New Zealand shamed at Paris

67 comments on “New Zealand shamed at Paris ”

• Comments are now closed

1. esoteric pineapples 1

   1 December 2015 at 8:41 am

   The fact that this government isn’t going to make the agricultural sector pay its share of costs for reducing emissions means that it is being subsidised as well.
   • BLiP 1.1

     1 December 2015 at 8:43 am

     ‘

     Yep, I’m so proud.
     • Rosie 1.1.1

       1 December 2015 at 2:30 pm

       Yeah, me too, proud little Kiwi.

       “Just earlier, in typical National Ltd™ style, John Key addressed the leaders of the world with vacuous words wafting on about ending subsidies for fossil fuels. ”

       I heard him speak of this on rnz this morning. What a womble. (Sorry lovely wombles) He can say that, knowing there are no longer subsidies on the “consumption” side of fossil fuels in NZ and blather on about how everyone else must do the same, while back home he dramatically increases the subsidies on production.

       Do you have special category in your chronicles BLiP for such half truths? How do you categorise a lie that is not actually spoken?
       • Anno1701 1.1.1.1

         1 December 2015 at 2:31 pm

         Wombles actually cleaned things up didnt they ?
         • Rosie 1.1.1.1.1

           1 December 2015 at 3:07 pm

           Yes, they did. They were environmentally conscious creatures. “Making good use of the things that we find, the things that the everyday folk leave behind”. They were into recycling and tidying up.

           Womble is a derogatory term for someone who is a bit of a slow fool, and really it shouldn’t be. It’s most unfair. I apologise to wombles, not only of Wimbledon, but to the world wide womble family, who I may have offended by comparing them to the New Zealand PM.
       • BLiP 1.1.1.2

         1 December 2015 at 5:54 pm

         Do you have special category in your chronicles BLiP for such half truths?

         No, not really, Its difficult enough to keep up with John Key’s blatant lies let along his Crosby Textor language mangling and slippery framing of issues. In this case, it seems almost deliberate. A suspicious person might wonder if NSA had tipped off the GCSB with information from its mass surveillance that John Key was going to receive the Fossil Of The Day for New Zealand’s performance on fossil fuel subsidies. Its not like the GCSB hasn’t done this sort of thing before.
         • Rosie 1.1.1.2.1

           2 December 2015 at 2:03 pm

           I don’t know how you do it. Key’s mastery of the black arts of deception are legendary. Corralling these utterances must require a special super power.

           And yes, it could be plausible that a 5 eyes partner assisted Key with the direction of his speech by providing some timely information – they didn’t bat an eyelid over the matter of spying on Groser’s competitors for the WTO, as per your link.

           Then again would Key really care if he had knowledge that he was going to win F.O.D and that the priority was always going to be about how he framed our fails and turned it into a win?

           Tracey’s comment further down the post:

           “I thought he sounded the most wooden and looked the most uncomfortable in a very long time making that speech. He looked/sounded like a fish out of water.”

           says a lot about the pressure he was under to magic the spin into something believable. It was like he knew he was dealing with a tougher, sharper crowd than he’s used to on his home turf and one that would bother to scrutinise him, so he had to pull out all the stops for his show of conviction. The strain to do really showed in his speech.
2. tracey 2

   1 December 2015 at 8:42 am

   Can you post the link to the stats which show the rise?
   • BLiP 2.1

     1 December 2015 at 8:46 am

     ‘

     700% increase from 2009 – 2013 – http://350.org.nz/our-work/gofossilfree/take-our-money-out-of-fossil-fuels/

     See also this from Peer Review on Fossil Fuel Subsidies

     . . . At the time the [tax] exemption was being reconsidered in fiscal year 2013, there was a major drilling campaign being prepared for the 2013-14 drilling season with 20 confirmed wells and a further seven wells being classed as contingent, probable or possible. Of the 20 confirmed wells, approximately four to five wells were intended to be drilled by rigs that would have been in New Zealand for over six months. It was considered likely that there would have been a delay in the drilling of these wells if the existing tax exemption was not in place. It is also possible that some wells may not have been drilled at all. In addition, if the wells were drilled at a later date because the exemption was removed, it is likely that there would be additional costs relating to mobilizing and demobilizing rigs. The mobilization and demobilization costs for an off-shore rig are approximately USD 10-15 million (NZD 12.2-18.3 million). These additional costs are deductible by the exploration company engaging rig services against income that is earned from a successful well . . .
     • tracey 2.1.1

       1 December 2015 at 8:53 am

       Good man, just cutting off the naysayers at the pass 😉
       • Kiwiri 2.1.1.1

         1 December 2015 at 9:51 am

         heh
3. Sirenia 3

   1 December 2015 at 9:00 am

   The PM seems to believe whatever he says at that particular moment. His grasp of truth and ethics is so minimal that words that completely contradict his actions is business as usual for him.
   • Heather Grimwood 3.1

     1 December 2015 at 9:42 am

     Yes, truly frightening Sirenia, and here I’ve been hoping his embarrassment on being immersed in facts in Paris will have made him rewrite his (sadly our) offering. I insist on hoping!
   • b waghorn 3.2

     1 December 2015 at 12:20 pm

     Just his standard mo of telling a big lie then backing it just long enough for people to lose interest and move on. Same shit different day.
4. Bill 4

   1 December 2015 at 11:16 am

   New Zealand now provides over $80m in production subsidies for fossil fuel industries.

   The IMF calculated that the total subsidy going to fossil for NZ as the following – post tax subsidies US$ 2.51Billion for 2015, up from US$ 2.18 Billion in 2013.

   http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/new070215a.htm
   • David 4.1

     1 December 2015 at 10:11 pm

     If you read that report, would someone what to explain how on earth the Ukraine spends 60%+ of GDP on energy subsidies?! That’s just beyond laughable, more than half the Ukrainian economy is subsidies for energy, lol.
   • tracey 4.2

     2 December 2015 at 7:35 am

     I think the IMF, like our treasury, are just mupets (right Gerry?)

     This has been his (Key) ploy thorughout the seven years…

     Cut, cut, cut. When people cry out, give back some but not all of the cuts to make it seem generous and addressing something even though you never get close to pre-cut rates.

     The subsidy is in reverese. Increase, increase, increase then go on the world stage and offer to cut by 20% HERO!!!!
5. Anonymous 5

   1 December 2015 at 11:33 am

   The manority of people crying about climate change are very hypocritical. Make a change yourself, stop driving cars or travelling overseas. Cycle everywhere. Try crossing between the north and south island without using fossil fuels that will be fun. I am for eeducing emiaaions, but a country can not just do a full 180 degree turn thats not how evonomics works.
   • b waghorn 5.1

     1 December 2015 at 12:24 pm

     You’re wrong , people vote in there leaders in a democracy in the belief that said leaders will be making the correct decision s for all our futures.
     Piecemeal changes will achieve bugger all ,government needs to drive the changes, unfortunately we have a populist douche as pm instead of a leader.
     • Nessalt 5.1.1

       1 December 2015 at 6:43 pm

       what a copout statement. the whole idea of marching is not to be seen to be doing something, it’s to actually do something. your idea just allows you to blame everyone else.

       now that you aren’t part of the solution, you are the problem
       • b waghorn 5.1.1.1

         1 December 2015 at 7:42 pm

         Where did I say don’t march ?
         I said that restricting ones own use of climate damageing substances won’t make a difference , apart from 2008 I’ve voted labour or greens because I wanted a government that would be looking for ways to shift Aotearoa towards good environmental habits.
       • tracey 5.1.1.2

         2 December 2015 at 7:36 am

         I love how the people who deny CC and are doing nothing have started t paint themselves as the true righteous ones in all this. Bizarre.
   • Lara 5.2

     1 December 2015 at 3:21 pm

     The range of choices we have when we make decisions on much of our consumption and our transport are choices which are limited by those who make decisions which affect us all.

     Politicians and business leaders have power. They make decisions which affect us all. Subsidies for decades on the fossil fuel industry skews our choices, affects our behaviour at population wide levels.

     This is not a complicated concept, surely.

     We are ALL “hypocritical”. Some more than others. But there’s nothing wrong with operating within our limited choices and still complaining about it. Because if the playing field weren’t skewed so much towards fossil fuels we would have better choices. And there’s every need to point that out to our “leaders”.

     Would you have no one complain? No one point out that we need population wide solutions to our problems? Because we are all hypocritical. We all use fossil fuels either directly or through the food we eat and the products we consume, every day.
   • Ryan 5.3

     2 December 2015 at 3:53 am

     Well actually recent studies show Climate Change main driver isn’t actually Fossil fuels.. Sure they are a big part but… “Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.” – Cowspiracy 2014
     • Robert Atack 5.3.1

       2 December 2015 at 7:25 am

       Yeah Ryan,
       https://www.farmmachinerylocator.co.uk/impact-of-our-consumption/

       LIVESTOCK’S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING
       In fact, if we look at figures published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, agriculture contributes 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases worldwide, a much higher figure than that for transportation. Emissions from cattle are particularly damaging because it is not CO2 that cows are releasing but methane. Every single cow releases between 70 and 120kg of methane per year and while this is a greenhouse gas like CO2, its detrimental impact on the planet is 23 times higher than the negative impact of CO2. In addition, livestock cause over two-thirds of the world’s ammonia emissions, and this greatly contributes to acid rain. When you consider there are over 1.5 billion cattle worldwide the damage quickly adds up.

       Livestock figures are rising because of the general increase in our level of prosperity, which brings with it a higher demand for beef and milk. It’s not only emissions from cattle however that are causing problems to the planet, intensive farming also leads to a whole range of other environmental issues.

       – See more at: https://www.farmmachinerylocator.co.uk/impact-of-our-consumption/#sthash.05Rm4lef.dpuf
       • Naturesong 5.3.1.1

         2 December 2015 at 9:22 am

         you may want to recheck a few things.

         Starting with how mixing ammonia with water results in an acid*?

         *normal rain water contains sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide.
         When any of these compounds levels are elevated the acidity of rainwater increases (pH decreases).
         Ammonia is a base and will increase pH (more caustic, less acidic).
   • tracey 5.4

     2 December 2015 at 7:35 am

     How many of those things are you doing? Or are you smugly doing none as if that makes you the righteous one?
     • Simon Johnston 5.4.1

       2 December 2015 at 1:39 pm

       He’s probably burning extra fuel because ‘freedom’.
   • Simon Johnston 5.5

     2 December 2015 at 1:38 pm

     You really think you know all of us, don’t you kiddo? As for your bizarre solutions: apparently you haven’t bothered to find out what it is we actually believe should be happened as solutions to climate change. You make your brainless assumptions, and you attack those assumptions, rather what we actually believe – because engaging in honest debate and conversation, let alone doing some reading beforehand – is just too much hard work.
6. johnm 6

   1 December 2015 at 12:15 pm

   Paul Beckwith says: ” Personally I think we are in an emergency situation, the likes the world has never seen before. I have thought this for about the last 5 years, with no doubts and 100% certainty. I think that we are undergoing early stages of abrupt climate change, that if continued unchecked will lead to an Arctic “blue-ocean event” by 2020 or sooner, and the enormous feedbacks will then carry us to a much warmer planet, greatly exceeding the 20C threshold rise that the politicians debate. A blue-ocean event guarantees that the frequency, severity and duration of extreme weather events will ramp up 10 to 20 times over what we see today. ”

   http://paulbeckwith.net/

   In other words the situation has become more serious. To state the obvious we are caught in a monkey trap: To have a hope of saving ourselves we must renounce and let go of fossil fuels if we don’t we’re scuppered! Probably resulting in Homo Hubris/Arrogantis ‘s extinction.

   This government’s reaction: We’re too small to make any f’ing difference therefore not our worry full stop.
   • johnm 6.1

     1 December 2015 at 12:42 pm

     ” Brazil’s Great Amazon Rainforest Burns as Parched Megacities Fall Under Existential Threat

     One need only look at today’s satellite image of Brazil’s Amazon Rainforest to notice something’s terribly wrong. A vast 1,000 mile swath of what should be some of the wettest lands on the globe running south of the world’s largest river is covered by a dense pall of smoke. Scores of plumes boil up out of the burning and sweltering forest. Pumping dark clouds into the sky, the fires’ tell-tale streaks out over a drought-parched Brazil, across the Atlantic, and over to Africa where the plume is again thickened by yet more wildfires. ”

     http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/30/brazils-great-amazon-rainforest-burns-as-parched-megacities-fall-under-existential-threat/#comments

     ” The greatest rainforest in the world, sometimes called Earth’s lungs, is burning, blackening, and belching out a thick pulse of carbon dioxide into an atmosphere that is already greatly over-burdened with industry-emitted greenhouse gasses. The world’s largest watershed and remaining largest rainforest combined now finds itself in a crisis of human making. A set of insults that may not now be reversible as the forest begins to succumb to both drought and fire. ”

     ” It’s a crisis that threatens to turn South Brazil into a desert, to turn one of the world’s vast carbon stores into a carbon emissions source, and to eventually convert the great rainforest itself into dry grasslands. Such a transition would result in yet one more major contributor to increasing global greenhouse gas concentrations even as it puts Brazil’s mega-cities under threat of collapse. And it’s a transition that’s happening now. A violent transformation that likely started during the early 2000s. One now reaching catastrophic new intensities. ”

     http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/30/brazils-great-amazon-rainforest-burns-as-parched-megacities-fall-under-existential-threat/#comments
   • Robert Atack 6.2

     1 December 2015 at 4:45 pm

     Yeah John,
     Paul said on one of his last presentations, that CH4 was up to 150/1 CO2, which puts the environment at about 700 PPM CO2/CO2e pluse the other GHG’s.
     Nature is emitting more CO2/CH4 than humans now, with the forest fires, methane clatherates, drought etc it may be thousands (?) of years before the environment sees PPM numbers below 400.
     • Paul 6.2.1

       1 December 2015 at 5:00 pm

       We are in deep trouble.
       And our present Neros fiddle as our world burns.
       This is ecocide.
   • johnm 6.3

     2 December 2015 at 10:35 am

     — Failing phytoplankton, failing oxygen: Global warming disaster could suffocate life on planet Earth —

     Falling oxygen levels caused by global warming could be a greater threat to the survival of life on planet Earth than flooding, according to new research.

     “About two-thirds of the planet’s total atmospheric oxygen is produced by ocean phytoplankton — and therefore cessation would result in the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on a global scale. This would likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”

     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151201094120.htm

     Are our oceans dying? Phytoplankton has declined 40% in 60 years as figures reveal Earth has been getting hotter since the Eighties

     Microscopic marine algae which form the basis of the ocean food chain are dying at a terrifying rate, scientists said today.

     Phytoplankton, described as the ‘fuel’ on which marine ecosystems run, are experiencing declines of about 1 per cent of the average total a year.

     According to the researchers from Dalhousie University in Canada the annual falls translate to a 40 per cent drop in phytoplankton since 1950.

     The research into phytoplankton comes as a separate report today offered evidence that the world has been warming for the past 30 years.

     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298596/Massive-40-decline-oceans-phytoplankton-puts-entire-food-chain-threat.html
     • johnm 6.3.1

       2 December 2015 at 12:41 pm

       International Community Attempts to Negotiate with Nature in Paris

       Yet, an uninhabitable planet is what we should expect if participants in Paris fail to reach an ambitious and binding agreement this month that puts science and nature ahead of politics and profits. In this sense, the 40,000 negotiators engaging in two weeks of discussions and horse-trading in the French capital are not really negotiating with each other, but with Mother Nature. And the fact is, there is no reason to think that Mother Nature is willing or able to wait for humanity to start drastically reducing its carbon output.

       “The 40,000 negotiators engaging in two weeks of discussions and horse-trading in the French capital are not really negotiating with each other, but with Mother Nature.”

       “When it comes to global warming and related environmental, security and environmental concerns, these matters are simply not up for negotiation.”

       http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/01/international-community-attempts-negotiate-nature-paris
7. PeterMG 7

   1 December 2015 at 12:17 pm

   Love it when the loveys from the left call a tax break a subsidy. Just like they call government spending an investment. What they don’t realise is that they only delude themselves.

   Talking of delusion, Paris is full of it this week. The whole world knows man made climate change is a con, yet our brain dead Politian’s along with the troughers from the banks and big business are there to see how much more money they can squeeze out of us in the name of saving the planet. What a joke. Oh and they will have dragged along a bunch of useful idiots from the left who haven’t yet realise this is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history. Its a scandal.

   But fortunately for us ordinary people there will be no deal worth a toss, for the simple reason the worlds economy is on the point of collapse and there is no money left.

