, The Amazon is being cleared at close to 20,000 square kilometres per year and other rainforests are also being cleared. Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change.

                    To believe that we cannot change the climate when we do so much that is destructive of the environment that maintains the climate is an exercise in delusion.

          • NickS 3.1.1.1.2

            I believe a “what the fuck?” is order.

            Because it appears what you’re saying is that by lying to win via”influencing the audience” is entirely kosher.

            More amusingly though, you bring up teh Hockey Stick, which in spite of all the denialist whine and angst is still going strong if you’d bother to pay attention to the scientific literature.

        • joe90 3.1.1.2

          A conference sponsored by a far right front group called the American Freedom Alliance demonstrates the lunatic connections involved..

          The American Freedom Alliance is, perhaps, best known for its on-going legal action with the California Science Center over the cancellation of an AFA event to be held at the centre in 2009 at which it intended to screen a “teach the controversy” film called Darwin’s Dilemma, which explores the “Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion in Fossil Records”. At the time, Avi Davis, executive director and senior fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, said: “New scientific evidence makes it vital that we take a close look at the numerous inherent scientific problems of the Darwinian theory of evolution.” The AFA has subsequently fought the case on the grounds of freedom of expression.

          But far more controversial than its dabbling in the “evolution v intelligent design” debate is the AFA’s stance on Islam. One of the AFA’s three fellows is a highly provocative figure called Robert Spencer who has willingly stoked the “Barack Obama is a Muslim” meme, challenged the building of the “Ground Zero mosque”, and runs a controversial blog called Jihad Watch.

          For example, in 2010, he used his blog to offer his support to the far-right English Defence League: “The EDL is standing up to violent thugs from both the Left and the increasingly assertive Islamic communities in Britain, and they deserve the support of all free people.”

          The AFA’s funding is unclear, but tax returns (pdf) for the Fairbrook Foundation – a charitable foundation set up by computing multi-millionaires Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, which supports a wide range of Jewish and pro-Israeli groups – show that the foundation has donated more than $100,000 to the AFA since it was founded in 2007. It has also directly funded Spencer’s Jihad Watch, too. (A Politico investigation last year showed how the Fairbrook Foundation has funded the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which itself has funnelled nearly $1m to Jihad Watch in recent years. Tax returns (pdf) for the David Horowitz Freedom Center also show that it paid Spencer a salary of $131,981 in 2009.)

  4. joe90 4

    Another day, another death threat.

    Anger against scientists involved in the climate debate is reaching dangerous levels and it’s only a matter of time before one is murdered, says leading German physicist Hans Schellnhuber. …

    While he was opening a recent climate conference in Melbourne, a man in the front row waved a noose at him. “I was confronted with a death threat when I gave my public lecture,” Professor Schellnhuber said.

    “Somebody got to his feet and showed me a rope with a noose.

    “He showed me this hangman’s rope and he said: ‘Mr Schellnhuber, welcome to Australia’.”

  5. johnm 5

    I’d attend Monckton’s “debate” It’s hard to find really good comedians these days who really know how to make you LAUGH!

    • Blue 5.1

      “It’s hard to find really good comedians these days who really know how to make you LAUGH!”

      You must have missed Labours tax package announcement then, certainly made me laugh. It was “bold” apparently, although Goof’s body language and facial ticks said otherwise. this is indeed Labours last desperate grab at other peoples money. Glorious way to lose an election. Its almost like they want to.

  6. Jenny 6

    What made me angry this week, is the way that Tornado warnings have now just become a rather ho hum part of the regular weather forecast.

    Forecast for Monday, today 11 Jul 2011 For the lower North Island – Rain, Hail, Thunderstorms, Tornadoes

    It seems that climate change appeasement is all the rage.

    It is like a ho hum report in 1939 that German forces have just crossed the polish border now for the sports news.

    As well as all the Climate Change appeasers in the MSM.

    It seems that in Lord Monkton we now have a Climate Change Lord Haw Haw.

    When what we need is a Climate Change Winstone Churchill endowed with the never surrender Bulldog Spirit. Someone prepared to rip into both the appeasers and the open sellouts with out mercy or let up.

    • dupdedo 6.1

      Because Tornadoes are not new in NZ. Normally the land off shore, which we’ve always had. It’s been the media spinning (haha?) this since the Auckland Tornadoes.

      • Jenny 6.1.1

        Sooner or later people are going to lose patience with liars and will be demanding evidence of their assertions.

        So how about it dupedo?

    • Vicky32 6.2

      What made me angry this week, is the way that Tornado warnings have now just become a rather ho hum part of the regular weather forecast.
       

      Shock, horror probe! Yet I remember reading a few months ago, that tornadoes have happened at the rate of maybe 2 a year for the last century. But oh, I forgot, it’s “climate change” now, isn’t it, since it became apparent that global warming is obviously not happening! 
      On the other hand, maybe the report I read was simply “appeasement” from the evil MSM…

      When what we need is a Climate Change Winstone (sic) Churchill

  7. cindy 7

    Remembering the advice given by Republican Comms guru Frank Luntz to the Bush Administration in 2001:

    “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…”

    This is what Monckton feeds off – debating people to give himself a public profile. But, as you say, he just makes stuff up. Why would any of our climate experts want to debate Monckton, who isn’t a climate scientist, indeed he has never published a peer reviewed paper in his life.

    Frank Luntz changed his mind about global warming in 2006.

  8. Afewknowthetruth 8

    The science of global warming has been known since 1859, when Tyndall demonstrated that CO2 absorbs are reradiates radiation. By 1895 Arrhenius had worked out that burning of coal would raise the temperture of the Earth significantly (though he didn’t anticipate the massive growth in the use of fossil fuels, nor the population explosion) By the 1960s Keeling had demonstrated that CO2 levels were rising rapidly and that humanity was in deep trouble.

    For the past 250 years humanity has been undoing all the sequesering of carbin that nature accomplished tens of millions of years ago.

    However, the past 50 years have been charactersied by so-called debates which have not been debates at all, just misinformation sessions sponsored by fossil fuel corporations and rigged by the corporate media (largely owned by the same people who own the fossil fuel corporations, of course). It’s the same with Peak Oil: :denial and misinformation reign supreme.

    So now that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is 40% above what it should be (394ppm instead of 280ppm, and rising at around 2ppm per annum due to the 30+ billion tonnes of anthropogenic emissions) and climate chaos getting worse by the month, what do we get from the corporations who are running the show? More denial of reality and more misinformaiton to keep the proles confused and buying crap they don’t need and watching crap that deadens their brains. And the corporations and money-lenders provide non-solution to the predicament, based on corporate scams like carbon credits.

    What is really interesting is that all western governments are commited to perpetual economic growth [on a finite planet] in order to feed the banker’s debt monster, so no politician will dare to propose anything that remotely approaches a real solution to the predicament we are in, i.e. very rapid powerdown, permaculture and population control.

    The political-economic system is totally corrupt and the media are major players in the corruption and lies -after all they are dependent on advertising revenue that comes from people chewing through fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow.( Anyone who seriously chanllenges the lies soon finds out how corrupt the system is.)

    Humanity has a simple choice: terminate industrial civilisation or wait for industrial civilisation to terminate humanity. Judging by what is happening in Alberta (where an area bigger than England is being ripped apart to get at low value tar sands in order to prop up current economic arrangements) the choice will be made for humanity by global corporations. The Alberta tar sands project is the biggest environmental disaster and biggest individual emitter of CO2 in all of history.

    And Monkton is just a corporate liar and opportunist.

    The northern hemisphere summer promises to be very interesting, with 90% of Texas already experiencing exceptional drought and 13 other states in not much better condition.

  9. Josh 9

    The ABC’s Background Briefing program has a brilliant piece on Monckton and his supporters: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm

  10. MrSmith 10

     
    This is a little off subject Anthony, my review of a book a recently read.
     
    The Great Disruption, By Paul Gilding . How the climate crisis will transform the Global Economy
     
     The Great Disruption is not a doomsday scenario , it’s a book about “hope” and has basically put together what will happen in the near future, it’s very well written and researched. It sent a shiver down my spine, and is a must read for anyone like myself, that has almost given up on the Human race.
     
     Paul lays out in his book why we are almost at the cusp of a great disruption and the plan of action that’s needed when the time comes, and that time isn’t far away. He’s convinced people will soon demand we mobilize and deal with the earths problems, and climate change will be the catalysts for this. 

    I couldn’t help thinking about evolution while reading this book, as I always saw the human race as a parasite, that the planet would eventually either destroy or keep in check and that time has come, we get to choose and choose we will.

     The book lays out why we have reached the end of growth, the end of capitalism and the fact that no matter how hard you try to distort the facts 2+2=4 and will never equal 5, meaning we live on an finite planet and have been living beyond our means for far to long, The free market (which was never really free) has failed in what it set out to achieve, and whether we like it or not the planet is going to force us to change our ways.
     
    From the book.
     
    Paul Gilding says:
    “Will we succeed? Yes, if we decide to.
    We must remember to do so, recognizing the threat but living with a lightness of heart and in the opportunity -the exciting, uplifting, civilization-shaping opportunity to makea difference greater than anyone since the ape worked out she could crack open the nut if she used the rock as a tool.
     
                         So lets do it. It is time”
                        
     
     
     

  11. jaymam 11

    Well, suit yourselves. I have been as left wing as anybody, and I will definitely never vote for National or ACT. But the reason I am leaving the Labour Party is their continued belief that significant man made climate change is happening, when I know it’s not. I have spent the years since Climategate checking lots of data. There are lots of people lying to you, especially Gore and many others.

    Anybody who says “the science is settled” is a liar. That’s very easy to prove, because there are thousands of scientists (i.e. people with a science degree) who don’t believe that significant man made climate change is happening. And don’t bother quoting organisations that rely on the income from the Global Warming gravy train. Quite a lot of what they say is an outright lie.
    If you don’t know anything about science, especially physics and statistics, you are not qualified to comment on climate. So don’t.

    I will support a party that says they will get rid of the carbon tax that is presently on petrol and power, and which will be increasing all the time. And reducing CO2 will not have the slightest effect on climate.

    P.S. have you all read most of the Climategate emails? If not,why not? If not, you are therefore not qualified to comment on climate. You just read, without questioning, the propaganda put out by The Standard etc. A real scientist questions everything. Science is NEVER settled on anything.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      Anybody who says “the science is settled” is a liar.

      Science is never “settled”.

      because there are thousands of scientists (i.e. people with a science degree)

      And how many of those supposed thousands are climatologists? Oh, that’s right, none.

      And don’t bother quoting organisations that rely on the income from the Global Warming gravy train.

      And what about all those people who rely on the denialist gravy train? Do you apply the same logic to them?

      BTW, the people who say that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause have centuries of research and facts behind what they say. The denialists don’t have a single fact or any research that stands up to peer review.

      P.S. have you all read most of the Climategate emails?

      Have you read the result of the investigations that the “climategate” emails brought about? You know, the ones that completely exonerated the scientists and proved that the denialists that released the emails were lying through misrepresentation, misdirection and omission? If not, why not?

      I have been as left wing as anybody,…

      BS. If you were left you’d believe the scientists and the facts that they present rather than the denialists and their proven lies.

      • Vicky32 11.1.1

        BS. If you were left you’d believe the scientists and the facts that they present rather than the denialists and their proven lies.

        Nope, doesn’t necessarily follow! Are you one of the guardians of leftist purity, DtB? One of those who gets to decide if someone is a real leftist, or a faux one? They maybe don’t fit your checklist? Are you like those feminists who say “No one is a feminist who is against abortion on demand” or most bizarrely, and yes, I have come across atheists who say this: “no one is a Christian unless they’re a Creationist!” 
        Was it you or Felix who called me insane, or whatever it was? I don’t fit into any boxes, no matter how desperately you try to make me, or anyone else, fit into your constricted little closet.

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1

          Nope, doesn’t necessarily follow!

          True, there probably are a few people on the left who don’t believe in reality.

          Was it you or Felix who called me insane, or whatever it was?

          Wasn’t me.

          …fit into your constricted little closet.

          Reality isn’t restrictive but it’s not infinite either.

          • Vicky32 11.1.1.1.1

            True, there probably are a few people on the left who don’t believe in reality.

            Seriously, the word pillock springs to mind. Who made you the arbiter of reality?
             

            • Frank Macskasy 11.1.1.1.1.1

              Vicky…It’s laughable really… climate scientists spend years
              learning their profession at Universities, and decades more
              gathering data on how atmospheric gases are interacting with
              our environment.

              NASA spends millions on sophisticated satellites, that probe
              every centimetre of this planet, including temperature;
              atmosphere; etc, etc.

              Scientists freeze their arse of at Antarctic research bases,
              taking core samples of the ice, and studing trapped gas-
              content.

              All this evidence in front of our eyes; melting polar ice
              caps; receding glaciers; and Greenland losing it’s own ice-
              sheld – even as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc, continue
              to build up in the atmosphere.

              Yet, you and a bunch of “sceptics” (ie, climate change deniers) who
              have no science training (probably didn’t even study it at
              High School); spend far too much time on conspiracy websites; and listening to cranks – all believe they know better?!

              I wonder who Deniers go to for medical treatment – a trained medical specialist – or a sceptic?

              Sceptics might take note of this:

              http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895#ExxonFundsGlobalWarmingSkeptics9895

              Tinyurl’d: http://tinyurl.com/679l99c

              Just who is being conned here?

            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1.2

              Seriously, the word pillock springs to mind.

              And you appear to be a fuckwit.

              Who made you the arbiter of reality?

              Nobody, I just believe facts which you choose not to believe which actually does make you insane.

              • Vicky32

                And you sir, are an evil little lemming. Go leap off the cliff after all your climate change fundamentalist buddies, and when Fukushima happens here, maybe you’ll be railing from your rest home that when you said we had to halve the population and go nuclear to save the world from Climate change, you didn’t really mean having a carer in her 60s, wearing a Hazmat suit on her way to work…

                • “When fukushima happens here…”?!

                  Ah, ok.

                  You do know that there are no atomic power stations in this country?

                  • Vicky32

                    You do know that there are no atomic power stations in this country?

                    Of course! My point is that there  must never be even though many people who obsess about global warming/climate change say that going nuclear is the lesser of two weevils. (I have just been listening to a programme on the BBC WS this afternoon, about Germany’s recent anti-nuclear decision, and the French advocacy of nuclear power. (It’s safe, clean, and won’t leave our descendants with a mess to clean up – no sirree!) )
                     

  12. BR 12

    Goebbels once said that any lie, no matter how preposterous, will eventually be widely believed if it is told often enough to enough people. He was right about that at least. L Ron Hubbard once said that the best way to control people is to lie to them, and he would know. Such is the case with the global warming scam. It is not often that one gets to watch a TV news bulletin or read through a newspaper and finds that the supposed threat of global warming is not mentioned, either directly or implicitly.

    There is absolutely no proof that human activity has any measurable effect on the weather. The climate is always subject to change, both in the short and long term. The parameters that influence the weather are complex, and are far beyond the scope of any computer simulation to accurately model and predict.

    The climate debate is not scientific, it is political. Science is based on repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, both of which are absent from the global warming debate. If the debate was exclusively scientific, and if irrefutable proof was found that supported the global warming alarmists, it would be left to science to rectify the problem, perhaps a movement away from oil consumption to advanced nuclear technology.

    The political solution to this perceived problem is as usual, more taxes, which inevitably lead to higher prices, less freedom and bigger government. This should come as no surprise given that most politicians, particularly those of the left, do not know any better. One should also be very suspicious of any scientist who is in the pocket of the UN, arguably the most corrupt consortium of miscreants and despots ever.

    Further evidence that global warming alarmism is political rather than scientific is that the Green party, which claims to represent environmental interests, is also a hard left party with devout communists high in it’s ranks. They appear to have only a token level of concern for the environment, preferring instead to focus on smacking, youth pay rates and cannabis decriminalization etc. If all the alleged horrors of AGW were able to be predicted beyond dispute, no “green” party would be necessary. Support for a scientific solution would be manifest across the entire gamut of political opinion.

    Bill.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      There is absolutely no proof that human activity has any measurable effect on the weather.

      Yes, actually, there is. It’s all in the IPCC reports, climatologists have been measuring the changes for decades and the recent measurements show that the IPCC reports are too conservative. The changes that we are causing are accelerating at a faster rate than the IPCC reports allowed for.

      Basically, you’re believing the lies put out by the denialists. And make no mistake, they are lying. Everything that they say has been disproved, they know this and yet they keep saying it.

      When using Hitler’s Big Lie as an argument at least have the integrity to apply it to both sides. Of course, you can’t do that as it would undermine your “argument”.

      Actually, nothing you said there was an actual argument. It was just ignorant noise as you spouted your delusional beliefs.

    • Jenny 12.2

      …..Science is based on repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, both of which are absent from the global warming debate.

      Bill

      OK Bill refute these facts, if you can. I dare you.

      Latest Climate Change Facts

      1# Global carbon dioxide emissions last year rose by a record amount to almost 31 billion tonnes.

      2# 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, making the first decade of the 21st century the warmest ever according to the World Meteorological Organization.

      3# Earth’s 2010 record warmth was unusual because it occurred during the deepest solar energy minimum (period of least solar activity in sun’s 11-year activity cycle) since satellite measurements of the sun began in the 1970s.

      4# The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, representing 259 investors with assets over $US15 trillion, claimed last November that climate change “poses serious financial risks that are not going away and will only increase the longer we delay enacting sensible policies to transition to a low-carbon economy.”

      Global Investor Statement Press release

      5# Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, which has compiled the world’s most comprehensive database of natural disasters, has revealed:

      “Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change,” Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research Climate Centre told Scientific American in June. “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.”

      6# Scientific American – “Extreme Weather is Caused by Climate Change”

      7# A line of evidence comes from the developing field of climate attribution – scientists forensically examining individual events for telltale “fingerprints” of climate change.
      Fingerprints that are beginning to show in extreme weather.
      That’s not to say the storms or hot spells wouldn’t have happened at all without climate change.

      But as scientists like Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the United States National Centre for Atmospheric Research point out, they wouldn’t have been as severe if humankind hadn’t already altered the planet’s climate.

      Such a view marks a dramatic change.

      For decades all scientists would ever say – cautiously – was that extreme weather events were “consistent” with the predictions of climate change.

      “Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming,” says Trenberth. “When natural variability is compounded by human influences on the planet this is what we get. Records are not just broken, they are smashed.”

    • Bill, what is your SCIENCE behind your claim that climate change is not real?

  13. Jenny 13

    Will New Zealand Labour act on climate change?

  14. BR 14

    If you were left you’d believe the scientists and the facts that they present rather than the denialists and their proven lies.”

    Yes, quite. To be left, one must adopt an unwavering belief in whatever faith is decreed by people like you.

    Bill.

  15. Jenny 15


    A very timely poll has come out showing that Labour is at 27% voter support, some of the lowest levels of voter support it has ever polled at.

    Why do I say this is timely?

    Well, the poll was done just before Labour announced their intention to impose a Capital Gains Tax. This makes this poll a perfect test for the premise, that if Labour moved more to the left they would pick up more voter support.

    I can’t wait for the next poll to come out to either prove or disprove this hypothesis.

    I wonder what the result will be?

    Will there be a recovery in voter support for Labour?

    Or will Labour continue their record low level poll support?

    If the outcome of the next poll to come out, does show a sharp rise in support for Labour – And Labour, discover that after having dipped their toe in the water and found that it gained them support, would they be prepared to go further?

    How about an end to coal exports?

    Latest poll shows Labour struggling

  16. prism 16

    For people like me who have to keep running to try and keep up with the facts about anything a speaker on climate change deniers today gave a fact-filled run-down. Ms Oreskes explained how the CCD got established and their funding and how they have top scientists to quote backing up their statements. It’s all rather ugly. She says that it is blind obeisance to the capitalist system and the belief that the free market will solve everything with the government being turned into a bogeyman a la Hayek, with additional recipes for that dangerous broth from Friedman.

    4:06 4 ’til 8 with Katrina Batten
    A selection of special interest programmes, including:
    4:07 The Sunday Feature: Auckland Writers and Readers Festival 2011 – Michael King Memorial Lecture: on science and doubt

    5. Naomi Oreskes on Science and Doubt. Doubt is our product,” ran the infamous memo written by one tobacco industry executive in 1969, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public.” There’s no denying “doubt” is crucial to science and drives it forward, but it also makes science, and scientists, vulnerable to misrepresentation, according to Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego (F, RNZ)

    There’s no denying “doubt” is crucial to science and drives it forward, but it also makes science, and scientists, vulnerable to misrepresentation, according to Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego. She explores this theme in the 2011 Michael King Memorial Lecture. (47′00″)
    Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3
    Click through from National Radio – Katrina Batten 4-8 on Sundays.

  17. To those who suggest that “humans cannot alter the atmosphere” – they seem to have forgottwen how we very nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer with our CFCs. Chloroflourocarbons were being released from industrial and domestic (refrigeratiors, spraycans, etc) processes, creating a hole in the Ozone Layer above the Antarctic.

    Or will climate change deniers also deny that CFCs caused this as well?

  18. Afewknowthetruth 18

    The nature of belief is such that for many individuals the more a particular belief is disproved by fatcs, the more storngly the believer hangs on to the false belief. Hence all the repeated nonsense about so-called climategate, which never was a climategate -as the inquiry demonstrated.

    Over a period of at least three decades large corporation have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into promting misinformation about the link between CO2 emissions and climate catastrophe, i.e. they promote climate change denial. It was, and still is, part of their business model. And when you have profits counted in the tens of billions a year, spending tnes of millions churning out misinformation and propaganda is a good business investement.

    That fact that corporations are redering the Earth uninhabitable for humans and countless other species is of no concern to the psycopaths who run corporations and profit from their activities.

    Tony Hayward, disgraced head of BP would be a classic example of a pychotic sociopath. I see he has been sponsored by Nat Rothschild in the establishment of yet another loot and pollute company. I’m sure if he were asked about the link between CO2 emissions and climate chaos he would say ‘it is yet to be proven’.

  19. Rich 19

    Can I just point out that the illustrating photo isn’t clip-art extracted from Monty Python, but an actual photograph.

    I reckon we should get Lord phtang-ftang Biscuit-Barrel Monckton here for some sort of high-level conference with other luminaries, domestic and foreign. David Irvine, Garth George, Muriel Newman, David Icke and Cam Slater should about do it. There is an ideal venue not far from Auckland.

  20. BR 20

    There is absolutely no proof that human activity has any measurable effect on the weather.

    “Yes, actually, there is. It’s all in the IPCC reports, climatologists have been measuring the changes for decades and the recent measurements show that the IPCC reports are too conservative. The changes that we are causing are accelerating at a faster rate than the IPCC reports allowed for.”

    The IPCC are an appendage to the UN, who are nothing more than a left-driven cartel of crooks. There are many scientists who disagree with the IPCC. No reports from the UN offer anything close to scientific proof. If irrefutable proof were forthcoming, there would be no dissent.

    “When using Hitler’s Big Lie as an argument at least have the integrity to apply it to both sides. Of course, you can’t do that as it would undermine your “argument”.”

    The difference is that the media are hardly impartial commentators on the subject. They continually promote the view that human activity has a significant effect on the climate. They can’t claim such a thing with the slightest level of certainty of course, and neither can anybody else. They are vital to the propaganda effort as a means to disseminate this widely promoted lie. That is how propaganda works. I say again: This debate is not scientific, it is political, and it is divided along the lines of socialism and conservatism. The left are in favour of higher taxes, bigger government and more power to control the people, and that is what they are proposing as solution to this peceived problem.

    “OK Bill refute these facts, if you can. I dare you.”

    None of those so-called “facts” come close to scientific proof. They merely serves as testimony to how effective a lengthy and co-ordinated propaganda campaign can be. It is all hearsay; believers of the lies all singing from the same songbook. No surprises there.

    “Bill, what is your SCIENCE behind your claim that climate change is not real?”

    Where have I ever said that climate change is not real? Of course it’s real. The climate has always been subject to change. It always has and always will be. No one can predict the long term behaviour of a complex and chaotic system like the weather system. If that were possible, weather forecasting would be accurate months in advance. The 1970s predecessors of today’s climate change alarmists promised that an ice age would be the result of man’s activities back then. It was nonsense of course. They had no more idea of what the long term weather forecast would be then than they have now.

    “That’s it? That your “proof”, Bill?!?!”

    I’m not offering proof, but then I am not the one making preposterous claims about long term climate behaviour either. No one can predict what the climate will do in the years to come. Maybe it will get warmer, maybe not, and what if it does? Why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Warming would certainly seem preferable to cooling which would adversely affect crop yields, but eventually the climate is going to go one way or the other, human activity notwithstanding.

    “To those who suggest that “humans cannot alter the atmosphere” – they seem to have forgottwen how we very nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer with our CFCs. Chloroflourocarbons were being released from industrial and domestic (refrigeratiors, spraycans, etc) processes, creating a hole in the Ozone Layer above the Antarctic.”

    Another claim for which there is no proof; and which became unfashionable when the behaviour of the ozone hole was found to be just as unpredictable as long range weather forecasting. It was just another example of the sort of Mother Earth Gaia pitted against the evil forces of capitalism bullshit that defines every environmental scare campaign. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Bill.

  21. BR, Vicky32, et al,

    One last question, before I lose all interest here…

    Why do Climate change deniers (or sceptics, if you like), finally end up in personalised name calling?

    If you are able to disprove AGW, using hard science, and data, then it should be absolutely no problem at all. Right?

    But resorting to derision and mockery of climate change data, climate scientists, the IPCC, etc, is not really evidence. Anyone can mock and deride.

    But if you expect people – especially left-wingers like us – who are naturally suspicious of the Establishment, to simply “fall in line” because you expect us to be some kind of “natural ally”, then you’re mistaken.

    Being wary of the establisment and “The Man” means that we are also wary of supposed alternative ideologies. In effect, we are the Real Sceptics.

    So my last question is; if you have the data to dispel AGW, why not share it with us.

    And DYOR will not be considered an appropriate reply.

  22. BR 22

    “Why do Climate change deniers (or sceptics, if you like), finally end up in personalised name calling?”

    You mean like this:

    “he’s a serial liar:”
    “charlatan”
    “idiots like monckton”
    “really good comedians”
    “Climate Change Lord Haw Haw”
    “corporate liar and opportunist”
    “fuckwit”
    “pychotic sociopath”
    “Lord phtang-ftang Biscuit-Barrel Monckton”
    “astroturfer”

    Clearly the “deniers” do not have a monopoly on personal insults.

    “If you are able to disprove AGW, using hard science, and data, then it should be absolutely no problem at all. Right?”

    The climate alarmists are the ones predicting environmental Armageddon. It is up to THEM to substantiate these grotesque claims.

    “But if you expect people – especially left-wingers like us – who are naturally suspicious of the Establishment,”

    Who are the “establishment”?

    “to simply “fall in line” because you expect us to be some kind of “natural ally”, then you’re mistaken.”

    Natural ally? What’s that all about?

    “Being wary of the establisment and “The Man” means that we are also wary of supposed alternative ideologies. In effect, we are the Real Sceptics.”

    Who is “The Man”? What are these “supposed alternative ideologies”?

    “So my last question is; if you have the data to dispel AGW, why not share it with us.”

    Shouldn’t those who make outlandish claims be responsible for proving them?

    Bill.

    • burt 22.1

      Oh come on, it’s the new religion. You don’t need to prove it’s real but its OK to kill people who claim it’s not. Just have faith in your high priest and repeat his teaching or burn in hell on earth.

      • lprent 22.1.1

        Some have that idea on both sides. But think it through.

        The underlying science is quite trivial which is why you find that virtually any person who actually understands basic physics can understand it. The effects on the environment are also obvious when you understand the energy balance issues between us and space. The effects of extra energy on weather (and therefore climate) systems are scientifically obvious when you look at weather as being a heat convection system. Anyone with enough stats can look at the event frequencies to discern a valid pattern shift in climate. If you understand the science in paleoclimatology how much of a knife edge climate systems operate on becomes apparent. A knowledge of human evolution (especially DNA) shows how close to extinction our species has been several times from climatic shifts. An understanding of the formation rises of our agriculture over the last 10 years under benign climatic conditions leads to an understanding of how dependent we currently are on climate. A knowledge of various farming practices worldwide make sit apparent how little we can cope with agricultural failures from changing weather and climate patterns.

        The real problem is that is a rather large ask to handhold scientific, mathematical, historical, and economic illiterates through each of the required steps. It makes you realize that we really need to ground people’s education in a much more multi-disciplinary way.

        Think of yourself and your obsession with a single word to discover the issues with trying to argue beyond a position that blinds you to considerations outside your known scope…. 😈

        In BR’s case, he hasn’t demonstrated a understanding enough to be bothered arguing with him. Perhaps he should read back through the site for the couple of hundred posts on the subject. But at present I’d have to treat him like an illiterate and I (and probably most of the people that understand the issues here) can’t see a a reason to waste effort on him.

    • Shouldn’t those who make outlandish claims be responsible for proving them?

      Do you also need proof that CFCs were causing the destruction of the Ozone Layer?

      Do you need proof that tobacco-smoking causes cancer?

      What about proof that white asbestos, mercury, and CPC is toxic?

      Or that thalidomide causes birth defects?

      And that strontium 90 should never, ever, be used as mouth wash?

      Do you accept those environmental/health hazards? Or do you require proof?

    • Further to your comments about evidence, BR, this is a good start:

      Climate change: How do we know?
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  23. Sam Buchanan 23

    I do find it odd that those who demand further proof of anthropogenic global warming are constantly writing to blogs asking for the evidence. If you want scientific proof, shouldn’t you be spending your time reading scientific literature rather than blogs?

    • lprent 23.1

      I tend to demand these days that they provide me some material from a credible source, and I might read it and tell them why they’re wrong (and one day I might even find something that actually supports their theory). I find it to be more fun and I get to read some interesting material.

      The best one for this approach was a clown a few years ago who was arguing for a pronounced mini-glacial in NZ at the same time frame of the mini-ice age in the Atlantic. He was arguing that that the “medieval warm period” and “mini-ice age” were global events. I said that we did not appear to have had them in NZ from what I knew about the available evidence.

      He sent me a link to a CCD’s post linking a number of papers looking at climate changes in NZ. So I read the papers and discovered more recent papers than I’d previously read showing NZ indeed appeared to have a warmer and cooler periods based on measurements in caves.

      From memory, the cooler periods were in a different century for each of the east and west of the north island. It also appeared be quite a lot warmer in the south island during one of the cold periods in the north. Furthermore the cold and warm periods in NZ only vaguely overlapped the same warm and cold periods in the Atlantic. So I wrote a long comment pointing all this out, that whoever wrote the post obviously hadn’t read the papers he linked to, and that they’d just wasted my time.

      Needless to say, I never got a response. To me the defining characteristic of a CCD is just how damn dumb, ignorant and outright bone lazy they are when it comes to actually understanding the science. You get the impression that like their leading bloggers like Wishart or Watts, they are incapable of actually reading or understanding the material that they quote from. If you read it for them and point out what it actually says, then you get the unedifying sight of a lazy moron trying every avoidance behavior to actually read the papers or to answer challenges.

      Anyway, these days I just insult them if they repeat an old argument that has already been thoroughly trashed around here. You’d think that they’d learn to use search enough to find out if it has been previously discussed.

      • The worst, in my mind, is when you ask a Climate Change Denier/sceptic to provide evidence that science data is wrong.

        Their inevitable reply is: DYOR – Do Your Own Research.

        Sorry, but that’s just not good enough.

        If a CCD has a point of view, then it’s up to that person to provide an argument to back it up. Expecting your debating opponant to research evidence, to back up the CCD’s p.o.v. is, as lprent said, “bone lazy”.

        It also suggests that the person who resorts to DYOR actually hasn’t got a clue.

  24. BR 24

    Any science that was ever part the climate change (or is that global warming) debate has long been corrupted by politicians. How do I know this? Simple. The only solution proposed for this “problem” has very little to do with science and technology, and everything to do with politics. The universally trumpeted solution will result in more taxes, bigger government, less freedom, and more power in the hands of politicians, but very little if any reduction in energy usage. If the politicians who promote this nonsense really believed it, they would be frantically searching for a scientific and technological solution because everyone knows that doing without modern motor transport is no longer an option for anyone.

    The motor vehicle is here to stay. No one knows how long it will continue to be powered by petrol and diesel, but for the foreseeable future there is no serious alternative. Even if the warmers are right, there is really nothing that can be done to effect a significant reduction in fossil fuel burning. Without motor transport and diesel powered farming equipment, food production and distribution would plummet and huge segments of the human population would starve to death. The Greens and their ilk constantly prattle on about public transport, buses, trains, cycling etc, but apart from indulging their fantasies of power and control over the citizenry, such savings would be so infinitesimally small that their ideas are doomed to fail. Still, one can always pretend. Pricing people out of their cars won’t make any measurable difference to the perceived problem, but it might spare some of the useful idiots the indignity of being seen in public quaking in their boots.

    So I therefore repeat AGAIN. This is NOT a scientific debate, nor is what little science that remains surrounding any of it settled. It is political. The current hysteria is promoted in no small part by left wing lobby groups and most notably by an ex-politician who is sincere enough to be warning everyone else about the “dangers” of fossil fuel burning, but not sincere enough to lead by example. There are many scientists who disagree that there is a problem. Are their opinions to be simply dismissed out of hand? The warmers are promoting the idea that global warming will lead to a disaster which would be as serious as that which would surely be the result if motor vehicles suddenly ceased to exist. There are real threats to the human population, AIDS being one of them, but this real and measurable threat gets nowhere near the publicity and attention that is currently focused on global warming (or is that climate change).

    Bill.

    • RedLogix 24.1

      OK so seeing as how you cannot win the science debate, you’ve acknowledged at last the truth… that it was always a political one. I’m fine with that.

      So lets just pretend for a moment that the science is 50:50, ie you could be right or I could be right even stevens. Let’s pretend we don’t know. What are the consequences of either choosing to ignore excess carbon in the atmosphere … or acting to reduce it?

      Now if it turns out that we act to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels what would be the result? Well this is what peak oil is going to force upon us within a few decades (if not much sooner) anyhow. We are going to have to pay for the cost of this transition regardless… therefore in the long run we may as well face up to it in a planned and intentional fashion. In the long run there is no actual downside risk to acting.

      Alternatively if we do not act to reduce our dependence on carbon… there is (at least on the terms I’ve offered) a 50% chance we will turn this planet into an unrecognisable hell-hole. Our surviving offspring will curse us all.

    • lprent 24.2

      …but very little if any reduction in energy usage.

      Don’t you mean greenhouse gas emissions? That is what it is about after all. Or have you got yourself politically confused?

      Yep, you’re jumping around the causations and proposing ineffective ‘solutions’ to either confuse the issue or because you are confused. It is greenhouse gas emissions that is the causitive issue – which is clearly something you fail to understand.

      Who cares if cars are driven with a flywheel or batteries instead of fossil fuels. Of more relevance to the actual problems – if we stop using coal for power generation but still generate power. Or if we build in materials that do not require burnt lime? The political question is more about some industries that rely on polluting the atmosphere dying and not doing it quietly.

      Instead they fund a movement to allow them to take profits for longer – after all there are a lot of well meaning fools like yourself who will fail to examine the issues and are suckers for a bullshit line.

      The rest of your diatribe of very little interest. many scientists? Piffle – you mean many people who don’t work in the area (like geographers) and a couple that do. When they have raised valid objections they’ve been looked at by others and comprehensively discredited because their science was crap.

      I make a point of reading the material that does look for the flaws in the science because that is one of the more interesting areas to read at present. It is clear that CCDs like yourself do not – because you keep using the arguments and papers that have failed the skepticism of science.

  25. BR 25

    “OK so seeing as how you cannot win the science debate, you’ve acknowledged at last the truth… that it was always a political one. I’m fine with that.”

    No one can win any science debate without proof, but like I said, this debate is not about science, it is political. The very existence of AGW is based on a consensus. That’s not science. There is nothing that comes close to accurately predicting what, if anything human activity is having or will have on the weather. If consensus “science” is so useful, why limit it to long term climate prediction? Why not extend it to all science and save the trouble of performing all those complex and costly experiments? Scientists could vote on the existences of the Higgs Boson for example under the rules of consensus “science”.

    “Don’t you mean greenhouse gas emissions? That is what it is about after all. Or have you got yourself politically confused?”

    Carbon dioxide, now redefined as a pollutant but essential for plant growth, is the result of breathing, farting, motor vehicle exhaust and other things. Most of it cannot be avoided. Hydro power, solar power and wind power will never provide enough energy to run the number of vehicles required to sustain the present population. It is not possible to significantly reduce the carbon dioxide produced by modern mechanized industry using any currently available technology. However there are things that can be done to reduce some of the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere without impacting any man-made industry at all. The only reason they nothing is being done is because the governments and politicians don’t believe their own propaganda and therefore don’t care about carbon dioxide levels. They play along with it because it fits their agenda.

    “Who cares if cars are driven with a flywheel or batteries instead of fossil fuels?”

    It’s a bit rich for someone to speak of other people as “scientific, mathematical, historical, and economic illiterates” and then post the above.

    “Now if it turns out that we act to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels what would be the result?”

    If it is to be done in the ways proposed by the communist inspired greens and agreed to by the politicians, it will result in less freedom, tyranny, and more poverty. Apart from that though, very little else.

    “Well this is what peak oil is going to force upon us within a few decades (if not much sooner) anyhow.”

    We are nowhere near to peak oil. More scaremongering from the left. Shortages of oil are caused by politicians and dictators. I know enough people in the oil industry to know that oil is plentiful, and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper if it wasn’t for politicians and governments rorting the motoring requirements of ordinary people with their exorbitant fuel taxes.

    “Now if it turns out that we act to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels what would be the result?”

    That depends on how much reduction you have in mind.

    “Instead they fund a movement to allow them to take profits for longer – after all there are a lot of well meaning fools like yourself who will fail to examine the issues and are suckers for a bullshit line.”

    The oil companies go out and prospect for the oil and drill for it with no guarantee that they will find it. When they do, they then refine it and distribute it around the world to the gas stations. This is a huge industry that provides jobs for millions of people. After the wages of all the people directly and indirectly involved have been paid, and all the other bills have been paid for getting the stuff from deep underground and into the gas stations so that YOU can put gas in your car, all the industries involved receive about half of what you pay for it. Governments and politicians, who contribute nothing to the industry, and who in fact do much to obstruct it, take the rest. So what was that you were saying about profits again?

    “Alternatively if we do not act to reduce our dependence on carbon… there is (at least on the terms I’ve offered) a 50% chance we will turn this planet into an unrecognisable hell-hole. Our surviving offspring will curse us all.”

    That is the sort of scaremongering nonsense that typifies AGW lobbying. There is no proof that humans are adversely affecting long term weather behaviour, and there is NO HARD EVIDENCE that a weather driven armageddon is even a remote possibility. I mean, can you describe this hell hole to be? No one can predict the behavior of the weather decades in advance. No one. Even next week’s weather cannot be predicted with any degree of accuracy. so why would it now be possible to predict the weather in, say, 2050?

    Bill

  26. No one can win any science debate without proof, but like I said, this debate is not about science it is political. …

    Do you realise the bizarre nature of your remark? But in a way, you’re correct.

    For those who accept the evidence (and there is plenty of it), it IS about science.

    For those who reject even the EXISTENCE of evidence, it is about politics, and their perceptions of government and organised science.

    Of course it’s about the science. The fact that you’ve rejected the science factor indicates that you simply haven’t researched it properly. You’ve no doubt read several conspiracy websites and based your opinion on the junk-“science” and pseudo-intellectual arguments you’ve read there.

    Carbon dioxide, now redefined as a pollutant but essential for plant growth

    Hmmmm, that sounds perilously close to science.

    But taking up your comment, of course CO2 is necessary for plant life. But, like too much of anything, if you exceed levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans), you alter the delicate natural balances that permit life to exist on this “little blue marble”.

    Just like water. Water is essential to all life. But tioo much water, and we drown.

    Same with CO2. Or methane. Or nitrous oxide.

    Just as the CFCs we pumped into the atrmosphere last century nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer.

    You can reject the science begind AGW, but in doing so you admit that you have no substance or data to back up your anti-AGW position.

    But we’ve know that for ages about deniers. You’re simply more honest in admitting it.

  27. From a climate agnostic, Yep the climate is changing, It always has done, The planet has wobbles, The sun is flaring, The pacific Ring is moving with volcanoes venting. Are the changes all Man Made? Have the sea’s risen? where are the displaced moving too?

    NZ will have a serious problem if the temperature of the globe increases by a few degree’s as it will open up huge land masses in the Northern hemisphere to agricultural production. Google a thermal globe image to see what I mean. An increase of C02 will create increased plant growth resulting in better crop yields. Sustainable intensive crop and livestock farming is a reality on a much smaller platform. NZ will suffer as a result because of transportation costs, we need to be thinking ahead to survive this possibility. Lord Moncktons visit will be well worth attending as there is always the 100th monkey syndrome to consider. And, it is always reassuring to speak with fellow farmers as they tend to agree that the climate has always changed and always will. The smart thing is to factor that into your long term planning.

    • “…The sun is flaring…”

      Evidently not sufficiently to cause climate change on our planet.

      Refer to NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ – specifically under “Solar irradiance”.

    • Colonial Viper 27.2

      And, it is always reassuring to speak with fellow farmers as they tend to agree that the climate has always changed and always will. The smart thing is to factor that into your long term planning.

      So how many of these farmers been farming for 100 years or more? You know, long enough to observe decent trends in climate?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago