Nats and climate change deniers

Written By: - Date published: 9:02 am, November 19th, 2011 - 44 comments
Categories: act, brand key, climate change, ETS, national - Tags: ,

The teapot tape fiasco has done the country a couple of favours. First, it has given us a good long look at the tawdry reality behind the media construct that is Brand Key. That story is playing out with a momentum all of its own. The second favour is that the Nats have suddenly, and unexpectedly been forced to pretend that they are interested in policy.

It’s screamingly hypocritical of them, since they couldn’t even be bothered returning answers to Radio NZ’s policy survery. But none the less they’re backed in to a corner now, so we shouldn’t waste the opportunity to focus on important questions and get some answers.

Let’s start with climate change. Key’s endorsement of John Banks ties him to a party of climate change deniers. Here’s an interesting piece (ht Toby Manhire) buried in a recent Herald:

George Laking: Epsom and climate change

This month the International Energy Agency published its latest World Energy Outlook. It says if high-carbon energy investment continues for more than five years, atmospheric carbon dioxide will unavoidably overshoot 450 parts per million and global warming will exceed 2C.

The agency’s chief economist says “I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum. The door will be closed forever .”

The IEA is not a fringe organisation, and it is not alone in accepting the scientific work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The World Bank says “The countries of the world must act now, act together and act differently on climate change.”  Senior officers from the UK Ministry of Defence identify climate change as “an immediate, growing and grave threat” to global health and security. …

In New Zealand, the Act Party is at the front of resistance to climate change policy. It is a paradox that Act claims to value rational thinking and hard choices. Act’s denial of climate change has evolved over time. Rodney Hide said it was a hoax. That view still has support in New Zealand, as shown by newspaper letters the day after it snowed in Auckland. Don Brash concedes there is warming but says humans are not the cause. His evasive responses on flooding of atoll nations suggest a view that even if humans were the cause, such effects would be the “price of progress”.

Act’s attitude to climate change marks one of the most anti-scientific phases of our history. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research has had to defend legal action filed by Act’s Northland Candidate, Muldoon-era Energy Minister Barry Brill, claiming the New Zealand temperature record is faulty. The record confirms our temperature has risen by about 0.9C over the last century. …

It is wrong to think our country’s actions do not matter. The most basic moral rule is “do as you would be done by”. The fact we continue on our high carbon development track shows how far we have moved as a society from the values we claim to espouse.

Given that human induced climate change might is the greatest threat facing the planet, it seems bizarre to link your fortunes to scientifically illiterate loonies. Unless, of course, you don’t believe in climate change yourself, and you’re just looking for some electoral cover to the right. …

Earlier this year, several groups wrote to the Prime Minister to seek his personal commitment to address climate change. Writers included senior doctors, business leaders, and lawyers. The letters met with no response. There is no evidence John Key actually read any of this correspondence seeking his personal views. We were told it had been passed on to the Environment Minister.

Climate change is a serious enough issue for the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation, the World Medical Association, and the UK Ministry of Defence to urge global action. Surely it is serious enough for our Prime Minister to show some leadership of his own?

Senior members of the National Government will not see that climate change is actually a serious threat. Finance Minister Bill English referred to purchase of low-emission Ministerial cars as a “fad”. Bill English is intent on mining Southland’s lignite and offshore oil prospecting at Raukumara and the Great Southern Basin. These are exactly the practices the IEA is advising against. …

We simply cannot afford another three years of burying our head in the sand. It will help a lot if science is not dragged through the dirt, yet again, in Epsom.

* Dr George Laking MD PhD FRACP, Te Whakatohea, is a Medical Oncologist who lives and works in Auckland. He is an Executive Member of OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health. These are Dr Laking’s personal views.

The Nats recently announced delays, yet again, in implementing the ETS.  Either they believe in climate change, in which case they are wilfully negligent, or (more likely in my opinion) they do not, in which case they are as dumb as ACT and unwittingly negligent.  Either way they are neglecting their responsibilities to the country, and to the future.

So here’s some questions that some enterprising journo might like to ask Key. Does he believe in anthropogenic climate change and the danger that it represents? If so, what is his government going to do about it?  Let’s have details please.  Let’s have policy.

44 comments on “Nats and climate change deniers”

  1. Clark 1

    [sprout: warning comment by a previously banned wishart spammer]

    It is a real concern to me that Climate change as described by Al Gore which use to be called (Global Warming) Until they found the earth is going through a cooling cycle. Is taught in schools as though it is a fact. It is totally based on very dodgy science, and over 33,000 Scientists world wide have signed a petition to say it is not evidenced based.

    We have seen how the climate change advocates have tried to get rid of data ,and misuse data through the email saga this really exposed them as people with something to hide because they couldnt prove what the so called climate change detractors were saying about their findings.

    The whole Carbon trading scheme World wide pushed by Al Gore and his mates is a complete sham, and what many of you Climate change advocates dont know is that the Forests ours included are being bought up by big American Corperations so they can profit from the Carbon Trading scheme.

    They have an agenda to buy forests around the world to bank the money. Whilst their scheme halts countries economic growth does very little to save our planet they profit.

    It has been proven by many Scientists that Sun Spot activity has a much greater effect on the Earths climate than any polluting activity from Humans. Of course Al and his mates cant charge for this ,and make money out of it so they dont talk about it. I believe all facts should be presented in a way to the Public ,and let them see the weight of evidence. At the moment one cannot but feel that the Climate change saga is a sham .The facts are hidded or altered behind a cloak of secrecy ,and a full and proper evidenced based debate has never taken place.It is a get rich scheme for some American corperations

    • Bill 1.1

      Such a shame that there isn’t a ‘reality check’ piece of software that could obliterate comments like that one before they land.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      Everything you said there is wrong. As it’s been proven wrong many times I can only assume that you’re lying or you’re insane. Either way everything you say is thus circumspect and not to be listened to.

  2. toad 2

    But the Nats just don’t really care about ACT’s position on climate change, r0b. All they care is that ACT have been very stable.

  3. lefty 3

    There are several levels of climate denial.

    The first is those who don’t believe the science. There are not actually that many of these and they lack credibility.

    The next are those who do believe the science but know that any serious attempt to deal with it means abandoning capitalism. Most of the far right are in this situation. They would sooner life on earth ended than give up their privilige, wealth and power.

    The next is those who do believe the science but unlike the group above they don’t understand our economic system and believe they can have capitalism as usual and still deal with the problem. This includes most of the worlds green and social democrat parties, conservative environmentalists and some conservative parties. They come up with a combination of market solutions, individual consumer actions ,green technology and fairies at the bottom of the garden as their facile answers to how to deal with climate change.

    The first and last of these groups are simply deluded.

    The second are bad bastards.

    I don’t know who is the most dangerous.

    • Bill 3.1

      The third are ‘the most dangerous’ from the perspective of the other two. They are incredibly numerous and so collectively hold an enormous potential for permanent change. Yes, it’s frustrating that they view capitalism as somehow natural. But find chinks in the armoury of orthodox propaganda and keep driving sharp, practical and precise alternatives through…and who knows?

      Many people only believe what they believe because they haven’t been exposed to any alternative their ‘mind set’ would allow to be given serious consideration.

      • lefty 3.1.1

        Bill I agree that the third group still have the potential to change things.

        They have to.

        The biggest problem is that while many of them lack a full understanding of capitalism, many of their leaders don’t. They are simply frightened to say and do what needs to be done and end up sucking up to the power elite and driving their supporters into a political cul de sac.

        Significant change is dependent on three things. Knowledge, leadership and courage.

    • weka 3.2

      “This includes most of the worlds green and social democrat parties”
       
      Do you think that’s true here? I get the impression that people in the Greens understand the situation but recognise that they can’t be a political party with any chance of changing things if they scare the horses.

  4. Clark 4

    How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?
    Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.
    Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
    Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
    Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
    Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
    Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
    Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
    I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.
    The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.
    On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.

    • Richard Watts 4.1

      1. 0.039%
      2. Nope but at the same time you haven’t seen an effective dose of ibuprofen given as a % in the media either. I.E. It doesn’t matter.
      3. 39.12%
      4. Don’t care.
      5. Anything which takes a system away from homeostasis is a pollutant, this includes CO2.
      6. Yes.

    • Daveosaurus 4.2

      Question 2 is thoroughly dishonest as discussion on the subject is invariably in parts per million. That your friends do not understand this and come up with ridiculous percentages is a reflection on the company you keep

  5. Clark 5

    ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
    Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% – 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.
    The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
    Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
    Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?
    Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.
    Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
    Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.
    The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.
    Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
    Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.
    The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.
    We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!
    Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.
    Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
    Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
    The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life – just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.
    Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant – because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

    [sprout: you have been warned before about large text dumps. keep your agruments concise and provide links to text where possible.]

  6. Clark 6

    [sprout: you have been warned before about large text dumps. keep your agruments concise and provide links to text where possible. last chance]
    Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
    Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
    The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
    • It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
    • Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
    The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.
    1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 – hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
    2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
    3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
    4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.
    • Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.
    • The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.
    Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page.
    3
    4
    The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years – and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.
    The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate
    It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally – just as we are expiring now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.
    For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update
    and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton-minimum/
    The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.
    Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.
    Polls on Climate Change
    Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!
    Popular beliefs are not fact
    The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.
    A Carbon Tax
    Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.
    Gregg D Thompson
    Climate Researcher
    Astronomer
    Environmentalist
    Author of two science books
    Business Manager and Director of 3 companies
    Author of science magazine articles
    Designer and project manager of special effects attractions
    Nature photographer
    Has a great interest in most sciences
    Loves creating innovation in art

    [sprout: you have been warned before about large text dumps. keep your agruments concise and provide links to text where possible. last chance]

    • mik e 6.1

      looking at NASA site even with low solar activity we can have massive solar events such as in 1928. contrary to climate larks BS we are entering a decade or two of increasing solar activity and its not an exact science so more BS !

      • mik e 6.1.1

        Nasa also shows that airborne water doubles the temperature increase in CO2 more BS from climate lark everything you have spouted off in your blog is a complete lie

    • mik e 6.2

      Gregg d Thompson amateur arsetronomer right wing political activist
      Research budget Zero Facts Zero
      NASA research budget $billions

  7. Clark 7

    Sprout
    I am not a wishart fan ,and as you know this is a very complicated subject I believe you need this level of detail. If you want to see what I base my opinons on ,and its not Wishart.

    • Jackal 7.1

      It’s not really that complicated. Industrialization is causing climate change full stop. When I see comments like yours I automatically skip over them because I simply don’t have time to get to the guts of your argument.

      Basically Clark you’re a climate change denier… simple. Just like John Key, you base your beliefs on lots of spurious information and ignore the scientific consensus on the matter. A pat on the head for providing nothing new to the debate.

      It’s no surprise that Key meets other climate change deniers. When National gained power in 2008, they went about removing many of New Zealand’s domestic climate policies that could have helped create jobs, safeguard the environment and move Aotearoa into a brighter future.

      You can read more about Brand Keys climate crimes here.

    • Galeandra 7.2

      I for one DON”T want to see what this fool bases ‘his’ opinions on. Please ban him.

    • mik e 7.3

      Climate lark you don’t know anything about this BS you are regurgitating, for one the earth being cooled by less solar activity go to NASA web site and look at solar forecasts this dribble you have regurgitated is absolute bullshit.
      claiming that northern winters are colder I have alot of relatives in Europe whom I talk to regularly and everyone one of them without fail says its getting warmer even the iceover of last winter was a media beat up because they haven’t had heavy frost or snows for 30 years. Prior to that they all claim it was cold and frosty for nearly 6 months of the year now they are lucky to have 1/2 a dozen heavy frosts a year as for your Artic BS The permanent ice around the artic has continuued to decline occasionally bolstered by weather extremes which have been explained by the 99% of well researched scientists!
      Your an idiot lead by peer pressure probably caused by BS emissions otherwise known as methane!

    • mik e 7.4

      NASA figures show continual increase in global temperature since 1880 and since 1975 only one year where the global temperature decreased

  8. mik e 8

    Climate lark NZ govt has spent $32 million of your money on climate investigation
    Result temperature increase matches exactly to CO2 increases
    99% of climate researchers all agree
    The only scientists to disagree are unchristian fundamentalists funded right wing propagandists and
    Scientists back by multinational carbon emitters most of these scientists are not even Qualified climate scientists they are merely taking bribes to print propaganda and nowhere have I seen their BS research published in any respectable science publication

    • Alwyn 8.1

      It’s a little bit hypocritical to reject arguments on the grounds that “most of these scientists are not even qualified climate scientists” when the person who is being used for the source of most of the argument that we are in favour of is described as being a medical oncologist. He does not sound, with this occupation and qualification, to be a “qualified climate scientist”.
      If we accept his arguments, because we agree with them, then we must discuss the countervailing arguments on their validity or otherwise, not on the basis that the person can be ignored because they are not, by our definition, qualified.
      We are alternatively entitled to reject all the arguments on the grounds that they are not formally qualified.
      I do wonder whether this is truly sensible when I see the history of this years winner of the Nobel prize in, I think, Chemistry in that the work for which he is being honoured was effectively described as being that of a charlatan and should not be being carried out.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1

        then we must discuss the countervailing arguments on their validity or otherwise

        We have, it’s been proven that the countervailing arguments are bogus.

  9. randal 9

    sprout, kick his ass.
    just tried to read his garbage and it is nonsensical.

  10. Clark 10

    [sprout: bye bye troll. post again today, or ignore any of the above warnings in the future, and your ban will be permanent]

    • mik e 10.1

      Climate lark The BS you have published above contradicts itself shows what a tosser you really are .One paragraph says the solar activity is on the decline for the next 10 years then another paragraph says its on the increase for the next 4 years ,I’ve seen kindergarten kids make up better stories than this.
      You are a worse liar than jinxed Key

  11. Clark 11

    [sprout: and that’s a permanent ban]

  12. Dv 12

    I thought rob was temping fate with the topic?

    • r0b 12.1

      How so Dv?  Every post relating to climate change attracts a denier or two.  Can’t be helped.

      • lprent 12.1.1

        Be nice if they actually argued using that strange concept – their own words. I hate it when you can just search the web for the exact phrases and find thousands of hits by hundreds of identities. How stupid do they think everyone is?

        Doesn’t help their ’cause’ demonstrating that they know how to cut’n’paste plus fire’n’forget. We know that there are bottom feeders on the net capable of that.

        I think this arsehole gets a highly permanent ban without a chance at amnesty.

  13. Hilary 13

    One of those in the NZFirst top 6 is a climate change denier and former Investigate journalist . Campbelllive interviewed them all the other night, but I can’t remember his name.

    • Uturn 13.1

      Richard Prosser. He said that Climate change was not man made.

      • John D 13.1.1

        Either way, it is a completely meaningless statement.
        “Climate change is not man made”

        What the hell does that actually mean?

  14. Afewknowthetruth 14

    It is fascinating that climate change deniers like Clark continue to come up with the same old misinformation and junk science that has been discedited over and over again, even as climate instability wreaks increasing havoc around the world.

    Hewre is yet more confirmation of what I have ben saying for more than a decade:

    ‘On the face of it, it wasn’t anything to shout about — just more stats in a world drowning in numbers. These happen to have been put out by the U.S. Department of Energy and they reflected, as an Associated Press headline put it, the “biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases.” In other words, in 2010, humanity (with a special bow to China, the United States, and onrushing India) managed to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than at any time since the industrial revolution began — 564 million more tons than in 2009, which represents an increase of 6%.

    According to AP’s Seth Borenstein, that’s “higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.” He’s talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which is, if anything, considered “conservative” in its projections of future catastrophe by many climate scientists. Put another way, we’re talking more greenhouse gases than have entered the Earth’s atmosphere in tens of millions of years.’

    http://www.alternet.org/economy/153092/game_over_for_planet_earth%3A_the_month

    Yep, we’re on track for a largely uninhabitable planet by mid-century. And most people don’t even know it’s happening and don’t want to become informed.

    Scientific illiteracy continues to reign supreme (along with financial iliteracy).

    Oh, and just in case I get accused of being a doomsayer and not offering ‘solutions’ yet again, I’ll say it for about the 27th time on this forum: we should have adopted powerdown and permaculture at least a decade ago, but even at this late stage we should give them a try, (And put a stop to population growth and consumerism).

    Needless to say, there will be no powerdown or permaculture as long as our society and all its primary institutions is dominated by money-lenders and global corporations (and greed and stupdity).

  15. Afewknowthetruth 16

    Reading climate change denier garbage and what passes for news on mainstream media on ‘The Planet of the Consumers’ reminds me of this paragraph:

    ‘Gosh! Isn’t there another channel? Day in, day out, month after month, year after year, the fire hose torrent of mindless nonsense never ends. Many are washed away forever, never to regain a toehold in reality. Living at the amazing zenith of technological civilization is like being an inmate at the loony bin — total madness, all the time.’

    http://wildancestors.blogspot.com/2011/11/all-of-above.html

  16. John D 17

    wow. I enjoyed that

  17. Richard C 18

    Any progress finding the 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules per annum of ocean heat that the IPCC models accumulate but the ARGO network can’t detect?

    Gone missing apparently.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Safety focus in improved drug driver testing
    Improving the safety of all road users is the focus of a new public consultation document on the issue of drug driver testing. Plans for public consultation on options to improve the drug driver testing process have been announced by ...
    1 week ago
  • Making it easier to get help from Police
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says calling a cop suddenly got a whole lot easier with the launch of a ground-breaking new service for non-emergency calls. “The single non-emergency number ‘ten-five’ is designed to provide better service for the public and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • More Police deployed to the regions
    Frontline Police numbers have been boosted with today’s deployment of 77 new officers to the regions. Police Minister Stuart Nash today congratulated the recruits of Wing 325 who graduated at a formal ceremony at the Royal New Zealand Police College. ...
    2 weeks ago