   And by the way. [Gratuitous personal insult on site author deleted. The only reason the rest of this comment hasn’t been deleted for anthropomorphic climate change denialism is that it serves as an example of the level of ignorance and make-believe thinking required to sustain such a delusional state – BLiP] There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Hydrocarbons are not fossils. They are not dead fish or dinosaurs or anything else. Not even coal, which simply could not form in the way that mainstream geology would have you believe. This is why every year for the last 200 years or so that we have been mining coal and extracting oil and gas the known reserves have grown. The only limiting factor is demand, and our ingenuity will allow us to extract oil and gas for millennia yet. Oh and just in case you are really worried there is not such this as a green house gas, so sleep easy. Just another lie perpetuated by government paid scientists who know 90% of people won’t look stuff up for themselves. A very sad reflection on the poor state of todays education system.
   • Michael 7.1

     1 December 2015 at 1:53 pm

     Can you please provide links to literature that clearly states climate change is not related to anthropogenic carbon emmision? Also, can you provide more information as the where these infinite supplies of coal, oil and gas are to be found, and what the cost of extracting them (for which I assume you have accounted for) will be. I tried to look them up for myself but was unable to find. Perhaps you could shed some light here. For the greater good of “90% of people”.

     Kind Regards.
     • tracey 7.1.1

       2 December 2015 at 7:38 am

       He’s having a jolly good look.
   • Anno1701 7.2

     1 December 2015 at 3:13 pm

     “The whole world knows man made climate change is a con,”

     no. no they dont ……

     “A very sad reflection on the poor state of todays education system:

     yes, yes you are…
     • Paul 7.2.1

       1 December 2015 at 5:03 pm

       Ignore the denier troll.
   • Paul 7.3

     1 December 2015 at 5:01 pm

     We are in deep trouble.
     And our present Neros fiddle as our world burns.
     This is ecocide.
     • Robert Glennie 7.3.1

       1 December 2015 at 5:15 pm

       We are. And addressing climate change on its own might not be enough. This is systemic trouble we are talking about here, impacting on multiple important parts of the planetary system we call home.
   • alison 7.4

     1 December 2015 at 5:56 pm

     “There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Hydrocarbons are not fossils. They are not dead fish or dinosaurs or anything else. Not even coal, which simply could not form in the way that mainstream geology would have you believe.”

     A citation or two would not go amiss here. After all, if your assertion is correct then you’d surely be up for a Nobel Prize.
     • tracey 7.4.1

       2 December 2015 at 7:39 am

       chuckle
   • Expat 7.5

     1 December 2015 at 9:51 pm

     To PeterMG,
     Just a shame their are so many like you who support Key, they seem to have a problem being able to distinguish the difference between verifiable, evidence based FACT, and utter BS, I suppose I can forgive you to some extent, given Key is such a CONvincing liar, and the worst part is that He actually believes what he’s say’s and so does his loyal followers.
   • Murray Simmonds 7.6

     2 December 2015 at 6:35 am

     Thank you for that insert, BLiP – the only bit of sanity in the above post.

     Yes, we can only sit back and marvel at the ignorance of the CC-deniers.
     • Robert Atack 7.6.1

       2 December 2015 at 7:44 am

       Alas it is not just the out and out CC deniers that ‘we’ are up against.
       It is also the CC down talkers like – McKidding (350.org) Al Gore, Jim Salinger, nearly every ‘on the payroll’ scientist including the IPCC. They all down play the ‘issue’ with utter bollocks statements, like ‘we need to reduce emissions’ …. Nature is bursting forth with more emissions then humans now, our reductions would pale in comparison to what is coming out of the planet at the moment.
       And no one is asking the government to actually do anything that could ‘reduce emissions’ like aiming for 80% unemployment maybe? Telling the truth about our growth based saving scheme, removing subsidies on babies (ouch, or should that be oink, as a pig flies past the window), instead we go on fun walks, taking selfies, to show how much we ‘care’
       How many people on the march were 1- Kiwi Savers 2- having or planing to have children?
       It is down to education … the lack of 😉 Back in 2006 I tried to get the govt to ‘give’ me $30K to try and get serious information into schools and libraries
       http://oilcrash.com/articles/algore01.htm
       But their goal is to maintain the hopium and bullshit, because the truth does not win votes, and boy does that go double for the left.
   • DoublePlusGood 7.7

     2 December 2015 at 10:16 am

     “A very sad reflection on the poor state of todays education system”
     That’s a very good reflection on your post, which shows nothing other than that you really should go learn something about geology and chemistry before you return here and post again on those topics.
8. JimmyP 8

   1 December 2015 at 1:43 pm

   There a couple of paid deniers on this thread.

   Don’t bother arguing with them as it is their job to spread doubt, in the same way that the anti-smoking lobby did between 1962 and the mid-eighties, before passive smoking became a key concept in the debate. That’s 20 years of deaths from lung cancer because of paid shills.

   The tragedy of our current predicament is that these paid shills are weakening political resolve at a time when we need decisive leadership and coherent action.

   If they are right and anthropogenic warming is indeed less than suggested by the data, then the only harm done will be to migrate our economies to home grown, particulate free energy, which doesn’t pollute our air or enter our bloodstream.

   If they are wrong, as all scientific entities agree – including NASA which has observed warming from 13 different Earth observing satellites – then we are looking down the barrell of hell on earth for our children; failed harvests, dust bowls, mass despeciation, chronic water shortages. (If you need evidence, drive through California today.)

   If you are a Denier, you need to look yourself in the mirror and say, ‘what if I’m wrong?’
   • Robert Atack 8.1

     2 December 2015 at 7:47 am

     If you are a Denier, you need to look yourself in the mirror and say, ‘what if I’m wrong?’

     Or look at their children and ask the same question, but that goes for all parents.
9. JonL 9

   1 December 2015 at 1:58 pm

   “The whole world knows man made climate change is a con,”… oh dear, another deluded conservative who has convinced himself black is white!
   …and with about as much scientific knowledge as my cat!
   • marty mars 9.1

     2 December 2015 at 9:30 am

     + 1 at least your cat covers its excrement when it finishes – not so deniers, they just add to the pile.
10. Robert Glennie 10

    1 December 2015 at 5:10 pm

    http://willnewzealandberight.com/2015/12/01/climate-change-or-not-new-zealand-must-act/

    Whether climate change exists or not, there is a compelling case to act anyway. I have tried to set the basics out in the above article.
    • BLiP 10.1

      1 December 2015 at 6:51 pm

      ‘

      Nice work. Take a bow.
    • tracey 10.2

      2 December 2015 at 7:40 am

      Thanks Robert, reflects my view too. The thing is what do we have to lose by becoming more responsible and cleaner inhabitants? The game of having to be “right” played by many is killing us. IF the deniers are wrong, we are fucked. If they are right, they can gloat later. The reverse is much worse.
11. rod 11

    1 December 2015 at 5:22 pm

    I expect Gower will hail John’s speech tonight.
12. Smilin 12

    1 December 2015 at 6:25 pm

    Key , the postulating fossil, what a liar and a disgrace to the nation
    Gets some guts Key and take the blame for all the dough you’ve got invested in the oil industry
    Your speech was a pack of lies you have no conscience
    • tracey 12.1

      2 December 2015 at 7:41 am

      I thought he sounded the most wooden and looked the most uncomfortable in a very long time making that speech. He looked/sounded like a fish out of water.
13. D 13

    1 December 2015 at 8:57 pm

    Climate change…. Is not man made. …. Are we that delusional that we think we have the power to force the earth and sun? If you think you know a lot then maybe you know little. Earths climate has warmed up. And cooled down. And so on and so forth for a very long time. Before we existed. So what were the reasons before us? We know little about what’s above and even less about what’s underneath us. In fact we have only drilled down over 12km. And yet the earth is over 6,000km to its core. So we know shit. Your fed all these stories and bullshit and yet nothing holds water. Yes we should watch our pollution and the way we are dealing with forestry. But that doesn’t mean you bring in a bull story and jump on it. Climate tax is the latest shit to hit the fan. And most people seem to be sitting around with there mouths open.
    • Macro 13.1

      2 December 2015 at 3:39 pm

      Ok – so don’t take our word for it –
      Have a read of this:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/opinion/sunday/tales-of-a-warmer-planet.html?_r=1
14. lprent 14

    1 December 2015 at 9:38 pm

    So what were the reasons before us? We know little about what’s above and even less about what’s underneath us.

    Evidently you know bugger all about earth sciences. I suggest that you go and learn some. We know a lot about what has driven the climate in the past and what it does in the future with the things that we have been doing.

    The only thing that we don’t really know about this particular driver of climate change, the push of large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, is what the effect of doing it quite as fast as humans have been doing it. That is the ONLY thing that is unusual.

    What humans have done in 150 odd years is what happens ‘naturally’ over thousands and tens of thousands of years. The most spectacular previous atmospheric events like the deccan traps or the siberian traps took thousands of years to get to similar levels of atmospheric change.

    We know exactly happens when we have forced changes in atmosphere. The only question we have is how fast the disaster is going to roll in. Earth sciences have a good idea of what will happen because it has happened before.

    The only real issue is how fast the effects will happen because of the idiotic speed that crazy fools have been throwing fossil carbon into the air. In the past it has taken thousands or tens of thousand of years. The argument in the earth sciences community is if it will happen in years, decades, or (optimistically) over a century. Is it going too be too fast and will topple our civilisation by impacting on agriculture?

    Basically you are an ignorant idiot without any understanding on the subject you trying to wank on about. Perhaps you should go and learn some more before making such a dickhead of yourself.
    • john 14.1

      2 December 2015 at 1:45 pm

      ‘Gratuitous personal insult on site author deleted. ‘…….one rule for all.

      [lprent: Nope it is not “one rule for all” on this site.

      Since you don’t expend effort keeping this site going, you are covered by the guest rules which are different to those governing the people who actually help to keep this site running, including site authors. See the policy.

      Personally attacking a host on their own site falls under the self-martyrdom rules. Robust debate and pointed abuse are allowed under the general rules.

      Moderators run under their own rules, which largely operate on the basis of making sure that comment stream operates cleanly within the policy, and that their time doesn’t get wasted. We expect thta guests on the site will assist in doing this task by reading the site rules.

      So, lets demonstrate..

      1. Banned for 2 weeks for being a stupid useless critic who hasn’t read the rules of the site.
      2. Banned for 2 weeks for trying to tell us how to run our site.
      3. Banned for 2 weeks for being lazy and not providing a link to your quote.
      4. Banned for 2 weeks for wasting my valuable time in looking up your quote and linking to it.

      Sentences to be served sequentially.

      I hope this demonstrates the difference between those who do on this site and those who are silly critics. But I’d expect that you’ll merely whine about how unfair it all is.

      BTW: did I mention how dangerous it is to call for a judgement from a moderator, getting the call wrong, and wasting their time? ]
15. Robert Atack 15

    2 December 2015 at 8:04 am

    http://oilcrash.com/articles/wilson08.htm
    This is Derick Wilson’s last effort to bring some sanity to the discussion , Derick (at 90ish years old) spent $5,000 publishing about 500 copies of the above lecture in a small booklet, he then posted it to every politician, and mayor, and high up public servant, along with Albert Bartlett’s talk on exponential growth, and the movie Blind Spot.
    This was in 2011.
    • Grant 15.1

      2 December 2015 at 8:43 am

      Very interesting Robert. I’ve shared the link with those I know who might read it.
16. Judith Lawson 16

    2 December 2015 at 10:23 am

    Shame on NZ’s prime minister! Every self respecting Kiwi should be up in arms and
    standing in line to take him out office. New Zealand, you’re a better country than
    this …
17. don Johnson 17

    2 December 2015 at 10:43 am

    Good for New Zealand — I’m tired of hearing how we have to reduce our quality of life by destroying our industry, inflating our cost of living and by doing with less — the Paris climate accords are a giant suction draining the life out of our country and for what – I have traveled places in the world and the money being spent is largely being used to keep dictators, despots and bureaucracy in in high life style – it’s not doing jack squat to make a significant difference — Canada pledges 2,6 Billion to the UN – and didn’t even reserve the right to dictate how it would be used –Air Pollution if Africa is so bad that Abuja Nigeria has day time visibility of 75 meters and people want us to cut back on our pollution because 170 million people produce less per capita then 36 million Canadians – they live in a country less then 10% our country size and don’t have winter — Come ON – the day I see real programs – eg – why doesn’t Canada put 100 million dollars into program providing free tune ups for 2 stroke motorcycles in Africa and it will reduce air pollution far more then all the expensive programs they will invest in. The real problem that people do not want to address is that poor people will always pollute – eg burn wood when they cant get better fuel – no one in the third world is worried about 50 years in future — they are worried about having some supper today Congrats to New Zealand – in my opinion the award is an award recognizing they actually do understand and are not being hypocrites – DJ
18. nettie 18

    3 December 2015 at 7:45 am

    God, u guys talk alot of shit. [Rest of comment deleted for anthropomorphic climate change denialism crazy talk. Also, Attempted Derail detected – BLiP]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS