its hard to take AGW and Copenhagen gabfest scaremongering seriously, when the IPCC boss is fighting to keep his job and IPCC reports are outed as half baked opinion peices by vested interests,isnt it ?

Maybe we need some independent voices that don't have to be popular to be heard.

Oh, right you are then.

If you had been reading on the real science, you would be noting just how quickly the AGW priests at the IPCC are having to concede their argument is breaking up under them: unlike the Earth's ice shelf, which is not even receding.

Yes there is climate change, there always has been, no, there is no AGW that we have to worry or tax ourselves to starvation over. [Leighton Smith had a great shot at the warmists just after 11.00am on ZB this morning, I recommend you listen via that stations 'listen to the last week' function.] Sufia will be fine: the media and no doubt her idiot teachers just need to stop scaring her with tales of an Armageddon that is never going to happen.

Did you see the opening floor show at Copenhagen? Children crying because they've been scared out of their wits by clueless adults who should know better. Copenhagen was a disgrace in conception, but at least had the grace to be an utter failure, which was a victory for common sense.

So how can we fix this problem?

Overthrow government, implement a constitution enshrining the property rights of individuals, including to their own damned incomes, institute a minarchist government whose sole mandate is to protect the individual from the initiation of force and fraud: that is to protect freedom, rather than putting up with governments being the greatest obstacle to it.

Otherwise she may not inherit the land that we want to leave her.

Are I see the problem: you are working under the belief we still have rights to private property in New Zealand.

What's that noise? Oh yes, a bunch of utilitarians banging away again.

I've been away from here for a couple of months, and the place is falling apart Bernard. And the new editing function doesn't take a poster back to their post.

I agree that a the hype and fervour around global warming is distorting the truth, but i don't think that we need to stop encouraging clean tech because of that.

As they say, the stone age didn't finish because they ran out of stones. The move to clean tech should be made because we can do better than hydrocarbons.
There are vested interests on both sides of the argument, but no one in their right mind would argue that pollution of the earth is something we should accept without question.

The author wasn't speaking simply to the climate change issue - but rather to the broader issue of running down the assets (both built and natural) more generally.

So, AGW skeptics - you are right - another +/- 2 degrees is a indeed mute point once the fish in the oceans are gone, the bees, birds and butterflys are reduced in number and the freshwater supplies run dry.

@ Mr Hubbard

There are people who think that being mindful of ecological damage is something to be evaluated in terms of their own personal economic situation, and others who would quite happily forgo any societal progress if it causes any damage whatsoever, with a bell curve mapping roughly how many people believe in each side.

Personally i don't believe that Mr Gore is any more despicable than Mr Exxon and vice versa and that they both have evidence to back their positions and that both positions are going to cost Mr AverageJoe in the long run.

I can't help thinking though, that we can be brave and take a punt on moving forward (Mr Gore) or we can timidly try to hold on to what we have now at the risk of it all falling down around our ears. I don't expect either road to be perfect but i'd rather have a crack at a better world rather than stick with this one out of fear.

Firstly, isn't it sad and despicable that children have been filled with AGW propaganda in school and frightened. Its also a pity that sincere and intelligent environmentalists have been sidetracked into the AGW dogma. Surely there are more important and pressing issues facing our world than becoming hysterical about a small degree of temperature change. How about concentrating on reducing pollution, growing food crops instead of biofuel crops and clean accessible water for the world's people for a start?
It is very sad that "Science" has been bought by economic and political interests. It has been now revealed that world temperature data has been manipulated and destroyed , papers of peers have been suppressed, pressure has been brought to bear at editorial level in scientific magazines not to print certain views.

According to the IPCC own now allegedly exaggerated figures, the warming effect of AGW 0 .43F. in 10 years This is based on there being 388 ppmv CO2. at present and we are adding 2ppmv a year. After 10 years there would be 408 ppmv.

If all the cuts that the Copenhagen Accord would like to be implemented were implemented (resulting ineffectively shutting down 1/3 of Western economies) then CO2 concentration would increase not by 20ppmv (if we did nothing) but by 18.5ppmv..resulting in a warming forestalled of 0.04 F.

Read, investigate and seek answers for yourselves.
Do we hear that the Great Barrier Reef has recovered? No
Do we hear that the threatened extinction of species is not happening? NO
Do we hear that the Himalayan Glaciers are behaving normally ?NO
Do we hear that ice thickness is increasing? NO
The mainstream media have been complicit in publishing any wild claim of doom and destruction that has been made. At the same time they have ignored or vilified voices of reason, eminent scientists and other thinkers who have another view.

The father of the scientific method in 11 century Iraq, wrote " the seeker after truth does not place his trust in any mere consensus, however broad and however venerable.
Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and to measurement, scrutiny and verification... the road to truth is long and hard but that is the road we must follow.

"With great embarrassment the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand has been forced to release it's raw temperature data, but they have no record of why and when any adjustments were made to this data.(dog ate my homework excuse?) Yet again, it appears climate scientists are re-writing the temperature history of the world.

The story was reported yesterday by Scoop: Sci-Tech Independent News under the heading, "˜NIWA CAUGHT WITH PANTS DOWN.' "˜Scoop' explains that because New Zealand's climate data adjustments cannot be verified (peer-reviewed) they are worthless.

The story goes:

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings."

So. lets see temperatures did not rise in the raw data but did in the "adjusted" data.
The adjusted data was submitted to the IPCC as part of the world "adjusted data" from other sources who also "lost" raw data or refused to reveal it.
Is this the solid. settled, peer reviewed science on which forms the basis of the scaremongering and huge tax scam on the peoples of the world?
Never mind the little changes to your property tax, folks, wait till the AGW taxes start kicking in.

Sorry, Mark don't know how to do a link. Go to climategate.com. I came across the article there, 3rd article down.
They have a link to Scoop.

Cheers Prosperopink.

Wally,

or highlight the http:// link

CTRL-C key combo to copy

CTRL-V key combo to paste

(for those who prefer keyboards to mice)

Thanks Gibber and Wally...I've got a Mac but I'll try what you suggest.
I've just sent poor Jack to do his own research, without proper links. Mind you thats how you stumble across interesting stuff!

Geoff Simmons of Infometrics says
''We need the ability to turf out governments, but a three-year electoral cycle raises the discount rate of politicians, so they rarely act in our long-term interests.''
Many would agree. On behalf of the taxpayer, how can a mere 120 politicians keep track off the spending of many thousands of bureaucrats? It is not possible.
Each department needs scrutiny at all levels even to the lowest spending level.
So create mini audit ''parliaments'' of locally elected volunteer taxpayer citizens guided by a chartered accountant perhaps and economic principles courtesy of NZIER Kerry MacDonald to stymie [veto] unwanted departmental spending. Then the spending goes down. Then the taxpayer rules. As it should be.

Here's the article on Climategate:

http://www.climategate.com/now-kiwigate-new-zealand-climatologists-destr...

But it is only one of many pieces coming out now, showing the IPCC and the priests supplying it, utterly discredited. Even some of the mainstream media are finally taking note: BBC, and several of the bigger news services out of the US all becoming much more critical, and actually looking dispassionately at the issue, showing up the lies we've been fed as peer reviewed science, at last.

And yet, given this, what a pity the chumps who rule over us in the Hive have just signed us up to Copenhagen:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-signs-copenhagen-accord-climate-change-1...

That and our ETS: what a sick joke.

Fire the communist Smith. Fire them all. No one in parliament in any of the parties elected present solutions for better life for Kiwis, indeed, they are the main obstacles ...

What I am finding is that I simply cannot keep up with the scandals about AGW; and furthermore there does not seem to be any one who can; there are a few good sites that post links to the latest stuff but they soon drop down the page and it is hard to remember them.

The sickening thing is that the alarmist brigade has legions of people paid by the taxpayer to make the argument for the other side; why can't some brave center-right government start a few bureaucratic offices dedicated to "the other side of the argument" and why shoudn't a government be obliged to do this? The Republicans in the USA are about the only people who do anything of the sort. Here and in most other countries the bureaucracies are wall-to-wall big government and one-world-government lefties. When the Left is in government, they support each other; and when some other party is in government, the bureacracies fight it and divert it from its rightful objectives every inch of the way. John Tamihere had this nailed in that "Investigate" interview a few years ago.