The stoopid it burns …

80 comments on “The stoopid it burns … ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sabine 1

   21 January 2019 at 11:57 am

   its cold, thus nothing is warming.

   the end.

   after all the shitstain loves the poorly educated.
   • patricia bremner 1.1

     21 January 2019 at 12:52 pm

     IF ever there was false equivalence that is it lol what a clown.
2. Dennis Frank 2

   21 January 2019 at 1:13 pm

   It would help if the msm were to feature climate scientists explaining why this happens. Despite the complexity of the situation, there is still a need to help both public & politicians to get their heads around the key dimensions. I’ve read the explanation in books, and I’m a physics grad, but I’m not confident that I’ve got much more than a general impression from what I’ve read. We need scientists to come out of their ivory towers on this issue…
   • lprent 2.1

     21 January 2019 at 2:08 pm

     Climate scientists already have. They have had decades doing it along with finding the data among the extremely large chaotic system that is our planetary volatiles.

     Remember that when I went through university in the late 70s this was just a hypothesis based on the kind of simple physics that you’re referring to. But that was just the tip of the system. Remember by that kind of physics analysis, earth shouldn’t even have a viable atmosphere or had multi-cellular life for over 3.5 billion years.

     There were literally too many factors to be sure of the timescales of any warming. Remember in the late 70s they were only just starting to think about launching the kinds of earth facing satellite scanners that allowed wide area analysis. We had no idea about the deposition rates of sea floor carbonates. No idea about how melt-times of land-to-sea glacial streams. No idea of where the CO2 scrubbers were in the biosphere.

     And what you have to remember is that there are no equivalent phases in our geological history to learn from. Sure you can see similar massive rises in CO2 in the geology. But as far as is possible to see from this end of time, they happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years rather than a mere 200 years. They were probably all slow accumulations rather than the type of single point in time events like the current ongoing disaster.

     Also as far as can be seen, they are likely to have not been the proximate cause of climate change. Most have been a symptom of continental movements like the Antarctica’s drift into a polar position causing the last 45 million years of ice age, orbital oscillation (the kind of thing that causes glacial episodes) or magma plume out-gassing of the thousands of years of the Deccan Traps or the millions of years of the Siberian Traps killing biosphere sinks).

     The science is literally evolving as longer term data gets added over the decades. The only thing that has been consistent is that measured against the conservative probability model that the IPCC adopted back when I was first going through uni, is that the trajectory has been consistently towards worse effects and much faster outcomes than anyone (apart from the usual mob of catastrophic nihilists and anarchists) expected.

     Politicians have all been briefed over and over as the evidence has come through again. It simply doesn’t seem to matter to the loudest. Certainly less than the special interests of their well-heeled contributors or their current working voters in the carbon industries. Hell, you can even see this in NZ with the oil and gas lobbying in Taranaki and elsewhere. Or the coal mining.

     Same with the public. Those who were interested have already looked at it. Most who have generally reacted in one of two ways. They either look at the evidence and start changing their lifestyle to whatever they think will help, or they just go into denial. The nett evidence is that average emissions once you take out minor economic blips like the GFC are rising way faster than even the rise in world population

     But most of the public have problems focusing on the vast periods of time (3 or so years) that are our current electoral cycles.

     And those who inform them in the mass media have generally seem to have problems focusing on the end of the month. Their opinion of climate scientists is that they’re way less interesting than some raving nutter doing their denialistic incantations. Trump being a good example.

     Personally I suspect that we won’t get too much realistic action until we get a good sized die back in a first world country. While I could theoretically live well into the period when that is likely to start happening (Tony Veitch was an optimist in his post the other day), I don’t live in the continental areas that are likely to provide the first working examples.

     Personally my bet is on Australia being the first example of the real effects of climate change and not too far in the future.

     We should start urging our politicians to start blocking the easy residence here now. It isn’t like we don’t have a lot of reason not to based on the arsehole way that Australian politicians have been operating on our citizens over there for the last few decades.
     • Dennis Frank 2.1.1

       21 January 2019 at 2:59 pm

       I agree with your overview. I actually meant the anomaly that simple-minded folk like Trump use to make denial seem sensible. The difference between simplistic average global warming, and the opposite extremes that are created by the complexities within the climate system. I’ve never seen a single climate scientist been asked to explain that on the msm.

       Obviously they assume it’s too hard to explain. Defeatism. That just gives Trump & denialists victory in the propaganda war by default. Even if the public is mostly to thick to grasp the nuances, at least they deserve the opportunity to have a go.
       • soddenleaf 2.1.1.1

         21 January 2019 at 3:18 pm

         Buckets. Take two buckets, one with warm water, one with hot water. It’s basic science they used to teach at school. Hotter bodies cool faster, that’s why during the last ice age, the oceans were higher and warmer setting off patterns of cooling over the northern contingents, it was only when this cooling slowed that the north sea iced over creating the climate we have… …or should I say will soon not have.
         • Dennis Frank 2.1.1.1.1

           21 January 2019 at 3:24 pm

           I recall being taught at university long ago that ice-caps grow via extraction of water vapour from the atmosphere, and the humidity comes from the ocean, so the sea-level drops during an ice age!
           • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1

             21 January 2019 at 3:33 pm

             Yeah, you coat northern hemisphere land masses with 3 kilometres of ice, the sea level will go down. Those ice sheets slip into the oceans, the sea level rises massively. The ice sheets melt in the ocean, the sea level drops a teensy bit from that massively increased level.

             Which is why people are a wee bit worried about glaciers all over the world and polar ice sheets melting into the seas and causing sea level rise.
             • soddenleaf …

               21 January 2019 at 3:38 pm

               Little know fact. Water is dense at 4c, so the global reserve of sub 4c water is rapidly being used up, going extinct. When this happens all warming will go directly into ocean expansion, rather than partial absorbed by sub 4c water reserves.
           • soddenleaf 2.1.1.1.1.2

             21 January 2019 at 3:34 pm

             at the end of an ice age since where did all that trapped glacier come from? but a hotteroceans,a hotter ocean more available to evaporation and larger to be a source for that water to feed glacier growth. Also taught in basic science at school, called the water cycle.
             • McFlock …

               21 January 2019 at 3:41 pm

               Glaciers gotta freeze. Otherwise they’re just rivers. So the water cycle gets quicker. Which means floods and storms in some areas, but also drought in others because there’s more energy in a chaotic system. More extreme weather events.
           • ken 2.1.1.1.1.3

             21 January 2019 at 5:03 pm

             Ice has more volume than water.
             That’s why it floats.
             But you knew that already.
       • Poission 2.1.1.2

         21 January 2019 at 3:27 pm

         Most of the CS cited in the MSM are attribution scientists not dynamicists.

         The significant coldening event does not falsify AGW ,its natural variability of a rotating planet with an atmosphere and wave braking IE Rossby there is a large literature,and little consensus in the CMIP models (that AGW will intensify the winter circulation)..

         A note from Rossby.

         Perhaps I occasionally sought to give, or inadvertently gave, to the student a sense of battle on the intellectual battlefield. If all you do is to give them a faultless and complete and uninhabited architectural masterpiece, then you do not help them to become builders of their own.
         • Dennis Frank 2.1.1.2.1

           21 January 2019 at 3:38 pm

           Good quote, eh? Education, as in the original meaning of that word (a process that draws out the ability to learn from within the child).

           I recall spherical harmonics being invoked in respect to Earth as globe, and convection cells therefrom that link atmosphere and ocean. The coriolis effect of planetary spin complexifies that static structure, creating vortices. Pressure differentials then produce temperature extremes. But I’m just guessing, based on those distant memories. One of your dynamicists ought to be able to do better. Media ought to ask them to do so!
         • lprent 2.1.1.2.2

           21 January 2019 at 5:32 pm

           There are a lot of things about climate that appear to be counter intuitive.

           It is like those reports of steadily increasing snowfall on the east Antarctica ice sheet. Urrgh that isn’t a sign of a colder climate at the polar region there. It is frigging terrifying over the long and maybe even the medium term.

           It means that more moisture is getting into that icepack than has happened for a long time. That means that way more water vapour is getting past the cold seas of the circum-Antarctica current..

           If you ever look at the timeline in icecores from East Antarctic ice sheet, the annual accumulations are relatively similar. But it has also been very stable for a very long time. Umm.. Here is the analysis of a 420kya east Antarctic ice core.
           http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

           

           FYI: it shows the orbital cycle (the one that produces glacial and inter-glacial periods) pretty well, and the later sustained effect of humans on climate mostly after the widespread use of rice paddy cultivation about 5kya. Read the link to see wikipedia link, and click on the image for a larger version.

           And then the effects of industrialization kick in.

           But the freezing of water releases heat at the top of the icepack. It also means that there is more pressure further down and more high pressure liquid water acting as lubricant. Therefore faster moving ice pushed by more pressure. All that has to happen is that the brake of the summer sea ices get released and those rivers of ice are going to start to berg in a way that never happened at any time in the last 420ky.
     • soddenleaf 2.1.2

       21 January 2019 at 3:04 pm

       Entirely over argued and unrelated conclusion simply put kiwis returning from oz will overwhelm any political movement to block Aussie residence here for the obvious reason. That we will want the Aussie to do everything to keep them there.

       ..second. If you dig up a fossil fuel, inactive, and activate its climate atmospheric properties it will trap more sunlight. It’s not in doubt, never was, and the idea that you can write so much and not get that across suggests another agenda.

       Third, back to stupid, Trump is too lazy to peel off 20 or so lower house democrats with gifts. Instead he insults us all. If you are arguing before a court you don’t need you advocate signing off on a three year stay coz it looks like your case sucks.

       Everyone knows that Trump couldn’t care less about govt workers, or migrants, or even getting an extension to a wall to cover the desert border. No, just as he selected Pense, he wants to starve off impeachment and other nasties the democrats have in store. Nobody would vote democrat again if they give any President a blank cheque when shutdown the govt. All Trump is doing is foricing
       good people to bankroll their govt worker relatives…

       …oh on stupid… …if the rich get richer they pay more tax as the rest of us get less and less, so it seem odd anyone would argue that the rich paying more of the tax take should imply they should get lower taxes. In fact they should be paying more
       so we all pay more and proportionally they will pay less.
       • lprent 2.1.2.1

         21 January 2019 at 6:18 pm

         If you dig up a fossil fuel, inactive, and activate its climate atmospheric properties it will trap more sunlight. It’s not in doubt, never was, and the idea that you can write so much and not get that across suggests another agenda.

         You really are a complete simpleton when it comes to earth sciences and even something as simple as basic physics. You may just be a general simpleton – too stupid to learn. Shall we test it?

         Firstly and purely to make you think before you write stupid bullshit on to the page again in front of me. Neither CO2 or any other greenhouse gas “trap sunlight”. That statement would imply that we’d all be going blind from the increased sunlight during the day as all the trapped light of the past couple of centuries hit us in the eyeballs. Not to mention our night would be light enough for you to read porn outside even on moonless nights.

         So what greenhouse gases actually do in modern air compared to pre-industrial air is that it is slightly more efficient in transforming the energy in sunlight into lower energy heat within the atmosphere, and especially at lower altitudes.

         It means that more energy is retained in the atmosphere as heat (not sunlight) rather than being reflected. I could go on about molecular path lengths and electron velocities – but I think that explanation is probably about as simple as you could understand.

         Secondly, that isn’t the key problem – it is residence. Methane (and any number of other gases) have CO2 completely beaten when it comes to converting sunlight into heat. What counts is the residence time of a greenhouse gas inside the atmosphere.

         Methane which, by mass, is about 80x the green house gas has a much lower residence time.

         After they tracked the greenhouse gases in the 80s and 90s, they found that methane has a average life in the atmosphere of about 12 years. Whereas CO2 lasts somewhere between 36 and 95 years.

         But methane also disappears completely out of the atmosphere/hydrosphere/biosphere cycling within 70 years. It breaks down onto water and simple carbon. So it doesn’t accumulate for long. But CO2 is too bloody stable. It keeps cycling between the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere for about 3000 years. So it accumulates over a very short period when additional quantities are added by burning fossil fuels.

         If CO2 didn’t accumulate so fast then it wouldn’t have mattered for heat driven climate change. If it’d only hung around for a 100 years or so we could have burned whatever fossil fuels we liked. Of course we’d probably have another climate problem. Probably would have been the flyash or the effects of suphur dioxide on vegetation from coal instead. But it would have been a minor issues to stop using it or to sequester the offending substances (which is what modern coal power stations do with both of those).

         Thirdly, if you want to religiously wank your ignorant wee weenie in front of me again, then I have some much bigger rhetorical hammers with which to educate you. I really don’t have much time for people who take things on faith and without understanding them. There are enough of them around of the denier side, and having a ignorant simpleton like you are now around is just the kind of excuse they need to carry on being stupid.

         So please learn to educate yourself before I have to waste my time educating you.
         • Dennis Frank 2.1.2.1.1

           21 January 2019 at 7:55 pm

           Incidentally, it looks like methane’s average life in the atmosphere has been revised downward significantly since then. The paper by the team of scientists I referred to described it as nine years and Wikipedia has this in its outline of the atmospheric break-down chemistry:

           “This reaction in the troposphere gives a methane lifetime of 9.6 years. Two more minor sinks are soil sinks (160 year lifetime) and stratospheric loss by reaction with ·OH, ·Cl and ·O1D in the stratosphere (120 year lifetime), giving a net lifetime of 8.4 years.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

           His language usage is so peculiar that I have trouble getting the gist but I think he was equating sunlight with heat as if the causal link was irrelevant. But yeah, as if knowledge derived from denier sites suffices to inform someone. I even own some denier books – some are worth reading (bias doesn’t seem to mentally cripple all deniers) but any complex issue an intelligent person knows to check out both sides (at least) or all available sides to become fully informed…
         • soddenleaf 2.1.2.1.2

           22 January 2019 at 10:24 am

           strawman ad hom. Because you seem to agree with deniers, that its not simple. Agree damnit, every molecule added to atmosphere increases the ability of the atmosphere to capture sunlight. yes or no. Digging up fossils fuels and burning them means polluters have the oneous of proof to explain how their pollution isnt going to raise temperatures and push us over a tipping point. Geez, really you are going to educate me to your invented implication of what I said, that you believe reasonable people think I said everyone was going to go blind. lol. standby that troll. Corporate lackey.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1.2.1

             22 January 2019 at 12:04 pm

             Agree damnit, every molecule added to atmosphere increases the ability of the atmosphere to capture sunlight. yes or no.

             No.
           • lprent 2.1.2.1.2.2

             22 January 2019 at 12:06 pm

             The point is that it isn’t sunlight that is the issue. That is just a source of energy. You’d have exactly the same issue if we had an increase in the heat emitted from vulcanism or human related heat sources. Having increased quantities of greenhouse gases just increases the amount of retained energy from whatever source that gets trapped inside the atmosphere and hydrosphere rather than getting radiated into space.

             To say that it is just makes you look foolish.

             It isn’t even the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is the issue. That just changes the the amount of retained heat after emission and for a short (in geological terms) period afterwards. It also means that if the amount emitted was drastically reduced then the problem would go away within a moderate timescale.

             In effect that is what happens with methane. Cut human generated emissions of methane and within a few decades you’d see a very fast reduction in heat being retained in the atmosphere and hydrosphere. It really wouldn’t have enough sustained accumulation to continue adding heat to expand ocean volumes or melt ice sheets. That works within a human timescale. Make a decision in the way that they did with CFCs or the use of industrial chimney scrubbers and the problem fixes itself fast enough.

             The problem is that CO2 is resident well outside the human timescales. It is resident in the atmosphere for 36-90 years and gets scrubbed into oceans for a period measured in decades and centuries, then it returns to the atmosphere. It keeps doing that for up to 3000 years. It keeps accumulating. If it didn’t do that then it wouldn’t be dangerous.

             The last 40 years in earth sciences looking at greenhouse gases has largely been about finding out just how effective CO2 is staying resident within the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and then exploring the implications of that sustained heat accumulation on climate.

             To try say that the CO2 emissions should have known the results before they started releasing it into the atmosphere makes you look like an lazy fool who can’t think.

             Sure the possible effects of CO2 were raised as a possible issue in the 19th and early 20th century. But until after about 1957 there simply wasn’t any way to determine that there was an increasing global CO2 level.

             By that time there had already been about 150 years of increasing fossil fuel CO2 releases and a shift of the entire world economy to become dependent on fossil fuels. More importantly to have pushed the world population from something measured in millions to being measured in billions of people and increasing by about billion every decade during my lifetime.

             Digging up fossils fuels and burning them means polluters have the oneous of proof to explain how their pollution isnt going to raise temperatures and push us over a tipping point.

             All of which makes your statement above look like one from an simpleton who prefers to ignore history and instead is part of the problem rather than having any part in figuring out a solutions. It is roughly the equivalent of saying that pre-humans should have stopped having children just in case those children evolved enough to start burning fossil fuels.

             You’d look a lot less like a stupid fuckwit parasite if you started to deal with reality as it is rather that your ideal fantasy.
       • greywarshark 2.1.2.2

         21 January 2019 at 6:20 pm

         How would it be if we produced quotas and visas to get into NZ and travel to Australia for tourists. The Aussies apparently argue that we are a backdoor to their delicately balanced economy and culture and take a negative view of us apparently. With visas there would be a drop in numbers going to Oz which would hurt their tourist industry, and more of us would go to other Pacific destinations.

         Australian tourists coming tended to be low spenders a few years ago and I don’t think that would have changed. We can do with less of those. It would be a good way of keeping track of just who is coming here, how many, doing what, and enable us to adjust things more to suit ourselves.
         • soddenleaf 2.1.2.2.1

           22 January 2019 at 10:51 am

           Shrinking both economies, aka brexit, isn’t on the cards. It’s being tried in the UK and nobody has a good wordfor it, the brexit cause has never gotten a figure head who can answer said question, wtf? It’s all emotions about foriegners, and not enough fat in sausates or something.

           Nickpicking the glorious free trade in both goods and people between Aussie and Aotearoa, starting with the first fleet when Maori farmers fed Sydney convict settlers…

           Australia began by send a female criminal back to nz coz she might actually have the chance at reform. The basis of Australian convict settlement the poems used. Since then the pommy loving immigration minister has been trying to lower the bar to expelling kiwis for sterling a loaf, though no evidence yet he has uncles he chucked someone out for a equivilant crime like parking fines.

           Serious though. The argument is Australia believes it’s a bit stupid of them to reject a migrant from entering, only to have nz accept them and use our glorious free trade agreement. That’s just obvious, but not really problamatic since if they do show up just throw then back over ditch surely.

           Nickpicking a free trade deal suggests you hate our history, think nothing of destroying both economies, and like to feed your own ego on whom you like gone. Also, currently many many kiwis access benefits, live great lives over in oz and would get quite irate voters should they wholesale be chucked out. Everyone mostly gets why crimes should be, most don’t get why kid migrants who know nothing about history of nz, like the land wars should get to live here.
           • greywarshark 2.1.2.2.1.1

             22 January 2019 at 1:01 pm

             soddenleaf
             ‘feed your own ego’ to me. I won’t bother with reading any more of your free-flowing BS.
     • Pat 2.1.3

       21 January 2019 at 6:07 pm

       “We should start urging our politicians to start blocking the easy residence here now. It isn’t like we don’t have a lot of reason not to based on the arsehole way that Australian politicians have been operating on our citizens over there for the last few decades.”

       Interesting proposition, but is it likely given that something like 700,000 expats call OZ home?
       • soddenleaf 2.1.3.1

         22 January 2019 at 11:01 am

         I’ve never got that, how Australia does not want to pay benefit to kiwis because Australians living in nz aren’t an equivalent drag. Australia owns the big four, and I suspect they fear a collapse in the nz property market, why easy would Key have opened the doors for dotcom but for more buyers, more demand… …leaky homes anyone… …driving up demand suppressing supply. As for criminals being expelled, no problem, as long as it’s the harden variety of criminal. Since all the jobs in the sector are taken it will force many to go straight. lol.
         • Pat 2.1.3.1.1

           22 January 2019 at 7:52 pm

           Since all the jobs in the sector are taken it will force many to go straight. lol.

           or go harder.

           If NZ decided to rescind the CER agreement (which was written on a paper napkin sometime n the sixties) it may be a little problematic …the labour flows were one one and the investment flows the other….if Oz so decided to patriate NZ either legitimately or otherwise, there would be little we could do to resist

           P.S. you must have missed the memo
           • soddenleaf 2.1.3.1.1.1

             24 January 2019 at 3:41 pm

             Yes. Tasmania anyone. Australia mainland sucks people. Free trade means population flows to the largest economy. But you see everyone losses, especially the Australia banks, the backlash. Ever since the first settlers people have jumped over the ditch, it’ll not be stopped, they won’t and aren’t, tgey ain’t talking bout it, nope nada. The policy is a law and order issue, where individuals by association with organized crime and a history of wrong doing are being asked to leave. Sure it’s easy for a journo to make out it was for a loaf of bread,and it’s hard for Australia to say exactly why given privacy and ongoing security and policing issues. So until they get past the few thousand and into a actual 70,000 ten percent? It’s farcical to have the debate. Australia has a backlog of kiwis turning up criminally in mind. Sure those who went over as wee babes, to relatives, relatives didn’t rise in the gangs, I.e associate, sure that’s wrong in my opinion, but again it’s hard to tell, the numbers are still no significant. But I reiterate where is the wound, its reasonable that Australia has found a way to curb its organized crime problem cos so many are kiwi, and sure an element of racism both from why they left and why they did not go straight…

             sorry waffling. economic all we are both better off and there was always going to be flow of money out of oz as kiwis retired, etc. nickpicking the deal based on a law and order issue ain’t good for either. brexit. we will never break the historical free movemet,just say Asia tidal wave, weaker apart, we’ll be flooded. For now the problem is to help them go straight, if they are good citizens wrongly taint and if not where’s the harm.
     • stuff the politicians 2.1.4

       21 January 2019 at 9:59 pm

       Regarding Australia, I quite agree with your comments.
       Heat, and the distinct lack of water will drive many to leave Australia, or the mainland at least.
       Tasmania may attract some, but NZ will be the most likely target for most.

       The country is already in trouble trying to supply enough water from the north.
       There is conflict going on between the cotton growers (irrigation) in the north, and the big southern cities for daily supplies.

       I think that Australians have free entry into NZ and get all the benefits we offer, straight of the plane.

       Our Govt needs to be alert, they could swamp us in no time.
       • soddenleaf 2.1.4.1

         22 January 2019 at 11:13 am

         Nonsense. Climate warming means more moisture, increased rains. Second, see other posts it’s the banks. Third, cheap solar and water desalination is being blocked by the coal backed rightwing rump in Canberra. Fourth, no kiwi govt is going to get out ahead of the issue and be the face future kiwi voters recently left are reminded help force them out by rejecting the free movement between both nations. Its a fact, Australia pays more benefits to kiwis in Australia than NZ does to Australians in NZ, why would anyone want them back here on kiwi taxpayers. And finally, it’s a law and order issue for Australia why anyone want it to be more is counter to the interests of both. Are you wanting brexit here? it was just a dumb vote that everyone regrets, even the brexit people know that it’s impossible to build a wall in the channel.
   • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2

     21 January 2019 at 10:20 pm

     Dennis Frank 2
     21 January 2019 at 1:13 pm
     It would help if the msm were to feature climate scientists explaining why this happens…..

     They could do this till they were blue in the face, but it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference. (At least not with those that count).

     Lack of understanding is not where the problem lies.

     Poll after poll show that the majority of the general populace are convinced about danger posed by climate change and want the authorities to do more to combat it.

     https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/17/americans-want-action-on-climate-change-republicans-are-the-exception-poll.html

     https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/07/revealed-what-kiwis-think-about-climate-change.html

     Those who are not convinced are those who have an interest in maintaining the fossil fueled status quo.

     As the saying goes: “It is very hard to make someone understand something, if their livelihood depends on them not understanding it.”

     The big fossil fuel corporations, the oil, gas and coal companies, the big ICE car makers, are some of the most wealthiest and powerful and influential organisations in the history of the world. At some level they do understand the dangers just as well as the majority of the population, but choose to ignore the evidence. And even is some cases actively sow false information, knowing it be false.

     https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
     • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2.1

       21 January 2019 at 10:39 pm

       It is not scientific information or education about climate change that is lacking, or even public understanding, these things are not missing.

       The problem is not scientific or educational, the problem is political.

       What is really missing is political leadership, resolute, courageous and determined enough to stand up to the fossil fuel lobby, leadership unafraid to regulate and legislate against the big emitters. Leadership prepared to put their faith in the people, and leader from the front, leadership prepared and able to put the case for radical action to the public and win them to it.

       This is what is missing. And the Right know it.

       As Steve Bannon told Michael Moore, “We go for the head wound. Your side, you have pillow fights”.
       • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2.1.1

         23 January 2019 at 12:24 am

         An example of the bloody-mindedness of the Right, was Todd Muller’s very public attack on the government accusing the government of being “blinded by Green ideology”. Muller stated that National would reverse the government’s partial ban on new off shore oil and gas exploration.

         Muller demanded a return to John Key’s “fast follower” strategy, stating that New Zealand, must not act in advance of our trading partners, and must give up on being a climate change leader.

         In response, the Climate Change Minister did not even give the mildest rebuttal to Todd Muller’s attack. This is what the Right mean when they say, ‘We go for the head wound, and your side have pillow fights’. The Minister should tell Todd Muller, if you cannot negotiate in good faith, if you cannot agree that New Zealand should give a lead on climate change, ‘if you cannot even agree with the government’s partial ban on new oil and gas exploration, we will ban ‘ALL’ new oil and gas exploration. Go back to your paymasters, and tell them that.’

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD_AejDc1fA
         • solkta 2.2.1.1.1

           23 January 2019 at 9:13 am

           National would reverse the government’s partial ban on new off shore oil and gas exploration.

           No he didn’t. He said they would continue to oppose it, which is a different thing in political speak.

           In response, the Climate Change Minister did not even give the mildest rebuttal to Todd Muller’s attack. This is what the Right mean when they say, ‘We go for the head wound, and your side have pillow fights’.

           All i saw was a Nat bleeding after being taken apart by Generation Zero. Absolutely nothing to be gained from Shaw responding.
           • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2.1.1.1.1

             24 January 2019 at 10:22 am

             Hi Solkta, there is a lot to unpack here.

             Firstly:

             solkta 2.2.1.1.1
             23 January 2019 at 9:13 am

             National would reverse the government’s partial ban on new off shore oil and gas exploration.

             No he didn’t. He said they would continue to oppose it, which is a different thing in political speak.

             I think you are splitting straws a bit here, Solkta. Simon Bridges has announced that it is National Party policy to reverse the government’s partial ban on deep sea oil and gas exploration. Todd Muller may not of spelt it out himself. But maybe only because in political speak he wants to maintain the fiction, of his being a good faith negotiator.

             “Nats would reverse Govt’s decision on oil and gas exploration”
             Laura Walters – Stuff.co.nz, April 12, 2018

             Bridges said if National won the 2020 election it would reverse the Government’s decision to end oil and gas exploration.

             “If we are the Government in two years we will change it back,” Bridges said.

             Secondly, Apart from everything else, the question that really needs to be asked, is this;

             Is the National Party, through their climate change spokesperson Todd Muller, negotiating in good faith?

             This attack would seem to indicate, Not.

             If not, then the further question needs to be asked, is it worth the Green Party leader, keeping his head down and continuing negotiations with the Nats, at the expense of hemorrhaging voter support. (As the latest polls show).
             Or would he be better off confronting them as Occasio Cortez does with the Republicans, to huge public acclaim.

             Appeasement, or confrontation

             Which strategy will bear the most fruit?

             This is the question for the Greens.

             In my opinion the strategy that the Green Party leadership are currently following will lead to electoral disaster.

             Back room negotiations, and an invisible public profile, even under, attack will doom them to irrelevancy.

             While back room negotiations are suitable for business. Politics is the public battle for ideas.

             Todd Muller recognises this.

             Apparently the Green Party don’t.
             • solkta …

               24 January 2019 at 10:35 am

               This attack would seem to indicate, Not.

               Oh ffs we’ve been around this one. Muller was not going on an attack but was rather defending National’s record and stated position after an attack on them by Generation Zero.

               Great to see that National’s position on oil exploration has softened from “change it back” when it happened last April to “continue to oppose” now.

               I think we are lucky to not have someone with a war mentality trying to sort this issue.
     • Dennis Frank 2.2.2

       22 January 2019 at 8:00 am

       You’re missing the point. I was talking about the specific issue of spectacular weather phenomena that appear to contradict the theory of global warming. I was not talking about alarmists vs deniers.

       In the court of public opinion, the two ideological camps function as extremes in bipolar relation. Most people just want to know what’s going on. The media ought to be providing expert analysis rather than featuring the extremists who talk the loudest. What happened to the public’s right to know? Democracy fails when authorities treat the public with contempt, because voters lose informed choice.

       Every community has opinion leaders who are influential in forming public opinion. Such people are more likely to get the gist of an expert opinion sufficiently to pass it on to others in digestible language. This process allows a trickle-down of wisdom to operate sufficiently to keep folks on the right track going forward.

       So complaining about the inadequacies of extremists is a waste of time. They won’t change in response. We need to be cleverer than that.
       • soddenleaf 2.2.2.1

         22 January 2019 at 11:21 am

         There is nothing scientific, about denying basic chemistry and physics. That activating molecules formally trapped and liberating them into the atmosphere will never, could never, be disprove by spectacular weather phenomena. Especially when climate warm predicts greater storms, storms at their core reduce temperate, and so will increasing lower temperates more where they hit.
         There is nothing honest, fair minded, in anything you’ve said, in fact you obvious a paid to pander nonsense. And please keep it up, nothing like stupid to get people off their couch.
         • Dennis Frank 2.2.2.1.1

           22 January 2019 at 11:37 am

           Hey, try to read what people write more carefully. I’m not a denier. Nor have I denied any basic chemistry and physics, as you suggest. Since I passed all my physics & chemistry exams, and eventually graduated BSc in physics from the University of Auckland, I’m not inclined to do so!!

           You just don’t seem to get the nuances of the situation you are commenting on, and that’s why you’ve got into the habit of misrepresenting the views of others. The moderator will eliminate you if you continue with that, since he is one of the people you are misrepresenting. Try to be fair and accurate, eh?
           • soddenleaf 2.2.2.1.1.1

             22 January 2019 at 12:01 pm

             I will be mentioning to Auckland University that in no way can unusual weather patterns disprove basic physics and chemistry. And i take your lack of a denail as proof of your lackey credentials. Dig it up, burn it, and forget, why could you deny that?
             • Dennis Frank …

               22 January 2019 at 12:07 pm

               You aren’t making sense even slightly. Gibberish. Try Whaleoil or Kiwiblog. Plenty like you there… 🙄
               • soddenleaf …

                 24 January 2019 at 3:44 pm

                 Burning fossil fuels activates their climate interactions, your silence suggest you are clearly a troll at best, and at worst a fifth columnist.
                 Go on say fossil fuels are polution, dare you.
                 • Dennis Frank …

                   24 January 2019 at 4:05 pm

                   I first learned about fossil fuels being pollution when I was at the University of Auckland doing my physics degree. Around ’68/’69. That’s half a century ago. Way before you got born, right?
                   • soddenleaf …

                     25 January 2019 at 4:35 pm

                     This is a political blog and that’s a politicial answer, just being aware is not agreeing.
                   • Dennis Frank …

                     25 January 2019 at 4:57 pm

                     It’s because I don’t have a simplistic view: I ended up learning too much. Politically, I’m on your side mostly. As a GP member, I have no problem with supporting what James is doing. In fact, I believe it is essential.

                     Gases causing global warming are mostly man-made, but they do occur in nature. So it depends on if you want to use a scientific answer (no) or a political answer (yes) as to how to define their polluting effect. Sorry if you don’t get that, but I have to wear both hats to be authentic!
       • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2.2.2

         22 January 2019 at 10:43 pm

         …..complaining about the inadequacies of extremists is a waste of time. They won’t change in response. We need to be cleverer than that.

         Dennis Frank

         Absolutely, couldn’t agree more. These people will never listen to reason, they will never take notice of majority democratic opinion, they will actively ignore all the scientific evidence you put before them, the only resort to make them change their ways, is compulsion and regulation.

         Trying to win them with reasoned debate is a total waste of time.

         The question is; have we got the legislators with the courage to regulate the polluters?
         • solkta 2.2.2.2.1

           23 January 2019 at 9:17 am

           The question is; have we got the legislators with the courage to regulate the polluters?

           The far bigger and more important question is whether we have a public that is prepared to pay the price. It is one thing for some one to say that they want action on CC but quite another when they can’t afford to drive their car.
           • Jenny - How to get there? 2.2.2.2.1.1

             24 January 2019 at 10:05 am

             solkta 2.2.2.2.1
             23 January 2019 at 9:17 am
             The question is; have we got the legislators with the courage to regulate the polluters?

             The far bigger and more important question is whether we have a public that is prepared to pay the price. …..

             An excellent question.

             History hints at an answer;

             During the war against fascism, the the New Zealand public were prepared to pay the price. There was rationing; petrol vouchers, food vouchers, and much more. People gave up many of their luxuries and comforts, many gave up the company of their loved ones, many gave up their jobs and careers to go overseas. And many even gave their lives.

             Is the current generation more heedless and self centred than their parents’ or grandparents’ generation?

             Personally, I doubt it.

             …..It is one thing for some one to say that they want action on CC but quite another when they can’t afford to drive their car.

             Another excellent question.

             As I mentioned above, during the international crisis in the ’40’s, petrol for private car use, was severely rationed.
             Of course private car ownership was much rarer than it is today.

             Today when private car ownership is the norm rather than the exception, it is not so much a privilege as a burden. Being stuck in commuter rush hour traffic for up to two hours a day is no joy. Plus the costs of parking an upkeep and insurance etc. etc.

             Customer surveys and car sales are showing that private car ownership is not as popular for millenials as it was for boomers, like us.

             https://www.fastcompany.com/3027876/millennials-dont-care-about-owning-cars-and-car-makers-cant-figure-out-why

             Given the option of better public transport many car owners would leave the cars in the garage for the commute to work and only use their cars for private use and leisure, and special occasions, which private cars should be used for.

             As a mass transit system, the private motorcar is a dead loss.

             Again it all comes down to leadership.

             Have we got the leadership with the courage to make the change, and with the imagination and trust in the public to explain the necessity for change and take the people with them?
             • solkta …

               24 January 2019 at 10:15 am

               We are not at war. No one is going to come and kill or loved ones and rule over us with an iron fist. CC is a slow moving thing where consequences are not immediate. In trying to claim these two things as comparable you simply delude yourself.
               • Jenny - How to get there? …

                 24 January 2019 at 10:42 am

                 ‘

                 Climate Change Is a Public Health Emergency
                 Here are eight reasons why
                 Ploy Achakulwisut – Scientific American, January 23, 2019

                 …..Recent national surveys showed that 58 percent of Americans believe that they themselves will not be harmed by climate change, while 61 percent had given little or no thought to how climate change might affect people’s health.

                 Yet mounting scientific evidence has led experts to conclude that climate change presents “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”. A recent study demonstrated that there are 467 different pathways by which human health, water, food, economy, infrastructure and security have already been impacted by climate hazards. Here are 8 major ways that climate change harms our health today and threatens it tomorrow…..
                 • Jenny - How to get there? …

                   24 January 2019 at 11:08 am

                   ‘

                   Climate change helped cause Brexit, says Al Gore

                   ….Mr Gore, speaking at an event in which he previewed a sequel to his landmark 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, said the “principal” cause of the Syrian Civil War had been the worst drought in 900 years, which forced 1.5 million people to move from the countryside to the cities.

                   There they met a similar number of Iraqis who had fled the conflict in their homeland, creating powder keg conditions that Syrian government officials privately feared would explode.

                   The resulting war brought more refugees into Europe, causing political instability and helping convince some in the UK to vote to leave the European Union.

                   One of the most controversial Leave campaign posters showed a queue of refugees stretching into the distance with the caption “Breaking point: The EU has failed us all”. The then-Chancellor, George Osborne, described the poster as “disgusting and vile” and, like others who explicitly compared it to Nazi propaganda, said it had “echoes of literature used in the 1930s”……
                   • solkta …

                     24 January 2019 at 11:11 am

                     We are still not at war.
                 • solkta …

                   24 January 2019 at 11:10 am

                   That is not a war.
                   • Jenny - How to get there? …

                     25 January 2019 at 7:41 am

                     ‘
                     We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII.

                     By BILL MCKIBBEN
                     August 15, 2016

                     In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”

                     In the Pacific this spring, the enemy staged a daring breakout across thousands of miles of ocean, waging a full-scale assault on the region’s coral reefs. In a matter of months, long stretches of formations like the Great Barrier Reef—dating back past the start of human civilization and visible from space—were reduced to white bone-yards.

                     Day after day, week after week, saboteurs behind our lines are unleashing a series of brilliant and overwhelming attacks. In the past few months alone, our foes have used a firestorm to force the total evacuation of a city of 90,000 in Canada, drought to ravage crops to the point where southern Africans are literally eating their seed corn, and floods to threaten the priceless repository of art in the Louvre. The enemy is even deploying biological weapons to spread psychological terror: The Zika virus, loaded like a bomb into a growing army of mosquitoes, has shrunk the heads of newborn babies across an entire continent; panicked health ministers in seven countries are now urging women not to get pregnant. And as in all conflicts, millions of refugees are fleeing the horrors of war, their numbers swelling daily as they’re forced to abandon their homes to escape famine and desolation and disease…….
                 • Jenny - How to get there? …

                   24 January 2019 at 11:24 am

                   …CC is a slow moving thing where consequences are not immediate…..

                   Solkta

                   It might be helpful to this debate Solkta, if you could, just occasionally, put up some evidence, or links to reports, or facts, that might act to bolster your claims that the consequences are not immediate. And let us evaluate their worth.

                   Otherwise, you will have to forgive us for thinking, that you just pick opinions off the top of your head.
                   • solkta …

                     24 January 2019 at 11:27 am

                     Really? Next you will be asking for a link to confirm that the sky is blue.
                   • Jenny - How to get there? …

                     25 January 2019 at 3:01 am

                     Hi Solkta, the sky is not always blue.

                     I can put up a link right now, that proves that as I write this, the sky is dark over New Zealand, without even a hint of blue.

                     Can you put up a link, any link, that backs up your claim that;

                     “…CC is a slow moving thing where consequences are not immediate…..”

                     Current time in Wellington, New Zealand
                     03: 01: 49 AM
                     Friday
                     January 25, 2019
                     Time in New Zealand – TimeAndDate.com
                     https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/new-zealand
                     New Zealand time now. New Zealand time zones and time zone map with current time in the largest cities.
         • soddenleaf 2.2.2.2.2

           24 January 2019 at 3:46 pm

           Reason, the guy won’t even admit fossil fuels are polluting our climate.
3. Philj 3

   21 January 2019 at 1:25 pm

   It’s puzzling that the MSM are now unanimously in agreement about Climate change, when previously they were all mute about it. Trusting the MSM makes as much sense, or as little, as trusting Trump. That’s partly how Trump became The Pres.
   • soddenleaf 3.1

     21 January 2019 at 3:09 pm

     yes, how hard is it to say, diggup up inactive fuels and activate their climate heating properties, duh, mars, Venus have atmospheres due to The amount of activated gases… but even today the mms will not state that simple idea, calling climate change unpredictable, complex. It’s not, is simple, it’s for the climate deniers to explain how these extra gases aren’t going to cause global warming.
4. AB 4

   21 January 2019 at 1:41 pm

   Looks like Trump is removing “tremendous amounts” of warming by burning beautiful clean coal. That’s why its so cold.
   Brilliant trolling by Trump – his base will love the apoplexy it causes.
   • soddenleaf 4.1

     21 January 2019 at 3:11 pm

     Dinosaurs evolved feathers as a means to distract, hide movement, use the thicker warmer atmosphere to get away, the smaller dinosaurs found they could glide… …Dinosaurs like Trump died out, fat, lzxy, stupid, unwilling to even evolve.
5. xanthe 5

   21 January 2019 at 2:29 pm

   As long as you spell his name right he continues to win

   The Purveyors of fake news on behalf of the DNC are handing him 2020.

   So sad,
   So unnecessary
   So stupid

   the worst part about fake news is having made it up they then believe it themselves

   Donald is not stupid. deranged maby. misguided. very likely. But dont for a moment think that he does not understand PR, spin and crowd control. He is well in control of the narrative now but some people havnt yet realized that yet and continue to play into his game.
   • Macro 5.1

     21 January 2019 at 3:00 pm

     https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
6. rata 6

   21 January 2019 at 2:40 pm

   The Wall + the shut down will not stop Don winning in 2020.
   Americans prefer two term Presidents.
   • soddenleaf 6.1

     21 January 2019 at 3:13 pm

     g.b senior. oh, wait, he was just the ghost of Reagan right?
   • Macro 6.2

     21 January 2019 at 3:18 pm

     Spoken like a true Wallnut.
   • woodart 6.3

     21 January 2019 at 5:41 pm

     is that like not admitting they made a yuuuge mistake, so they double down? one of the signs of being an adult is admitting to mistakes, and learning from them. I understand that many of trumps fans arent educated and will vote for anybody who professes to drain the swamp(yeah right), but in a country of 350 million people, there cant be that many spucklers(cletus, brandine etc,etc).
     • ropata 6.3.1

       21 January 2019 at 6:12 pm

       the GOP still mainly supports Trump and pundits rate his chances of re-election at 70% … the gutless Dems have to start impeachment proceedings, to restore any semblance of democracy to the beleaguered population.

       Most likely the US political elites will resist reform until it’s too late and their sick establishment is burned to the ground by angry mobs (or climate change wildfire)
       • Brutus Iscariot 6.3.1.1

         21 January 2019 at 9:41 pm

         A lot can happen in 2 years.

         You’re overestimating his appeal to Republican politicians…most of them would rather be rid of him as he challenges their moronic neocon foreign policy. Fortunately for them they now have the Democrats pushing that barrow so can just bide their time and tolerate him until he goes senile…then install a more malleable Pence type.
         • soddenleaf 6.3.1.1.1

           22 January 2019 at 11:51 am

           Yes, a lot can happen. Smart people wanted a showdown with China, used their skills, money, leverage, to put anyone, just about anyone who could get the job done and get in. Trump. Did not matter he is a idiot. He went after China, that’s the big ticket item, that’s the point of Trump. Get that and a Democrat who bashes China is a shoe in, as Congress ain’t about to put stupidier to replace stupid, I.e president pEnce, they will be facing Trump, or another Republician come 2020. The leason is, do we really want big finance using big data to overrule a real debate about China and just force the issue upon us all, aka trump. Not saying they cant, just asking why we give up our data and so give up our democravy, Trumps win is the wakeup call. wakeup.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.4

     21 January 2019 at 5:58 pm

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office
     • soddenleaf 6.4.1

       22 January 2019 at 11:53 am

       but bush did not know, for quite a while after election day, that he’d won, so why is he tied?
       • Andre 6.4.1.1

         22 January 2019 at 12:28 pm

         Because the question of who had won was resolved before the normal inauguration day of January 20th. It’s been that date since 1937, being the first election after the twentieth amendment was adopted in 1933.

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration
7. ropata 7

   21 January 2019 at 6:06 pm

   Maybe Trump doesn’t know about the Southern Hemisphere

   Australia swelters in record temperatures with warmest ever night

   Roads melting, fish dying and bats falling from trees – this is what global warming looks like. Many records have been smashed during Australia’s latest heatwave. Most notably, on 17 January Noona in New South Wales recorded Australia’s warmest ever night with temperatures remaining above 35.9°C. Canberra has also had four consecutive days of temperatures above 40°C for the first time.
   • Jenny - How to get there? 7.1

     21 January 2019 at 11:09 pm

     It is the nights that are the telling thing.

     (How to measure climate change using just your body),

     The difference between day time temperatures and night time temperatures has been getting smaller and smaller.

     Winter or summer, freezing or sweltering, if you can wear the same amount of clothes during the night as you wore during the day and still feel comfortable, that is climate change.

     https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310080530.htm

     Be afraid, be very afraid.
     • Dennis Frank 7.1.1

       22 January 2019 at 12:47 pm

       “The emotional response to fear is highly personalized. Because fear involves some of the same chemical responses in our brains that positive emotions like happiness and excitement do, feeling fear under certain circumstances can be seen as fun, like when you watch scary movies. Some people are adrenaline junkies, thriving on extreme sports and other fear-inducing thrill situations. Others have a negative reaction to the feeling of fear, avoiding fear-inducing situations at all costs. Although the physical reaction is the same, fear may be perceived as either positive or negative, depending on the person.” https://www.verywellmind.com/the-psychology-of-fear-2671696

       So when you advise folks to take refuge in fear, you’re just as likely to encourage them to get off on climate change, as not…
       • Jenny - How to get there? 7.1.1.1

         25 January 2019 at 4:00 am

         Just as you say Dennis, the emotion of fear is a subjective experience. To some people fear can be paralyzing, and some mentally disturbed people may even, also as you say, “get off” on it.

         But more often than, ‘as not’, to the rational person, fear is a spur to action.

         “Courage is not the absence of fear”

         “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.”

         ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

         “I learned that courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not the one who does not feel afraid, but the one who conquers it.”

         ― Nelson Mandela
         • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.1.1

           25 January 2019 at 5:32 am

           Fair enough, Jenny. Probably best if we point out that fear is a typical reaction to these threats, and an entirely appropriate reaction, but we ought not to allow ourselves to become captured by it – because it can embed as an affliction if we do. So we should see it as a stage of response to transition through, eh? That then points us towards appropriate responses, both emotionally, and attitudes and activities we can move forward with…
           • Jenny - How to get there? 7.1.1.1.1.1

             25 January 2019 at 7:23 am

             +1

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS