The hoax revealed?

23 comments on “The hoax revealed? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. monkey-boy 1

   25 September 2008 at 9:25 am

   I thought I heard John Key on the radio Newstalk zb saying the evidence for gloabl woarming in is opinion was uniquivocable. Or was that a hoax?
2. Dom 2

   25 September 2008 at 9:45 am

   But what did he say was the cause? That’s the point – global warming deniers say that it isn’t man-made – they point to historic peaks and troughs in temperature as totally natural. They deny that man has mucked up historic/natural trends.

   Oddly, you could say, ‘yes, global warming is happening’ and totally be a denier since you leave off the whole man-made aspect. Imagine that sentence being ‘Yes, global warming is happening but it has always happened and man isn’t the cause.’

   Plus, didn’t Key deny global warming just a few years ago?
3. Go The Right 3

   25 September 2008 at 10:03 am

   When New Zealand Steel shuts down next year at Waiuku because of the flawed ETS scheme being passed by this Labour led Government.

   What are you going to tell the 600 workers then? This business put $4 million dollars into the local economy a week and its closure will affect 6000 people.

   They have already put their $ 1 billion up grade on permanent hold. New Zealand shuts down why the rest of the world keeps on doing what it always has done what a great economic vision.

   [lprent: So by that rationale you’d also argue that we should reintroduce CFC’s, DDT, 245T, remove scrubbers from coal station chimneys, reintroduce asbestos as a insulation material, add lead back into paint, transport water in lead pipes, etc etc. All of those threw people out of work. They also created new industries using different technologies.

   Just think of those poor wheelwrights that lost their jobs when motorized vehicles were allowed to operate!

   It’d be nice if you could get a sense of historical perspective.

   Anyone figure out where he copied this one from? ]
4. lprent 4

   25 September 2008 at 10:05 am

   I was just reading a concerning report at frogblog about methane releases in the arctic. The methane time bomb

   I’ll be very interested in the papers that come out of that. The expedition is still returning back to port. Then I came back here to see this amusing video – which comes down to the basic conservative position. We deny because we don’t want to change. They’re called conservatives for a reason.

   As Dom says the current ‘denier’ position is to say that climate change is happening but has nothing to do with human actions. Of course they ignore the tipping point problems. You don’t have to have much of an effect before you start triggering natural releases that enhance the original effects.

   Incidently, I’m pretty sure that this source of greenhouse gases hasn’t been factored into the climate change models yet. It will be interested to see what the IPCC make of this in a few years.
5. rave 5

   25 September 2008 at 10:31 am

   NZ Steel?
   Simple. Renationalise it, put the workers in charge and clean it up.
6. BeShakey 6

   25 September 2008 at 10:38 am

   Those workers might be helped by another hoax. After all, thats what Bill English described Labour’s promise to get unemployment down to current levels as.
7. Dom 7

   25 September 2008 at 10:45 am

   Sustainable based businesses will rise up (and I would argue the govt could do more to encourage this) to take the place of those which are non-sustainable. And yes, it’s a balancing exercise, sustainability will have to be introduced in a way that doesn’t cause the economy to go to hell since the environment will suffer even more if that happens.
8. Stephen 8

   25 September 2008 at 11:43 am

   Sustainable based businesses will rise up (and I would argue the govt could do more to encourage this) to take the place of those which are non-sustainable. And yes, it’s a balancing exercise, sustainability will have to be introduced in a way that doesn’t cause the economy to go to hell since the environment will suffer even more if that happens.

   The Greens have been wanting to give tax cuts for those that reduce emissions/waste/pollutions for ages – would that do the trick?

   I was blown away by what the Liberal party (a mainstream party of Canada wants to do, which is very similar:

   Using the revenue generated through carbon pricing, a new Liberal government will implement measures like:

   • Significant cuts to the first three marginal rates of income tax;
   • A new, universal child tax benefit worth $350 per child, per year, on top of all existing child benefits;
   • An $850 increase to the employment tax credit, which will also be made refundable and targeted at lower-income Canadians;
   • A more generous Working Income Tax Benefit to help Canadians over the welfare wall;
   • Additional tax credits and incentives for business to encourage innovation and green investment;
   • An increase to the Northern Residents Deduction, and indexation going forward; and
   • An immediate Green Rural Credit worth $150 for every rural tax-filer.

   http://www.liberal.ca/story_14098_e.aspx
9. Steve Pierson 9

   25 September 2008 at 12:15 pm

   The Liberals in Canada are our Labour.. it’s a bit confusing ’cause the Aussie Liberals are our National.
10. Stephen 10

    25 September 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Yeah, should’ve said.
11. jbc 11

    25 September 2008 at 1:10 pm

    lprent: So by that rationale you’d also argue that we should reintroduce CFC’s, DDT, 245T, remove scrubbers from coal station chimneys[…]

    I’d agree with your argument if steel was going out of fashion to be replaced by something new and renewable, however in this case wouldn’t we just lose the industry to a country without an ETS and then ship the steel back here?

    Same would apply for Tiwai Pt if that were to close. It would kind-of defeat the prime objective of the ETS if the smelting shifted somewhere with thermal power generation (Australia, China).

    I’m not saying these things will happen: that remains to be seen. Nor am I denying anthropogenic warming. Rather I think the phase-out argument perhaps is not so strong as it is (was) for those other things.

    Or have I missed a major point somewhere?
12. randal 12

    25 September 2008 at 1:30 pm

    not ne point but several. lke for instance how many trees must be cut down to cure a kilo of tobacco?
13. lprent 13

    25 September 2008 at 5:02 pm

    jbc: The real problem with NZ Steel has been that it has been marginal almost from the day it opened. I’m astonished that it is still there. I had a look at the economics of the plant in the early 80’s when they were doing enhancements.
14. Phil 14

    25 September 2008 at 6:48 pm

    how many trees must be cut down to cure a kilo of tobacco?

    Who cares?

    All the good stuff is grown in backyards or engineered in basements. Get with the program R-man.
15. jbc 15

    25 September 2008 at 6:54 pm

    lprent: ok – just wasn’t sure about the argument. Hadn’t see anything on the pros and cons of NZ Steel. Hadn’t heard that they might be packing it in either.

    randal: if your comment is in reply to my last sentence then I’ll just say: wow! those steel workers must smoke an awful lot for that to make a difference 😉
16. Brett Dale 16

    25 September 2008 at 7:01 pm

    Perhaps those on the right, want to listen to both sides of the argument.
17. Macro 17

    25 September 2008 at 8:09 pm

    “Perhaps those on the right, want to listen to both sides of the argument.”

    That’s another way of saying – “We don’t like to think about change”.

    There is no argument. The climatic change that is now occurring has been clearly linked to the massive increase in greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity since the begining of the industrial era. Those nay sayers who hold that we are simply entering another warming phase are way off beam – the facts are quite clear. You can see them for yourself at the WMO websites – The United Nations body responsible for the founding of the IPCC.

    “12. Data collected through WMO’s GOS 19 gives a clear indication that globally averaged surface temperatures have increased since the beginning of instrumental records in 1861. Over the 20th century, this increase was about 0.74°C; however, the linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Moreover, analyses of indirect data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the late 20th century warmth was unprecedented for at least the past millennium.
    13. Over the same period, the 1990s was the warmest decade, 1998 the warmest year with 2005, the second warmest. Should atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, the projected temperature rise by the end of the present century would likely be around 3°C.”

    POSITION PAPER
    WMO’S ROLE IN GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES
    WITH A FOCUS ON DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE
    BASED DECISION MAKING
    CA-1 April 2007

    The paper also states that these temperature increases are the result of Human activity – and is NOT just the result of a “Natural” cycle.
18. Matthew Pilott 18

    25 September 2008 at 8:31 pm

    jbc, the world is pretty crap when it comes to working globally (try to think of three examples). Something like this will only be fixed if there is a global solution.

    If a rich country like NZ shirks the initial costs, how can we expect anyone else to take the responsibility?

    We sign up in an attempt to build an international concensus.
19. Stephen 19

    25 September 2008 at 9:15 pm

    jbc, the world is pretty crap when it comes to working globally (try to think of three examples)

    I’ll give it a go: postal system, ozone hole, er…
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    25 September 2008 at 9:30 pm

    I knew there was a reason I chose “3” as the number.

    In reality, they are very few and far between. Landmines (but not quite), chem/bio weapons (by and large, there are always a few spoilers), money exchange, postal as you mention.
21. Stephen 21

    26 September 2008 at 8:33 am

    Maybe i’m not as worldly and edjuma-cated as I thought.
22. Dom 22

    26 September 2008 at 9:48 am

    There are heaps of global co-operation examples. Embassies, airline routes, passports, phone systems, internet – all these things require nations to observe basic behaviour in concert. When one doesn’t play by the rules (ie. China and the internet) you realise how many other countries are actually trusting each other and working together.

    Hey, I see the Nat’s science policy has been confirmed. They want to scratch Fast Forward and reduce research based tax credits. Um, why? Also they would fund a “research centre aimed at reducing farm-produced greenhouse gas emissions”.

    Typical bait and switch…it’s not carbon, it’s the cows!
23. cha 23

    26 September 2008 at 11:41 am

    The clathrate gun hypothesis.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS