Post RSS Feed 
Podcast Feed
Opinion: Why agriculture needs to be included in NZ’s ETS
September 25th, 2009
By Infometrics economist Adolf Stroombergen
Once again we hear Federated Farmers bleating about the potential burden placed on them by an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), proclaiming that farmers are doing all they can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hence any carbon charge on agriculture would be pointless. Rubbish.
A price on carbon has two main effects on an industry. Firstly, it provides an incentive for producers to change the way they do business – using less carbon intensive inputs, adopting new production processes and so on. Secondly, and to the extent that the aforementioned actions do not negate the costs of the carbon charge, it eventually leads to an increase in output prices. This price change is what prompts consumers to change the mix of goods and services that they buy – again away from carbon intensive goods.
The claim by Federated Farmers seems to deal with only the first effect. Is it plausible? Farmers, like the rest of us, behave in accordance with personal preferences and market prices. If prices change, so does behaviour, even if it takes some time to see measurable impacts. One of the reasons that New Zealand agriculture is efficient is that it responds to market prices. To argue that farmers can’t or won’t react to a carbon price is an insult to most farmers.
The second effect, that of higher prices causing a reduction in demand, is of course precisely what a carbon charge is intended to do. Arguing that agriculture should not be part of this mechanism has as much merit as arguing that it should not pay ACC premiums linked to its accident rate, or that it should not face fines for polluting waterways.
In agriculture there is actually a third, probably dominant way that a carbon charge has an effect: namely the effect on the price of land. The price of land equals the discounted value of expected farm profits after all other costs have been paid. So, to the extent that higher costs cannot be passed on in the form of higher output prices, agricultural land values will fall. Seem familiar? The same thing happened when Supplementary Minimum Prices were abolished in the mid 1980s. Did agricultural production collapse? Certainly not.
Faced with lower land prices some farmers may be forced to sell. Arguably there might be a case for compensation in those cases, but a new purchaser will buy the land at a lower price and in most cases continue to farm it as profitably as before. There will be some instances where land use will change, for example from agriculture to forestry, but again this is precisely the desired effect of a carbon charge; to move resources (in this case land) from more carbon intensive activities to less carbon intensive activities – even better if the new use is carbon absorptive activities such as forestry.
So even if individual farmers are doing all they can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and won’t be persuaded by a carbon charge to do other things (which seems a dubious claim), given New Zealand’s Kyoto commitment, the agriculture sector as a whole is probably somewhat too large in the following sense: Reducing the country’s carbon emissions involves some cost, but in the long run our standard of living will be less negatively affected if agriculture is fully included in the ETS and land use is allowed to respond to relative price signals, than if agriculture is exempt from the ETS.
Having made that general point, our own research shows that there is merit in provisional assistance to various industries, including agriculture, in order to allow time for new technologies that reduce emissions to be developed. However, this is not an argument for exemption from an ETS, nor even for delayed entry. It is an argument for some temporary allocation of free emission rights. Agriculture, like other industries, should face the correct price incentives to reduce emissions.
It is pleasing to see therefore that the changes to the ETS announced by the government earlier in the week don’t exempt agriculture, although the entry date on January 2015 seems on the generous side. More puzzling is the very slow phase out of industry support – all the way to 2050. This is such a long horizon that, quite apart from the fact that it can hardly be considered transitional, has almost no credibility.
No one in industry or agriculture is going to believe that future governments will be tied to such a policy for such a long time. I cannot think of an analogous situation. It would have been much better to plan for a phase out over a decade or so, with a broader base of political support. The self-interested myopic hot air from some in the agricultural sector has fortunately been given little credence. Let’s hope that those advocating a phase out of assistance to 2050 ultimately receive the same reaction.
________________
* Infometrics is an economic information and forecasting company based in Wellington. To find out more, see its website here. This piece first appeared in the Dominion Post on September 19, 2009.
Tags: Adolf Stroombergen, Agriculture, Emmissions Trading Scheme, ETS, Infometrics
You may also like to read:
Loading ...
September 25th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Spot on, Adolf. Couldn’t have said it better myself
September 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Prove anthropogenic global warming, Adolf (mentioning the indisputable fact that the Earth has been cooling for ten years (since 1998).
Even if you could prove this (hint, you can’t), prove what difference to climate change the costs borne by NZ in our ‘comprehensive ETS’ (Green Queen Nick Smith) will make to climate change (hint: nothing), supposedly for the better. The actual level of difference it will make please? I want numbers from you.
Once you find you are wrong, in the face of the above questions, answer why you are advocating a considerable decline in the standard of living of all Kiwis in the face of this?
Look at historical farm profitability figures, all sectors, and quantify for me how much the ETS as passed is going to affect future profitability. [The Green Party are incapable of such quantification.] Prove, with figures, we still have a viable agricultural sector after the implementation of an ETS on agriculture from 2015? Numbers please.
I note from today’s Press that DOC has had to stop it’s wilding pine program because the ETS legislation doesn’t differentiate between a tree and a weed: bill, $811,000.
Treasury is stating the costs of this ETS are woefully researched (and that’s something coming from Treasury)!
… the blinkered leading the bloody stupid.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Mark: You Ian Wishart-loving climate change deniers seem remarkably similar to creationists. It doesnt matter that the vast majority of scientists, plus the UN and all responsible governments, now accept the reality of anthropogenic climate warming. You demand precise figures in a complex field where the numbers will always be subject to generalisations and revision.
Plus do you think John Key & the Nats are woolly-headed tree huggers? Hardly. They realise that any country that thumbs their nose at international protocols and chooses to steer its tiny canoe off on its own course in the vast Pacific is pretty quickly going to get invited to do just that.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Not good enough Philly – Key’s a pragmatist of the worse sort, don’t let anything he does confuse you into thinking he acts on principle. As for the UN and the bureaucratic IPCC: both are jokes – the UN is an utterly ineffectual (thank God), useless, self servicing monstrosity. There are now enough peer reviewed scientific studies to cast extreme doubt on any type of anthropogenic global warming.
If Infometrics are going to advocate greater costs of living for myself, and the severe impairment of the economy in which I make my living, then I want much better than this.
I want the true costs of this ETS quantified so that I can study them. And I want to be able to study such costs, in the context of the supposed advantages that are to be achieved.
To advocate our ETS in absence of this is unethical and irresponsible. Including most certainly by our government and their chief luddite, Nick Smith.
For those of you, including Adolf, who advocate the diminishment of my standard of living, then the onus is squarely on you to prove to me these facts, the onus is not on the the deniers camp.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Let me get this straight. I can get paid to leave land to revert to scrub?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I don’t wish to waste my time slinging arguments one way or the other regarding Global Warming but have all you readers (and Adolf) read this article in the NZ Herald today? I think it speaks for itself… oh, one other thing – I think we pay enough taxes already, do you really want to pay more tax for the ETS???? And Philly, the vast majority of Scientists 1000 years ago thought the earth was flat – they were wrong!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/video.cfm?c_id=2&gal_cid=2&gallery_id=107624
September 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
the thing that gets me is that………… if there is AGW(&i dont believe there is) …..how did some guppy (or group of guppies) decide on the Ruminants(sheep/cow)effect on AGW? from what i read they only look at the “problem from 1 side of the equation..i.e what comes out of the animal…they take little of no a/c of the carbon content in the grass eaten and carbon stored in animal product etc..the methane expelled will retun to c02 in about 8 years any way to be absorbed by grass and complete the cycle..
other things to think about..
how much carbon tax do the arabs (oil producers pay)? we the end user pays here. but in the case of farming the tax is paid at source.
C02 is actually a fertiliser(they pump it into greenhouses to help plants grow!)more CO2 means more food production
the total number of stock units in N Z has actually declined since 1990(each stock unit has become more productive however) so there should be no liability anyway
Mark… with regard to poor research on the ETS and our reponse to AGW…I have to agree ..we have cobbled together a “Mickey Mouse” scheme to keep the global community happy with us with little thought to the downstream consequences…
Didnt Cullen initially say we would make big $$ out of the KYOTO protocol!
September 25th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Mark: Wow! Even more extreme. If that is possible! You now remind me of the “quantify for me the direct causation between smoking and lung cancer” brigade! Even Bernard’s friend Roger Kerr (the BRT one, not the rational one) accepts the need for some form of carbon management. Congratulations for moving beyond him, you create a new end point for the political continuum!
Kind regards
September 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
ListentotheLion, you sod, I was counting on that, the earth being flat.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Wally : It is flat where I live !
September 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Hey Philly , how is it possible to have an end point on a continuum ?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
thanks Wally – I thought that one up all by myself *_*
September 25th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
How do I get paid for not farming?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Mark 100’s of examples worldwide- here just one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR3Y3cToUnc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvst
People like you, who do not accept climate change should at least follow the scenario explained in the film and not speak against. I think your view on this issue is wrong.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Wally: In the EU, farmers get paid for leaving land fallow. Sound tempting?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I don’t care for your spurious ‘he believes she believes’ nonsense, Philly. I’ve read a lot of the science, including some peer reviewed articles against AGW.
But even that’s not the point. Again, repeat: those of you who seek to diminish my standard of living via an ETS, must be able to give me:
The actual cost of an ETS – (why can’t they do this)?
The benefits to be gained for this cost?
The onus is on those seeking to impose these costs to prove the why and wherefores: not the other way around.
Don:
the total number of stock units in N Z has actually declined since 1990(each stock unit has become more productive however) so there should be no liability anyway
Not only that. Think, over the last 10,000 years how many species have become extinct: bison, etc. The number of ruminants now populating the earth is minuscule in comparison to historical epochs.
But all that is only mere interest. There is no AGW; even if there was, NZ’s ETS would not affect it in the slightest.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Walter : Check out the feedback to the first link . Seems Mark has many many friends , in this debate . Bit of an own goal , WK !
September 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
To be fair Philly, there have been some dodgy goings on in the scientific community.
I am not a “denier” of the possibility of AGW but I think that any science should never be considered as ” settled” and must continue to be open to attempts to prove and disprove various theories and to examine evidence and data in a scientific manner. We can never say this it it.. Its quite scary actually to have opposing groups of so called expert scientists on both sides of the debate all contradicting, opposing and discrediting each others data and credentials. That in itself is bad enough but now that I read Goldman Sachs are becoming increasingly involved in the Carbon Credit business my alarm bells are ringing all right.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Roger: re end point in continuum.
Why, bien entendu! President Buchanan (led to the Civil War in the US) was widely accepted as the most incompetent president of all time, to judge incompetence against. All presidents were assessed between him & FDR or Geo Washington. eg Reagan was seen as more at the FDR end than the Buchanan end. But then along came Dubya and moved the peg. Ergo, the end point of the continuum has moved.
Comprendez, mon ami?
September 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Prosperolink: Sure, we shouldn’t blindly accept science. However, when 99% of scientists accept AGW, I tend to move in that direction. I think the Marks of this world are starting to look a bit like those Americans who go to museums in the mid-west where they show dinosaurs gambolling with people. A la Fred Flinstone.
Mark: I love the “bisons are extinct” argument! Gave me the biggest laff of the day! Brilliant!
September 25th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
mon Dieu , mademoiselle ! Entente cordiale .
September 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Roger not a good one ??!!
Considering the small number of people of this world are informed/ educated – to be among a minority isn’t wrong – so I don’t care about feedback.
Roger, why not give a productive comment ? It seems some people are in a “Friends Club” here.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Diminished vastly in numbers, Philly, and many thousands of species extinct.
I note that in not one of your arguments above you have supplied anything that looks like a fact, or a costing ….
As was Adolf’s original article completely bereft of.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
99 % of scientists accept AGW ? Please back that up with proof !
September 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Hey Mark: After Ian Wishart’s enlightened talk to farmers here (why farmers, I wonder?) recently, a creationist climate-change denier put a letter in the paper denying also that sea levels are rising! Are you in that camp too? How about acidification of the oceans caused by carbon dioxide increases? Do you deny that? How about increase of CO2 in the atmosphere itself? Another lefty conspiracy by communist scientists? I’m still seeing how far I can re-peg the end of the continuum
Best regards, entertaining thread this one!
September 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Mark: I’m deeply disappointed that you resiled from your “bison-are-extinct” theory. Don’t move my peg again please.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
ocean currents are the main cause of global temperature fluctuation (apart from catastrophic events such as asteroid strikes or mega volcanoes in the past)
September 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Show me, link me, to the hard data Philly.
You most especially cannot prove sea levels are rising. And if you think you can by citing a small group of islands sinking in the Pacific (due to movement of tectonic plates) explain how they are sinking, yet there is no recorded rise in ocean level of neighbouring Island groups, or, for that matter, on the appropriate seaboards of North and South America or Africa – given you don’t get the water rising in one specific area of an ocean, it all must rise uniformly.
So, again, hard facts please: numbers for MAN-MADE global warming.
I put it to you the situation is this:
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/obama_global_warming/2009/09/23/263810.html
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
Let’s get this straight. The planet is not warming. Hasn’t warmed since around 1998. Instead, it’s cooling, and scientists say that it’s going to continue to cool for at least the next 20 or 30 years. Some even warn that based on the lack of sunspots evidenced on the sun’s surface, a reliable indicator of future climates, we may be on the verge of another little ice age.
The global warming alarmists assure us that we shouldn’t worry — global warming has simply gone on vacation and will surely be back, hotter than ever, sooner or later.
I’ll tell you where global warming is hiding. It has taken refuge in the computer models where it was first discovered and where it has been since.
We are assured that the alleged warming of our planet is being caused by an overabundance of CO2 — nasty old carbon dioxide upon which nature, plant life, and we thrive.
It’s alleged to hover somewhere in the atmosphere, allowing heat from the sub to penetrate the surface of the earth and blocking it from leaving the atmosphere.
Right now, atmospheric levels of CO2 are skyrocketing, and have been for the last 10 years. That being the case, the earth should be warming dramatically. But it isn’t. It’s getting cooler and has been since around the year 2000.
Those are the facts. Yet Barack Obama and all the global warming crazies gathered around Al Gore want to impose something called a cap-and-trade measure now languishing in the Senate which would cost billions, send thousands of jobs overseas, and put a burden of thousands of dollars on U.S. families, all to prevent something that isn’t happening and can’t happen.
Whom the Gods would destroy, they first drive mad.
© 2009 Newsmax.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
99% of scientists accept AGW? = BU:LSH;T
September 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
If we have global warming why are we subsidising insulation in housing ??
Agree with the others Philly — 99% is absolute rubbish.
Adolf should declare his interest. I believe he might have been a reviewer of the economic chapter in the IPCC reports.
Some of the more interesting people to listen to are the scientists that have been high up in the universities , research units etc that have recently left or retired and are now coming out and saying they don’t agree with AGW. Their pay cheque or research grants didn’t allow them to speak freely before but now they can and many were “in the thick” of all the climate research. So they know what they are talking about.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Yes, where is Adolf to defend his contention my cost of living must be escalated, and my farming clients must see their meager profits decimated?
I’m dying to say he seems to have retreated to the bunker, but then, that would be bad taste, so I couldn’t say that, could I Iain.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Mark, Roger any comment on my second youtube video above. Here is is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvst
Mark, Kaikoura’s foreshore is eroding fast and tectonic plates are lifting the peninsula.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
re my 99%. What is the point of asking for precise figures, & then rubbishing them when they are provided? Play fair please! If you focus on burbles from the Bjorn Limborgs & Augie Auers, then of course it likes pretty much 50:50 in the scientific community. Observing an overview of scientists reporting in (say) Science, Nature, SciAm or New Sci shows my 99% to be reasonable, tho no doubt not precise or quantified enuf for Mark. Of course they are part of the UN-sponsored woolly-woofter conspiracy, we know that! (I thought I would say that b4 you guys!)
Hey, how about some support from the scientifically-minded out there? I seem to have stirred up a hornets’ nest here!
Toodle pip
September 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Kaikoura’s foreshore is eroding fast and tectonic plates are lifting the peninsula.
Like the Dover Coast and all coast areas since, oh, advent of coastlines. It’s called erosion.
and tectonic plates are lifting the peninsula
So what? Are you saying global warming is sucking them up or something?
Philly, where are those facts? I’m on holiday from tomorrow so need them now.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
The only person gaining from the Global Warming debate is Al Gore. When his “An Inconvenient Truth” was first released he was worth about 3 million. Today he is worth near 100 million. (can’t provide a link for this but read this in a news report a while back)
I’m all for pollution being reduced, but I think we’re all being hoodwinked regarding carbon dioxide being the number one culprit. My science teacher at school taught me that plants love carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Lets make as much carbon dioxide as we can and “get the Whanau together, stay in a bach, crack open the chilly bin and slap on your jandels” and watch the plants grow…
September 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
To use your own words – not good enough Mark.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
In what way not good enough?
Erosion: do you deny it? With a bucket of sand and a glass of water I can prove it to you. Hard facts via experiment.
Or are you seriously trying to tell me global warming has an affect on tectonic plates?
You’re on thin ice, Mr Kunz, and not via global warming. You need some serious facts to shore up your position.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Ah so , the 99 % figure wasn’t a truth , inconvenient that , just a throwaway line . Hmmmmmm !
Walter my computer won’t download your videos , an old steam driven Dell . But I did read the feedback comments to link # 1 . And you are saying that they are irrelevant , because those people are not informed , not clued-in as perhaps your good self , and Philly ?
Our planet is dynamic , it changes , irrespective of us . Mountains erode and create plains , glaciers retreat , coastlines ebb and flow , volcanoes go mental . It happens . We are not in a time-capsule .
September 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Dear Adolph, start adding more taxes and take the miniscule money I earn now from farming and I just wont. I dont have much of a mortgage, so dropping land values and debt wont help me. Fertiliser heading through the roof. Farming is knackered anyway. If you believe in global warming you probably believe in peak oil. Peak oil spells the death of my farming production.
Will growing scrub or trees pay for your namby pamby lifestyle. Try mine for a few days, then you might think again. I do real work. Get your hands dirty stuff. Sweat. Stuff that pays for your lifestyle. What do you export? What do you make to sell. Who do you feed. I feed thousands. Check out the meat in your sandwich. Like it. The sunday roast. Your next cappucino.
If we dont grow it here, it will be grown somewhere overseas using more nitrogen more of everything. We are some of the most sustainable farmers in the world. For now. While the oil lasts.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Mark, Roger there are signs of climate changes. All I’m saying is we are obvioulsy uncertain of “Men made” climate changes. To have a reasonable answer and future for the next generation we should adapt this scenario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvst
..and please Mark don’t put words in my mouth I said climate change not global warming.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Don M makes what I think is the most important point in the whole debate.
Is it a producer tax or and end user tax?
It appears to be end users for Oil but producers for agriculture.
Take the alumium smelter, CO2 is produced from the Carbon anodes that conduct the electricity to melt the Bauxite. The electricity is produced with carbon free hydro. Most of the production is exported but NZ is liable for the CO2 thats produced. Is the aim to close the smelter, transfer the production to China where the electricity is produced with coal and import the alumium we need at a cheaper price than the stuff we produce because China production is Tax free?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Didn’t the ‘tax’, oops, I mean ’scientific thesis’, start off as “Global Warming” but has now evolved into “Climate Change”? That certainly broadens the evolution theory…
September 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Don M – “the total number of stock units in N Z has actually declined since 1990(each stock unit has become more productive however) so there should be no liability anyway”
The real increase Greenhouse Gas Emmissions in NZ is not driven solely by the absolute number of Ruminant animals, but with the combination of the narrow menu of tucker we feed them and un-intelligent use of nitrogen fert [Urea]… which promotes Excessive Methane and Nitrous Oxide [Mega nasty GHG's]
personal example: When I enjoy a sunday Lamb Roast, my wfie complains about excessive emmissions… but if I curry that lamb… negligable emmissions, happy wife.
Farmers need to get their Heads around understanding their Soil…and Farming sustainably.
Consider this… All Soil started life on this planet as Rocks…Compounds of Elements in the periodic table of Elements evolution of [Plant] life has made them what they are today… Think of your Soil as a Bank account… and Nitroen Fert. as a Credit Card.
At some point you are going to need to chop up the Creditcard… and live within your means.
Otherwise you are going to do it hard… or at least your kids.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Yeah, listen to the lion, Mr Kuntz.
And the man on your Youtube is wrong. He’s ignoring the facts of reality – there is no AGW, and thus is advocating world-wide depression, loss of living standards, the permanent relegation of the entire third world to on-going poverty, in a word, Ludditism, on a MAY-BE, that is not a may-be, for there is AGW.
… and, just as important, even if he were right, NZ’s ETS will have nil, zilch, zero effect on the climate. So, given that, you tell tell me why we burden ourselves with this useless cost, and allow the State even further into our lives?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
You are all over the place, sorry Mark, that’s the end of talking to you on this issue have a warm, relaxing weekend on the beach watching icebergs going past with polar bears on it.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Maybe these might help, or…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2669207/Climate-change-down-to-nature
Sunspots spell end of climate myth
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/713743
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/31/opinion-nz-needs-to-watch-australian-carbon-tax-moves/#comment-31352
(Have a good break Mark.)
September 25th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
That second article is right on the money Les. I wish Adolf, Gareth (Morgan), and the Green Party’s Nick Smith, woud read it.
(Cheers: going to the Marlborough Sounds to see if I can see Mr Kuntz’s polar beers through the bottom of a wine bottle.)
September 25th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Don’t mix the grape and the grain, Mark ( are hops grain? Whatever..!)..Freudian slip with the beers ? We’ll be waiting for your return…….
September 25th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
grape and the grain
I can mix beer and whisky, with no repercussions.
I can mix wine and whisky, with no repercussions.
But I can’t mix wine, beer, and whisky, without a hangover.
That’s probably what you mean Harriet.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“global warming” or “climate change” theories are a load of rubbish we don’t need a ETS fullstop its simply the result decades of propaganda taught in our schools finally coming home to roost ( like another theory I know of) It has become the new religion with men in white coats as the preists saying we are all doomed to destruction and the only way to be saved is by putting our faith in the global warming theory and reducing our carbon emmisions this is the new way the new truth and the new life. I for one would rather put my faith in the religion the western world was built on not the one that is going to bring it down.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Im not paying the ETS, at $125 a hectare and climbing to $350 a hectare, Im wasting my time farming. This just another bloody tax. get stuffed I already pay a heap of tax,privately educate my children,have health insurance pay my Children’s university fees, Dr fees and so on.
My stock levels are below my 1990 levels,I use no Nitrogen, i plant at least 1000 trees a year and yet Im getting screwed.
Mean while a friend with 15 houses in the poor part of town, with an average value of 300k just got a govt grant of 40k to insulate them + because he’s on the community services card he gets an extra 500 bucks.
Go to hell this will kill farming, dont take it personally Adolf but I dont think you have a clue, of the impact of this legislation. Ive got a feeling that by 2013 NZ will be facing a very different reality anyway. I can restructure my assets to pay less tax but choose to pay my share but enough is enough.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
The reality is that this issue is long past the “correctness” of the science. Its now all money and politics.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Ross I agree it is difficult to get accurate information. On many occasions and especially in the past industries/ governments invested money developing propaganda programs for their dirty actions and quite often nature pays the price.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I agree Ross. The late Dr Michael Crichton gave a thought provoking speech some years ago about the Religion of Environmentalism.
Quoting the last paragraph…. “Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.”
September 25th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Les : Excellent links . Let us clean up our act , but not crush our economic system in the process .
Mark : Mix anything you want . After this afternoon’s entertainment , you deserve the right to R&R on your terms .
Walter : That movement on your techtonic plate may just be an extremely rare steak …………… mooooooooooo !
September 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Can someone please tell me, who is going to get all the money out of this circus. I cannot work out who will get all the loot. New World Order, just another new form of Government tax, Gore and associates, the Jewish nation, some for the UN to redistribute ( Helen loves to redistribute) job creation for the millions of bureaucrats to administer the scheme, dictators in stuffed corrupt African nations. I dont know who, but someone is going to get VERY rich out of this. Please tell me who it is!
September 25th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Sorry ,totally off topic, but did anyone else think John Key’s appearance on the Letterman show was a joke? There seems to have been a lot of positive talk on it, but I just think its hard for us to be taken seriously as a country with a cheap stunt like that?
Maybe I am being harsh, maybe we need to take every opportunity we have, and move away form the formal statesman role? Maybe in this day and age a Prime Minister can be a media star?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Bobby — carbon trading will become the new derivatives. So the Goldman Sachs traders etc will be the winners. This is what Gore is really up to.
The US introduced a sulphur dioxide cap and trade system in the early 90s. Who was the biggest lobbyist and then participant ? –Enron.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Thanks for that Ross. I had a suspicion that Gore and related parties were behind a lot of this. I wonder if some of Gores backers will be coming over from the movie business because this will be where the real big money is about to be made.I would love to see some of the names behind the scheme. It would most likely make your hair stand on end! No one in New Zealand we should be looking sideways at is there?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Gore’s idiot movie was small fry. On the back of the global warming hysteria he raised, and through his investment arm of companies (and I did at one stage have all the linkages and information on this) he has made himself into a billionaire, with, moreover, a carbon fortprint as big as the continent of Africa.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Its ironic that the big energy business interests so despised by the green lobby, have in the end won by stealth. They have captured the fervor of the environmentalists and harnessed it for their own ends. By capturing the integrity of scientists and promoting the creation of fear and misconception they are in the exquisite position of standing to benefit from the ultimate global tax. Namely the taxing of the entire human race for the privilege of simply existing.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
What a relief to see that common sense has prevailed in this debate… if only the sheeple could see…
September 25th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Did you know that we are in an extended solar minimum (least amount of sunspot activity) the longest and deepest this century. A period of approx 7 years. Interesting that Mark’s scientests have recorded earth’s cooling activity for a similiar period of time.
Recent photographic evidence suggests a possible increase in activity and the beginning of the 24th recorded sunspot cycle. My bones tell me that the earth’s temperature will rise if this cycle is beginning. That will play into Philly’s camp although I think her camp won’t attribute the blame on the sun.
How arrogant are humans to think we have such an influence on the big picture.
How selfish are we to want to control the earth’s climate for our own ends.
The dinosaur’s were around for 180 million odd years and they had plenty of CO2. Almost makes me want to say the sooner we have gone the better, but I won’t.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Mark, I think Gores movie was just another brick in the wall and since then more bricks are added on a daily basis. What I meant about the movie business is that some of the wealthiest names in America run the movie industry( remember Marlon Brandos comments years ago) might be before your time, as well as having control of many other major business interests world wide. Sure Gore has done well as the puppet master but the really big boys are coming in for the major killing when they judge the time is right. Just need to get the peasants thinking that they are the heros and that they will save us all. Will all happen sooner than later.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
This wikipidea article summarises the positions broadly taken on global warming by scientific bodies etc throughout the world. It is very detailed and is exhaustively referenced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
As it states in the intro with regard to global warming attributed to human activities:
‘Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions’.
But hell what would all of these scientific bodies know??? Bunch of know-nothing doomers!
September 25th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
For the first time in 20 years we have been snowed in (ie can’t get over the hill)in September. But hey what do we know…this is the global warming that feels colder, looks colder but is actually warmer. Some climate computer modelers said so.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Andy, I repeat, please tell me who is going to get all the money. As sure as day follows night somebody is going to make a fortune that will eclipse any other schemes before it. As ‘prosperopink’ says its a real well thought out scheme. I am 63 and have never seen one this big before. The oil shock scheme was chicken poop compared to this baby. The banking scandal the same. This is the big one. A world tax on everyone! Forget country taxes, a World tax. Now that is a real doozy that one.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I am not arguing one way or another as to the ETS. You can argue the merits or otherwise of the scheme till the cows come home. I am merely shooting down the nonsense that there is no concensus about global warming amongst interested scientists. The concensus is overwhelming. Get over it. By all means argue about what the ETS means – but please spare us this talk of widespread dissentions within the scientific community, its bullsheet.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
When they wind down the productive sector and the food production through taxing farming in the name of globle warming you will be sentencing millions to death through starvation every one needs to eat you can’t eat pine trees or carbon credits adof needs to get his head out of the sand if he gets his way he can have a job on my farm working something I don’t think he knows any thing about
September 25th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Andy..there are about 30000 scientists around the wold who think AGW is bullsheet.May be the “intereted scientists” you talk of are just that…………………………interested in ………………….getting a pay cheque!
http://www.leightonsmith.co.nz/site/reference_article/global_science_or_global_panic/
September 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Andy, you might call it consensus. Some call it coercion. Respected scientists have been pilloried, lost funding and ostracised for daring to even want to discuss their scientific findings if they don’t tow the line. Many ordinary people think of the IPCC as a group of international scientists . It is, in fact, a panel of bureaucrats who serve their political masters by employing and rewarding scientists who come up with the desired “answers’.
I’m sorry, people who question AGW are not just being some sort of deluded deniers
who need to “get over it”. They are thinking people who can see the huge con that is being perpetrated against humanity, especially the poor of the earth.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
One day, after they have assessed the carbon plus/minus of cows and smokestacks, government will place a value on human life based on their carbon footprint. Each of our activities; from what we consume, to how much methane and carbon dioxide we produce, will be balanced against our value. Farmers will be compared to bankers – the former taxed for the consumptive nature of their occupation. The latter, on the other hand, will receive carbon rebates for riding their Segways to the office, using no more energy than that required to power a laptop and a mobile cell charger. It’s madness.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Global warming – I’m open minded and don’t take an extrerme doctrinaire approach on it but I DO think the present weight of evidence points to a human role in global warming. And even were the likelihood of it low (and I believe the likelihood that human activity has contributed to global warming is at least medium), as the consequences are high then we are talking about a relatively high risk issue.
And I think whether or not NZ is a significant contributor to global emissions is irrelevant. The approach must be comprehensive. If we said only the really big polluters needed to pay then that would ignore the cumuative effect that lots of smaller countries make to emissions.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Matt before we start taxing people ..lets get the science/facts right …sheep & cows dont contibute to AGW.end of story..
the “weight of evidence” as you put it can be misleading
i didnt pick you for a fence sitter
cheers don
September 25th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I would also add that regardless of global warming I think a lot of the initiatives proposed to curb emissions will be good for humans and the environment anyway. For example, cleaning up car emission standards and reducing reliance on private vehicle trips can only be good for urban air quality, with associated health and amenity benefits.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Don – the article you quote is entirely unreferenced. Please provide the original link to the data on these 30,000 scientists, and information on their fields of expertise/their qualifications etc and data on how their opinions were canvassed.
PP – the only con being perpetrated here is the one which claims that the scientific concensus is not overwhelming. Please provide detailed references as to your claims re; wholescale persecution of dissenting scientists working in the climate change field.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
From reading most of the comments here; all I can presume are from the general public (or those with a couple school cert), but what are you’ll arguing about. New Zealand needs to change. People need to start thinking about issues like: technology and research, new ideas. Basically; most of these comments are very low level. As I found out in the 90’s anybody with a positive outlook and 1/2 an intellectual thought has left years ago. Get a grip, wake up. NZ isn’t going to grow or give anyone a better standard of living if people don’t change or want to think about new ideas on how to live and be more productive.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Global warming, climate change call it what you like. It will be the biggest scam of all time not since the nazi party took power in the 1930s have we ever seen such lies imposed on the population the only difference is this time its global and you are the enemy”’if you exhale carbon dioxide you will pay in more ways than you think dont be fooled .
Baz
September 25th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
There is an old saying along the lines of:
‘Never waste your time trying to convince a man of something when his livelihood depends on the opposite being true’.
Its writ pretty large here tonight. Toodle-pip.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Andy – I really had to laugh with your quote, it was so appropriate to a workplace scenario I had today
September 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Doug you are 100% correct
September 25th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
People who believe in anthropogenic climate change fall into one of the following categories:
#1 Naive
#2 Gullible
#3 Have jumped onto the payroll.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
(not the same Ross as earlier in the thread, by the way)
September 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Bobby
This article is on who will get the money
See bubble #6
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12545.html
September 25th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Interesting article:
http://www.rense.com/general87/globalf.htm
I think there is a difference between the terms “Climate change” and “Global warming”. Global warming is often seen as a “Man made scenario”, but so far scientifically not proven, while Climate changes whatever it’s cause, it is a fact and can have some devastating consequences for us and our environment. It is of course our responsibility to take actions to be better prepared.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I don’t recall my computer self destructing at midnight on Y2K but that hysteria had an end date. Unfortunately climate change hysteria could lurk around as long as their are people who want to believe it.
The only thing that there’s hard evidence of is that NZ’s climate has oscillated from glaciation to tropical for hundreds of thousands of years – without human intervention. It’s quite likely that we are in a period of natural warming but to suggest that humans are the main culprit is a stretch.
Less particulate pollution, sulpur dioxide and other pollutants would be a side benefit of a push to cut CO2 emissions but trying to cut CO2 emissions itself would be like trying to hold back a tide.
Penalising CO2 from renewable sources such as cows eating grass seems ridiculous. The CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the grass only to be returned by the cow. Any CH4 will oxidise to CO2 anyway so surely it’s a net neutral activity.
The public hysteria is much like the hysteria about EMF (electromagnetic fields) from overhead power lines a few years ago. I remember my physics professor at university proudly telling the class that he had recently purchased a house underneath pylons at huge discount to what he would have paid for a normal house – as far as he was concerned the only problem with the lines was the visual one – which didn’t concern him. Not everyone subscribes to the science of hysteria.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:07 am
I see there is complete consensus on here
IMO all this discussion about whether man is or is not causing warming is a waste of time. Both sides seem to be well entrenched.
I do really object to people who use the word “denier”. Antilocution at its worst, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Now to the real issue. It is not CO2. You have picked the wrong problem and you will pick the wrong solution.
The real issue is peak oil, and the real issue is how we will get from our continuous growth, oil dependant economy, to one that is sustainable.
Is this the best that Infometrics can write? I suppose one day they might craft something worth reading.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:58 am
@Chris J: that is true that Computers didn’t burn per say on Y2K. But I work in IT. Main thing from this was a re-look at ‘What we do now: is that what we want too tomorow’ yes or no. Basically, new ways of thinking, micro to macro, new ways of thinking. Hence: new ideas and working out what is really working. As I said earlier, NZ is just a couple of school certs, anyone with 1/2 of anything is long gone. Get a grip. 200K in OZ is peanuts, but you have too be productive.This is the reason: new ideas, thinking, looking, changing.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:42 am
here is some new thinking that would increase our productivity rather than reducing it I wonder if the govt will take it on? I really hope they do but unfortunatly Andy Hamiltons quote at 25th 10:11pm comes to mind, He aslo condemnes his own argument re scientists to the scrap heap.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/personal-finance/2901797/Working-group-looks-at-clamping-down-on-LAQCs
September 26th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Dave in Oz ” Hence: new ideas and working out what is really working. As I said earlier, NZ is just a couple of school certs, anyone with 1/2 of anything is long gone. Get a grip. 200K in OZ is peanuts, but you have too be productive.This is the reason: new ideas, thinking, looking, changing.”
Probably not everyone left in NZ would agree with you.There are still a few of us left with at least 3/4 of something.
How come ..when the economy is booming the “answer” is all about..”the knowledge wave” .. tourism..IT and the service sector
but when the Sh*t hits the fan we all need agriculture/exporters and the productive sector to lead a recovery?
$200k may be peanuts in oz but is it sustainable in tougher times?
time will tell
dont get me wrong ..nz has major problems..one of them being that those willing to work hard, risk their capital ,accept a lower standard of living in the pursuit of building a business still get hammered by govt,s and “shiny butts” who often produce nothing but red tape and business for NZ post.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Steve N – true, but peakoil will gain even less traction with these folks than AGW. Its just another left wing conspiracy theory don’t you know.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Kieran – interesting, but:
“Since investors in all other kinds of business may legitimately write off business losses against their other incomes, a line would have to be drawn between those who could argue renting properties was their business, and those who could not.”
“Invariably when the IRD tries to close down a [tax] loophole, all they end up doing in a lot of cases is open up other loopholes and pressures elsewhere on the system.”
So what’s the answer then…?
September 26th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Here we go, back on topic. Anyone heard this take before. Someone told me Maggie Thatcher pushed a lot of funding toward climate change research to support UK gov. of the day closing down the mines, and with them the NUM, Arthur Scargill etc., given they were seen as a clear and present danger to UK. Supposedly then hence more research looking at confirming made-made climate change. All sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me, but am interested to get any thoughts on this ‘hear say’. Cheers, Les.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:08 am
How can I get in the loop to harvest some of the carbon E loot as it does the rounds between parties?
September 26th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Les: the answer is get rid of the intent rule which IS the loophole there is no need to make any distinction treat both the same.
Andy: Oil at $140 a barrel is a pretty good indicator something is not right…
Steve N: hydro, geothermal and (block your ears) coal powered electricity is the answer, we have huge capability for growth in these areas.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Steve N. how should we value this article ?:
http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-113043.html
CO2 is a problem and must be discussed to find solutions.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Just had a chat with my alien friends, they are here for a week or two, about this carbon thingee and they said the approaching super volcanic eruption in Indonesia would dump a few billion tons of sulfur into the atmosphere, which would destroy all life on the planet unless the carbon dioxide levels were high enough to ensure the carbon molecules got with the sulfur molecules which acted as some sort of cleaning agent and nootralised the acid buildup, thereby saving us all from tripping out on acid.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
im no mathematician but why would anyone put all their eggs in the AGW basket after reading this?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/probability_and_global_warming.html
September 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Les Rudd — you are right about the Maggie Thatcher moves. This is where the “gravey train” started.
I’m all for looking after the environment and to those who say this debate has focussed some people on developing new technologies and new ways of doing things –I totally agree that this a good thing. BUT these ETS , carbon foot print offsetting schemes etc are absolutely wrong and crazy. The way it will affect food producers like Andrewj is wrong.
As aside one of my cousins works in the scientific community in the USA ( he has a PhD in Chem ). He is a skeptic — one of the main reasons is because he says he has spent most of his working life measuring temps. and other things and says it is impossible to consistantly measure to the level these guys say they are on what they are doing and make definite scientific conclusions from the results
September 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
“Bobby — carbon trading will become the new derivatives. So the Goldman Sachs traders etc will be the winners. This is what Gore is really up to.
The US introduced a sulphur dioxide cap and trade system in the early 90s. Who was the biggest lobbyist and then participant ? –Enron.”
Exactly Ross, follow the money. Gore’s already set up a emissions trading company with an ex Goldman guy. Emmissions trading will be worth trillions to the traders without reducing emissions at all. If their industry is profitable enough, big business will just build the carbon price into their prices, pay it, trade it with others, and carry on as always.
I’m as worried about CO2, it won’t kill me directly and with enough will new carbon sinks can be regrown. Its all the other toxic crap industry and agriculture pumps into our water and air that worries me. If the emissions any industry are pumping out are bad enough, just tell them to clean up or they’ll be out of business. Environmental damage is just socialising the cost.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Ross ..an exert from an article i was jaust reading..regarding the measurment of the earths temperature
•The total range of temperatures is within plus or minus half a degree Centigrade. Are we sure we are seeing a true trend and not just randomness?
•The total range of time is about 150 years, and the range of time in which an upward trend is apparent is perhaps the last 30 years. Is that a long enough time period to gauge a trend?
•On the other hand, looking closely at the years since 1998, the trend seems to have leveled off or even dropped. Is that too short a time to gauge a trend?
•Are the thermometers in enough places and the right places? Maybe we get too many readings from North America and too few from Antarctica, for example.
•How do you get just one number for each year? How do you take all the temperature readings from all the thermometers and all the days and hours that temperatures were read, and get a single number?
•If a computer algorithm is used to come up with the numbers, how sure are you that the algorithm did not add some artificial biases?
•How do you compare temperatures over time? Weren’t thermometers added, thermometers replaced, and whole new stations included? Are earlier readings comparable with later ones?
•How do you know any given temperature reading reflects real climate, and not just what’s happening near that temperature station? That is, do parking lots, buildings, air conditioners, etc. have a significant impact on thermometer readings?
•Weren’t all the thermometers used to make this graph on land? Doesn’t that leave out the 75% of the earth’s surface that is water?
Full article here http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/my_global_warming_epiphany.html
September 26th, 2009 at 10:18 am
WK:
That’s rubbish.
Now they are getting muddled. Low carbon? Low carbon in or low carbon out?
Yes, low OIL in is a good thing. There is no conclusive evidence that low carbon out is important.
The use of resources with consideration to consumption patterns and total resources available, and the cost of getting them.
should be:
Do you see the important difference in the way you can look at this.
The funny thing is that many people who do not accept AGW as a significant effect actually have very similar views to those who do.
There is just this subtle difference.
The solutions are similar, but also subtly different.
Andy H,
I just look at the data. I have not been convinced that man has caused any significant effect on global climate temperatures. Considering the statements made by the IPCC which have been proven to be based on errors, my faith in the so called IPCC consensus is poor.
As to peak oil, I think the data and logic is far more clear and convincing.
And unlike AGW, which is currently suffering from temperatures going down, oil prices are still high even in this economic mess. That surely is a pretty clear signal that something is happening.
Yes, maybe showing polar bears on melting summer ice can get the “ignorant masses” to believe more easily. Maybe not when they look at the cost of filling up.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Andy H… another link regarding your scepticism of scientific proof re you posts around 10pm last night . http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
“Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.”
September 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Please consider this:
Quote:
Like the human species, everyone within it is more notable for what they have in common than what they don’t, yet the smaller differences seem to get accentuated. I feel a bit like that with you and I.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Steve/Kieren – re;peakoil – I was being ironic. I have been convinced of the peakoil arguement for over 10 years.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I suggest you read the comments section on the article you quote Don – they do rather a fine demolition job on what is actually a non-refereed piece quoted by an over-excited journalist. Plenty of pieces like this around in obscure mid Western papers – just dig a little deeper about who is writing them and where they are getting published.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Andy the comments concerned do not demolish the argument.its a forum..rather like here..with both sides contributing..
how recent are IPCC findings? many relate to observations(read models) in the late 90,s early 2000,s
things have moved on since then and current data doesnt seem to fit that well with a lot of thier models.
yet we are still to believe what they say is gospel?
regards don
September 26th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I wonder why the unemployed are not out planting native forests where said forests would thrive on doc land?
September 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Evidence, scientific arguement…what about plain old commonsense?
The earth millions yrs ago was hot and barren, till primitive life started and died got buried as carbon…oil coal…as more got buried higher forms of life could exist…
Since the beginning of the Industrial revolution we have dug it up and put back in the eviroment..and glaciers are melting faster than any other time in history…
Now farmers,
why the hang should they pay CT on animals…today there are far less animals, excluding humans than a couple hundred yrs ago…animals are part of the over balance…sure we have larger populations of sheep and cattle rather than antelope and bison… but the numbers and total emissions are lower than a couple 100 yrs ago.
Also the human population is going to need X amount of meat/dairy to feed its self..be it grown here or in another country…So even if all our farmers scraped animals for forest and crops, the requirement of animal production for the world is just going to be elsewhere with the same results.
Sure CT when comes to processing emissions, and tractor fumes, but the f**t tax is nothing more than some bean counter desk jockey day dreaming out the window how to justify his over blown salary.
And let ass-u&me climate change is an issue.
the tax is all BS…sure there will be some incentive to reduce emissions, but at the end off the day it is just another tax that will eventually be built into the system…it will not make any dramatic difference in the long run.
I dont think climate change is the “scam” ..the scam is the tax…no more than another opportunity by corporations to rip of at the expense of the widest possible spread of the population, …just like leaded fuel, yr 2k bug, hong kong, avian and swine flu
The issue is the carbon being re dug up, not the recycling of the carbon already here between trees and animals….
some one has lost the plot big time.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Industrialisation is just a tiny segment of our planet’s history- we really don’t know if this segment causes climate changes – yet. Obviously massive population growth and its consequences are leading to releasing more heat/ pollution into the atmosphere.
Steve N, like and agree with your quote, but then we should accept people’s opinion, who list/ debate many possible causes leading to climate changes.
It is like Mark’s strong tendency to liberalism, but hardly any tolerance to any other form of judgment/ opinion.
..it just doesn’t fit – it is contradictory.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
W K …Hi
“Steve N, like and agree with your quote, but then we should accept people’s opinion, who list/ debate many possible causes leading to climate changes.”
thats the problem.. alot of the debate is opinion
for all the fence sitters out there…..there are 2 options
1….Believe in AGW..in computer models thought up in the late 90,s with an attempt to valdate them through research by like minded individuals and propogated by the likes of AL(make me rich) GORE and other political flunkies(read IPCC)
2..be skeptical..do some research..look at HARD PHYSICAL DATA compilied over the last 10-15 years to find out the earth isnt warming.co2 isnt a problem(it is a solution to the worlds starving poor)and if you are “green minded” concentrate on REAL pollution/problems not those inside a computer
Regards don
September 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Us dumb Kiwis have got it all wrong. China’s leader this week proudly annouced”we will plant a forest the size of Norway”. That is what ETS means “Extra Tree Solution”. Simple and straight forward in their minds.
We will tax the crap out of ourselves and create another level of bureaucracy and takes decades to go nowhere. Old chinese proverb”One action is worth a thousand words” On that note I think I’ll head down to the local nursery but I better walk.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Debates -> opinions -> scientific research -> accumulation facts -> Hard physical data
Don m we have long way to go and even hard physical data is no guarantee for reality in the field of science.
Scientific study keeps an open mind for revision, modification and correction of any flaw in the treatment owing to insufficient evidence.
2..be skeptical..do some research..look at HARD PHYSICAL DATA compilied over the last 10-15 years to find out the earth isnt warming.co2 isnt a problem(it is a solution to the worlds starving poor)and if you are “green minded” concentrate on REAL pollution/problems not those inside a computer
Don m- great words, so tell us about real pollution problems and HARD PHYSICAL DATA compilied over the last 10-15 years to find out the earth..
September 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
W k
real pollution problems …many of the wolds largest cities.Bejing.Mexico city,Kathmandu
or locally ..our rivers & lakes..windmills on every hilltop.power pylons all over the cental north island so Auckland can have power(y not build a power station up there?)
look at some of the links in previous posts for some data
hey i dont have all the answers but neither does the IPCC
also………
what happened to the ozone problem?
where has that gone?it used to be that we were bombarded nightly on the news about the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica.How we were all gonna fry.
Somehow that problem morphed into global warming
Ozone ..another of the worlds natural elements..I dont know what the problem was all about i mean you can MAKE ozone.
I know we have to be careful with ALL statistics but i prefer them to some manipulated model
cheers don
September 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Our debates on that thread is reminding me very much on the 80′ in Europe, where every “Greenie” was stamped as an idiot. In the meantime the situation changed. In countries where “green” ideas/ debates were held openly, especially health living standards improved. More people are adopting “green” ideas – entire industries are adopting “green” ideas. Air/ water and land pollution decreased.
I think we all agree obviously massive population growth and Industrialisation lead to negative consequences globally. Releasing more heat/ pollution into the atmosphere, land & waterways our environment, life’s and nature are at a greater risk of damage.
Please, Kiwis don’t use strong words and rubbish/ bullshit “green” philosophies, only because problems aren’t so obvious here in NZ.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
While on this subject, can anyone tell me if Wellington still exists.
I know it disappeared (from the data) for some unknown reason.
I just wondered whether it had reappeared LOL
September 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Don: you tell people to go out and do research and then you come out with this:
what happened to the ozone problem?
where has that gone?it used to be that we were bombarded nightly on the news about the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica.How we were all gonna fry.
Somehow that problem morphed into global warming
LOLs – you couldnt make this stuff up. Here’s a hint – google ‘ozone depletion’ or ‘CFC’, and to help you along start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://www.ozonedepletion.co.uk/
Amazingly Don the data is there if you can be bothered to do the research. Actually its cool that you bring the subject up, because it illustrates beautifully how the scientific community identified a major threat to life on earth, was able to persuade politicians to take unpopular action (ban CFCs) and it now seems as the threat is receding. Hence:
“Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.[33]”
If you do trouble to read the above you might also begin to realise that the relationship between ozone depletion and AGW is fairly weak (and the misconception that the two are strongly linked stems more from dunderhead jounalists being unable to understand simple scientific concepts).
September 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
andy re ozone .my old man owned a drycleaning business.he had an ozone maker(used it to take the smoky smell out of clothes that had been in house fires etc.i said you could make it i didnt say it was economic!
re cfc,s and their banning thats bullshit
all the cans of propellant in nz = 1 jet plane taking off in terms of ozone depletion
volcanoes are the worst things going but we didnt ban them!(funny how the hole in antartica was aqbove Mt Erebus which may be going through a quiet spell)
ozone is a naturally occuring element..it comes and goes..any credit the greens want to take regarding their “saving of the planet” is crap
do you have any other sources apart from wikipedia and green sites.what about IPCC
September 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
andy a few of the above statments came from memory if you want to find out some REAL info on ozone (not green crap) try looking here.
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=36fo
this bloke gets the climate right more often than Jim Salinger used to(with a lot less resources)
September 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The Green Agenda Has one aim that is to destroy capitalism and by reducing carbon to the levels they want will bring about a collapse. There are many lies and half truths about global warming being pushed on us at present. But this one should interest even the most die hard green Fascist supporter Al Gores or should I refer to him as Mr Goreful has a hedge fund called Generation investment Management, its the largest shareholder in CCX which is ( Chicago Climate Exchange ).
Baz
September 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
-celom as cullium respori veloc iticiums-
Baz -no you will not find this in any dictionary it is a code sentence we used to use for people with “other” opinions.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Hmmm, this study is a bit inconvenient.
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
by: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/fulltext.pdf
I’ve highlighted a few bits here:
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/1967
I can’t be the only one who looks at the IPCC hockey stick and gets an instant sense of ….. you’ve gotta be kidding me, nothing is that flat.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Kunz does that mean I can have an opinion
Baz
September 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
..as many as you like Baz. – i acali ucomis -
September 26th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Gee Thanks
September 26th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Steve net writer..i dont want to get you on my case as well but read this for an off the wall article regarding PEAK OIL
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=98
Could he be right?
To have produced the amount of oil to date that Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high. In short, an absurdity
makes you think?
September 26th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Don m,
I’m no expert on oil. I have an open mind. What I have read makes sense, and is convincing.
I think the biggest problem with the adiabatic idea is that it would appear to require a universal conspiracy.
The claims that oil wells that have “run out” and then have increased production could surely be explained by the natural movement of oil in the rock after production is cut. In a similar way that a sponge ends up wet on the bottom after you put it on the kitchen top.
I’m sure there are many who can make better informed comment on this.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“Treasury is stating the costs of this ETS are woefully researched (and that’s something coming from Treasury)!”
and IRD’s model is better at forecasting than Treasury’s….Treasury are a classic ivory tower brigade, nincompoops the country doesnt need.
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Back to ag and the ETS
Dear Adolf..here is a rough summary of a situation that occured last spring
My young son and i were up the back of the farm.checking the sheep.(he came because he thought we might come acroos a few wild deer & even though he is 7 hes mad keen on hunting) There were no bearings &; we picked up 2 cast ewes so it wasnt a wasted trip.it was a pleasant August late afternoon.Lambs were running around in groups of a dozen or so playing”tag”…”silly young fools i said to my son..i hope they are worth something come Xmas”.we rode back towards home .6 or so ducks landed on a nearby dam and he got all excited..you will have to wait to next duckshooting i told him they will be having ducklings soon.We stopped and feed some balage to a mob of steers then let a newly calved cow and her wobbly calf over the electric fence to get a good feed of grass..
A flock of Canadian gesse flew over(they can be quite a pest)but look pretty cool flying in perfect V formation against the ever darkening sky.Clouds were buliding over the Tararua,s and the Nor Wester as freashening..”probably rain tonight” i told him.
We made our way home ..gave to dogs a run (they can get a bit fat this time of year as there isnt much for them to do) gave them a feed , it was pretty dark when we got inside.
Turned on the T.V..there was some chick reporter from Beijing on ..telling us about the Olympics.she was in front of the stadium but you coulndt see it for all the smog.Some people around her were walking with “face masks”on to help them stop inhailing the smokey waste.i turned to the MRs and said i bet you are glad we dont live there!
I proceede to pick up the Dominion Post.One of the lead articles went something like this
“Agricluture accounts for over 1/2 of N.Z,s greenhouse gas emissions..Greens say farmers must pay their share to avoid a world wide climate catastrophe!!”
I open a can of TUI and think YEAH RIGHT
September 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am
@Mark H.
For risk management you dont need cast iron facts and figures before you decide to do something before its too late. On balance a competent person(s) can decide the probablity of AGW is high enough and its impact high enough that mitigation is prudent.
What you are saying in effect is we should be retro-active instead of pro-active…so no business planning then….dont you advise farming businesses? dont you suggest 3 or 5 even 10 year plans? BCP? (business continuity plans) ie what to do in a disaster? As a professional are you advising businesses based on sound logic or political ideology? if you are saying no AGW is a lie and its turns out true, what’s your professional liability to the businesses you have advised?
As for proving AGW, there is more than enough proof on the components, CO2 masks/reflects heat, thats a simple lab experiment….ergo putting more in has an effect.
The world hasnt warmed since 1998, this is classic cherry picking by the denier camp, thats been disected in enough places not to bother with that un-truth.
“answer why you are advocating a considerable decline in the standard of living of all Kiwis in the face of this? ” What you are saying is live for today….forget about future standards of living or how badly they may drop due to AGW or peak oil (and even if AGW isnt an issue peak oil is)…just carry on with your head stuck in the sand until the train hits you….and shoves you down to your ankles.
“If Infometrics are going to advocate greater costs of living for myself, and the severe impairment of the economy in which I make my living, then I want much better than this.”
You forget we live in a democracy….Lets see Green party 6.4% of vote, Mark H’s fundimental libertanz extremists, 1000 votes…so
134,622 v 1000….
So in terms of,
“For those of you, including Adolf, who advocate the diminishment of my standard of living, then the onus is squarely on you to prove to me these facts, the onus is not on the the deniers camp.”
No it is not….its for the deniers to put up with the democratic result.
@don: “C02 is actually a fertiliser(they pump it into greenhouses to help plants grow!)more CO2 means more food production” no it does not you must be smoking that cannibis they were growing at the time….read up on this more, a small amount of CO2 can indeed enhance plant growth…a bit too much and it actually has a detrimental effect.
@listentothelion: “And Philly, the vast majority of Scientists 1000 years ago thought the earth was flat – they were wrong!”
No the church determined what was correct scientifically, any scientist who suggested otherwise had everything from the spanish inquisition onwards thrown at them…so it wasnt science but fundie christian extremists….Darwin even had issues 100 years ago…
@Philly: “In the EU, farmers get paid for leaving land fallow. Sound tempting?” not only that the EU spies on them with satelites!
“re my 99%.” If you take scientific articles that are properly peer reviewed and released via credible scientific journals, then it probably is close to 99%…what we do see from the denier camp is virtually no peer reviewed or no independantly peer reviewed articles in proper journals…you know one denier reviewing another denier’s piece and then posting it in a blog is not a creditable peer review.
lets look at the credibility of the denier camp,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hINSwCueXY&feature=PlayList&p=56C8A93B48CA97FC&index=5&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL
If you want to look at something that shoots down most if not all of the deniers pieces on AGW then this piece and its other series are first rate…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0
As an example it shows clearly how poor their “science” is….the rest of the series do the same thing.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
@Don M: “PEAK OIL”
This is a loony conspirotists article…
and is shockingly bad….
“No one knows if we are using up something much faster than it was created.” that’s absurd….oil was laid down over many thousands of years and we will use it in less than 200….
“It is possible but highly improbable that oil is the sole exception” indeed, except once oil is used up, we have to wait another few millenia for more, its highly likey that humans wont be around 100,000 years from now let alone a few million….so in effect its a one off gift and we are wasting it.
“To assess the oil reserves we must estimate the starting number of barrels of oil in the ground and how much we have so far used. We will never know either answer.”
In-correct, statistically we can say with a high confidence what the total oil is, about 2.18trillion barrels +/- 10%….there is about a 5% chance we might have 3 trillion…
“now looks as though the world contains far more recoverable oil than was believed even 20 years ago. The world’s greatest oil pool, the Middle East, has more than doubled its reserves in the past 20 years, despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new discoveries. It would take a pretty big pile of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants to account for the estimated 660 billion barrels of oil in the region.”
The reserves in the middle east are highly suspect, OPEC determined that the annual output of each members allotment is based on how big their reserves are, so they all doubled their reserves over-night….so its quite likey that the actual oil there is 25% or more lower than they claim…
LOL….I am giving up refuting this “piece” its so full of crap that it isnt creditable…if you are determined to believe it then my words to you are simply a waste of my time.
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Steven this is a bit old but serves the purpose to to provide reasons why Research funding into global warming has given plenty of statitics to play with
Funding overseas
“For a look at the current grants and funds in 2007 soon available for the budding scientist, go to http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/
Unfortunately there is no funding available for research into weather and climate cycles, or alternative viewpoints on the scaremongering, nor studies that investigate whether or not global warming is an international financial fraud. There is simply too much of a gravy train operating for the yes people. The Bush Administration no longer rules out the idea of mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, according to a recent speech by the U.S. Undersecretary of State. In the past five years, while the U.S. government has been largely holding back, it has invested $29 billion in climate science and technology research. Even if the government’s position on global warming stays the same, another $40 – $50 billion in spending will occur over the next five years. Here’s how entrepeneurs will cash in on the NEXT big surge, as 3 MORE nations join OPEC. Fierce battles over oil are about to drive its price to $100 and beyond. Intense competition for uranium, copper, steel and gold as China and India face off. A demand will be created renewable fuels that will grow to more than $500 billion per year by 2050. The demand for corn and other ethanol sources will skyrocket when tighter standards are imposed. https://www.investingshop.com/promos/6/p446_67064/p446-67064.asp?edid=EIK6M-BW6QD6-WQ7E-1FKL
Funding for federal climate change research is available from the following:
National Science Foundation
http://www.nsf.gov/home/menus/funding.htm
NOA Climate and Global Change Program
http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/grants/2005/ffo.pdf,
Research and Development in President’s 2007 Budget (Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President)
http://www.ostp.gov/html/budget/2007
There is also funding available by the U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and other federal agencies and departments.
——————————————————————————–
Funding in NZ
In 1990-2001 the National Science Strategy Committee for Climate Change was established for dispensing funding assessed at $23.5million per year. The real promised target was $27.5 million. ref: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/research-needs-dec00.pdf
By 2005 New Zealand was spending around $23 million each year on climate change research. Around $20 million of this money is administered by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology through their Vote RS&T programme. Other sources of funding include the private sector, universities, government departments and local government. A key resource for climate change is New Zealand Government’s climate change website – this is the gateway into the work of the New Zealand Climate Change programme, an interdepartmental process led by the Ministry for the Environment and involving 10 Government departments (including MoRST) and one Crown agency. Funding is available for reports, cabinet papers, press releases, information for schools, and newsletters. Funding details may be found here http://www.gns.cri.nz/research/programmes.html
Perhaps the Government is also backing both horses, perhaps because there actually is money to be made in this way, because according to the Greens, the Government is investing the NZ Super Fund in ExxonMobil which is claimed to be funding the climate change ‘denial’ industry and undermining attempts to get action to reduce greenhouse emissions. But as part of the skeptical community I know of no funds ever being made available, let alone any recipients of funding from any sources whatsoever. Indeed it is the constant cry of unfairness that skeptics get absolutely no support for their research and time wasted trying unsuccessfully to contact media to provide some balance to the junk science that passes itself off as climatology. ExxonMobil continues to argue that it is “very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions”. It would seem that if the government is indeed investing in Exxon then it is because of oil dividends and not
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/pr10203.html
Overall, by 2005 the real funding for research had increased by over 56% since 1999, with $45 million for the Vote RS&T budget, taking it to $586m, exclusive of GST, and $25.4m for the PBRF, taking it to $163m. Present estimates are that in the past decade in NZ around a billion dollars of public money alone, has been going into a virtual bottomless drain to fix a nonexistent problem, from a Labour/Greenie government that a caring community put into office, but a government which now thinks that brownie points for NZ in the eyes of the EU are worth more than fixing up the country’s tired and rundown health system, its inadequate roads and the runaway crime statistics.
—————————————————————————————–
September 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am
@chris J:
“I don’t recall my computer self destructing at midnight on Y2K but that hysteria had an end date.” At the hospital we forwarded dates on PCs, we had a 10% failure, so had to replace 10% of them before 2000…..you cant take a micro example and simply scale it to a macro position.
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@ross: “If we have global warming why are we subsidising insulation in housing ??”
LOL….this is the level of intelect on the deniers side?
LOL….
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
a story about a “scientist”
we will call him Steven
Steven decides to enact a represenation of the earths atmosphere.he gets all the firms office supplies and builds a stack of a-4 paper 3 meters high.(this represents the atmosphere.)
He climbs on a chair and writes CO2 on the top piece of paper.this represents all the co2 in the atmosphere.then he writes the same on a second sheet.
Wow the co2 has doubled! this could mean big trouble he thinks and runs to tell his workmates.
thay all gather round and try to work out how to get rid of the seecond sheet of paper.who is gonna pay? how many bits should we cut it up into?
Meanwhile out side it is starting to rain.
it is mid summer and a thunderstorm has struck
caused by the sun heating a convection & water vapour(the 2 main drivers of the earths climate)
Its pissing down now..all Steven needs to do is look out the window to see what is going on but he is too busy worriying about that blasted piece of paper!And he ignores what is going on around him.
no offence meant but a bit of humour in order?
September 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@Don M: “Unfortunately there is no funding available for research into weather and climate cycles [on the deniers side]” (I assume) 1) There is money for research…you are saying that only the pro-AGW ppl get funding, actually funding is neutral….2) The oil giants, right wing think tanks etc all have or receive funding…Bush’s administration tried very hard to squash any AGW work….that came out for it….IE “In the past five years, while the U.S. government has been largely holding back, it has invested $29 billion in climate science and technology research.” So the Bush administration tried to withhold funding….because politically it didnt like the output….by your own words…
NSF funding (as an example) ….this is funding for research….the funding has no pre-desposition ie expected outcome. This is the problem the deniers have, they want to have funding to prove thier are right and not funding to examine the issue by scientific and mathematical method(s). So they have already determined the outcome they want, this isnt science….the funding is for science.
NZ research, Im sure the pollies and especially the right wing ones would love research, real research to show AGW is a crock of doo doo (im sure it would make Jerry Browlee’s day, but then he isnt very bright)…but they cant give money to a political or idealogical group and demand/expect that outcome and still expect it to be creditable….it wont wash in the scientific community….it wont be science.
“ExxonMobil continues to argue” indeed and just like the tobacco brigade until the amount of evidence and DEATH became so overwelming it could not be reputed by any sane or reasonable person. The difference is with tobacco when you smoke you kill yourself and not me, though eventually the second hand smoking bans…it can and has killed others who didnt smoke…same with AGW, you are not just killing yourself or ruining your income, you are effecting me and mine, innocent bystanders.
Example, I need and want an income over my lifetime, I have (had) a 25 year mortgage to buy my home….so I need income for another 15 to pay it off….income for the next 5 then loss of my job would mean 20 years of payments wipped out that would be no good to me…so its better to accept a small and staged adjustment now than a huge drop later, I have a chance to adust, hence AGW….some manageble adjustments now…..
The Cullen fund NZ/Super Fund investing in ExxonMobil makes sense from a pension perspective, this isnt the Govn investing, this is a financial decision by the fund managers….it has no AGW aspect.
“but a government which now thinks that brownie points for NZ in the eyes of the EU are worth more than fixing up the country’s tired and rundown health system, its inadequate roads and the runaway crime statistics.”
Indeed, the National Govn recognises the external risk of doing nothing on AGW, they would love not to, but risk the outcome that the EU and the USA will impose tariffs if they do nothing, so the impact on NZ would be severe….it must p*ss Jerry Brownlee off no end…
The public health system is indeed under pressure but its a bottomless pit, so its rationed, thats to be lived with…roads, well they arent bad actually….run away crime….try looking at the stats, there is no run away crime….Crime is actually borne out of no hope, areas with high young un-employment often (usually) have high crime…watch it rocket under this recession and National…
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Steven –if you took my “tongue in cheek ” comment about global warming and insulation seriously then you really need to get a life.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@Don M: There is a huge difference between weather and climate…
As far as “Steven” goes, I dont see that as humour….
Im actually deadly serious….
To be clear, “Steven” doesnt want AGW to be true, “Steven” doesnt want “peak oil” to be true…because that means “Steven’s” lifestyle (such that it is) is going to be impacted….but others lives are going to be impacted even more…my children and indeed yours(?) are going to have to live with less energy in their lives. Us and our children (and grandchildren) are going to be lucky / well off in that respect, NZ can grow more food than its population needs….not so most of the world…..even if we have excess food (after you take out the petrolium addition) ie its going to be organic it will cost a lot of money to transport the “spare” food as energy will be expensive….
and this is just the peak oil issue, which is pretty good science and maths based and is here, we both get to watch it happen ie within 5 years.
I have studied these (peak oil and AGW) for 3 years now reading everything creditable (and otherwise) I can find on these….so I speak as an informed voter/father/human being on this finite planet,
I believe based on the evidence, maths and science that we really have two huge issues to face up to….simple as that.
1a) Peak oil
1b) Population (a bit left field, population has grown due to oil so its related to 1).
2) AGW
You have to reach this point yourself, please do it with open eyes and an open mind.
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am
@Ross: written words in a blog or email lack context, often they are read incorretly, there is no body language to give true meaning….
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 11:12 am
“Please, Kiwis don’t use strong words and rubbish/ bullshit “green” philosophies, only because problems aren’t so obvious here in NZ.”
The thing is they are obvious..not to the greenie DoC Scientist who spouts on how a reef is returning to its natural state….the guy is about 40…I was diving on that reef before he was born…it is not even close.
How often does on see brown surf foam rolling up the beaches today..deep enough for a child to disappear into?
2 things, the parents if see it think its pollution, the great grand parents know it is plankton and a lot of fun.
Large stretches of tidal waters, now a mass of mangroves…these where lovely sandy beaches our early Maori and settlers landed at, and descendants upto the late 60s played/swam on.
The mangroves are considered an ecological treasure by greenies in the their 40s, not a product of pollution and warmer sea temps….
And those who think the ban on CFC in aerosols wouldnt make any difference….in the early 70s we would pump tons of this a day just into aerosols, 1000s of Doz of cans a day…and that is just one production line of 1 manufacturer in NZ.
It was about this time the largest private chemical company learnt of a ’suspicion’ halogenated hydrocarbons destroyed the ozone layer…..they issues a world wide order…every production line had to convert to LPG mixes within 12 months or close down….not for short term profit, but the long term survival of the company for their great grand children. ..this was before any serious scientific conclusions had been made.
Intersting to note the difference between a private company and the public compant making profits of the leaded fuel scam.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
It hasn’t been established beyond doubt that global warming is caused by man. The earth may be warming but the cause isn’t yet solidly established. People have to wake up and understand the difference between computer modeling and real observations, which they’re miles apart.
See, the people who do numerical computer modeling ( I am one of those) sometimes mislead themselves to blindly believe that whatever result or outcome that the models spit out must definitely correspond to physical reality. It can be true, but sometimes the models will produce unphysical outcome which is clearly not realistic. Climate dynamics is a complex system. What does this mean? Well the laws of physics that we completely understand at smaller scale doesn’t always necessarily translate to complex systems. Eg, the thermo-dynamics equations that are being used to model climate are inconsistent with observations. Thermodynamics equations work well in small scale because the phenomena of self-emergence & self-organized dynamics (typical of adaptive complex systems) are non-existent. They become dominant and very obvious at very large scale (such as climate system) where those small scale fundamental physical laws become unreliable.
I’ll give a typical example here. We (man) understand fluid dynamics and thermodynamics almost completely based on a small scale, but there is no such thing as equations for hurricane/storm, which are self-emergence & self-organized dynamics (complex systems) that cannot be traced back to fundamental equations of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, none whatsoever. It has been attempted in global climate models these days but no success at all. Scientists may claim that there has been progress in that area but that is an exaggeration.
See, the same modelers who have now called (neo)classic economics bullshit in which I am sure that Adolf Stroombergen may disagree with are the same ones who are spearheading the alarmism about man-made global warming. If Adolf Stroombergen believes these modelers, then he may well hang up his boots for being an economist and changed career to something else.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
steven..
your reply just confirms my belief that you cant see the wood for the trees
you may have”read everything credible on AGW”(although i doubt it)but you are obviously bogged down in the detail to see the reality.
it is you that has to”open your eyes”(and also gain a sense of humour)
you are correct that climate and weather are different
Climate is what we expect….Weather is what we get!
there is still pleny of energy left in the world..lots of coal,hydro,nuclear,and hydrogen as well as undiscoverd oil to be had.
if the world went oganic farming then we would all starve there would be roits/wars and then i would fear for my granchildren.
if organic farming is the way to go then why isnt Africa doing that well?
What do you do when you are not surfing AGW stuff?
me… well i can confidently say that i have probably..
planted and cut down more trees than you
Cultivated,grown more feed crops than you
raised and sold more livestock
cut more scrub/gorse and fenced these areas off
milked more cows and generally produced more food than you
yet you tell ME that I could be the reason that the world will starve!
I think you need to get outside more .find a sense of humour and like ross says Get a LIFE
September 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Steven and while im on it…..
dont give ross a hard time about insulaton…if you want a news story try this 1
Sept 2010(next year T.V.1 news)
..”latest figures show that more people(mainly elderly) died this winter from cold and winter like symptoms…many could not afford the new Excessively high power charges for home heating as a result of the ETS
the irony that in order to save the earth from Global warming” more peoiple in NZ will die from the cold!
Sometimes the “science” doesnt work out
September 27th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Falafulu Fisi Says:
“It hasn’t been established beyond doubt that global warming is caused by man. The earth may be warming but the cause isn’t yet solidly established.”
Interesting statement…the assumption is there IS “global warming”…
As it has the reason as the important factor, of debate, rather than , what are the consequences and what can we do about it…
if ‘natural’ what can we do?
Or If man made what can we do?
Or do we argue which it is?
The real question is not how to tax, but If there is change, and it dose seem most tend to agree that there is, what do we do about it before point of no return
Its like a a couple pilots flying across the Tasman…and realise they are low on fuel…rather than discuss a soln they argue as to whose fault it is and die.
And this is exactly what most of the posts in this thread is about.
Just watch the value of coastal property drop over the next 20 yrs…become part of the “foreshore and seabed ” claims lol
September 27th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
This is from http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/2009/04/le-traison-de-clercs-and-journalists.html I reckon it sums up the situation very well.
“Because of the ongoing scientific uncertainty still surrounding the global warming issue, and because of the strident involvement of the discredited and hypocritical green political movement, it seems imperative to consider all dissenting opinions and get more involved in the debate.
Many, many people are now doing exactly that, and with one voice are challenging the science of dangerous and cataclysmic man made global warming and the colossal and economically crippling “repair” bill . From the blog of one of the many dissenters; Emeritus Professor Philip Stott :“‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices..”
September 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I asked the Prime Minister to answer the following questions, which he chose not too and put it to his Climate Minister (green Queen) N Smith (I had already asked Smith the same questions).
I wish for the following questions to be answered by you.
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 percent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history?
If so, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO 2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?
September 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
ALARMIST !
Steven,
What if you are wrong and you act?
What are the dangers of acting on the wrong problem?
Sensible non antilocution answer please.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
well i can confidently say that i have probably..
planted and cut down more trees than you
Cultivated,grown more feed crops than you
raised and sold more livestock
cut more scrub/gorse and fenced these areas off
milked more cows and generally produced more food than you
yet you tell ME that I could be the reason that the world will starve!
No….I dont think so in terms of you, as a generation, yes the baby boomers and generation jones have a lot to answer for (and I am one of those as well). What I am telling you that as an engineer is I have grave doubts about the world still supplying you with diesel and fertilizer you want in the quantities you want at a price that makes using it worth while….ie you can make a profit on and at a price its worthwhile shipping food at.
“there is still pleny of energy left in the world..lots of coal,hydro,nuclear,and hydrogen as well as undiscoverd oil to be had.”
Thats just it…..the problem is the oil industry is huge….nothing comes near it in terms of scale, nothing! So something has to be found that can ramp up to meet that and at <$80 certainly less than <$100 a barrel equiv…
1) coal, limited….the USA has about 80 years of good coal left at its present production rate….The UK past peak coal in 1913, today it has negligable production.
2) how many suitable hydro locations are left in NZ? and the cost in energy for the concrete….but yes NZ is lucky in that respect, however many other countries are not, indeed their river flows are under threat…as they are glacier fed…no glacier, no water, empty dam, no power.
3) Nuclear, yes, some….however looking after its rubbish is a problem for a long time…when you take the cost of this storage into account, nucear makes little sense.
4) Hydrogen, this has to be made from one of the above and is 30 years off if ever….ie electric cars using batteries are so much cheaper that hydrogen isnt likely to be the winner ppl think.
5) Oil to be discovered, peak oil finds were in the 1960s….we are now 50 years on, that data is really easy to look up, it isnt happening….You could almost look at any one year in the 1960’s take the last two decades and neither would match that one year…the difference is that radical. After 50 years, wouldnt we have greatly improved the technology? computers for instance…..the laptop I am on is more powerful than many of the mainframes of the 1960s…that’s a quantum leap all by itself…yet can we see the impact of the computer on oil discoveries? discoveries should be climbing, yet its all but negligable.
“if the world went oganic farming then we would all starve there would be roits/wars and then i would fear for my granchildren.”
Agreed, this is where I start to loose sleep……examples of my concern,
1) When oil was at $147 a barrel Pakistan was about 1 month away from being bankrupt, they have nuclear weapons and the Taliban next door….Saudi was selling them oil at a cut price and with payments deferred….
2) Mexico, corn was no longer being imported from the USA in the quantities needed as it was going for ethanol….Mexico’s major oil field’s production has collapsed (35% per annum). Much of Mexico’s Govn income is from oil, once the net oil is gone they are an importer with no money to buy….
3) Bangadesh, farmers all but rioting because they couldnt buy fertilizer….
4) The poor in haiti make mud cakes to eat….they use soil to extend their maize/wheat…..NZ is so lucky in that respect we grow more than enough food for ourselves, no way am I leaving….
“many could not afford the new Excessively high power charges for home heating as a result of the ETS”
Yes and I dont know the answer, but AGW is a way off, its less of an immediate concern than peak oil / peak energy….We as humans are now occupying areas of the globe that cheap energy makes possible…in the future the “extremes” will probably be abandoned….ie say southland, I suspect in the future it may not be economic/practical to live there any more….
More immediately I suspect/expect that taxes for the rich are going to climb and steeply….there has to be more re-distribution of wealth…(dont mis-read me to think thats what I agree with, but its what I see as likely).
@falafulu: “It has been attempted in global climate models these days but no success at all. Scientists may claim that there has been progress in that area but that is an exaggeration.” That’s either a mistake or a bare faced lie. The great thing about modelling is you can put any data in and look at it. So what they have been doing is putting in historic data and modelling that and then comparing it….they also then projected future results and then sat back and observed, and guess what those models did and are doing pretty good jobs of predicting climate.
@steptoe: the deniers have mostly moved on from “there isnt any warming” to now “yes there is, but its not much, and man’s contibution if any is small or of no effect” (paraphrase)
@sally: “Because of the ongoing scientific uncertainty” this is classic tobacco industry tactics re-born as global warming deniers. Amongst real scientists there isnt much debate of its real, its now moved onto how bad and how fast…the biggest thread I see is its faster than the mean that anyone predicted….ie its at the top of the models, or beyond…
As an example
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 percent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?
Cherry picking the data….1998 was an exceptional year due to an el nino, then we went to an el nina period which causes colder conditions, and yet even then the decade you question is on average barely lower…2005 and 2007 were pretty close to 1998…which happened in an el nino year.
2, 3 and 4, cherry picking the data….etc etc….
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“The world will have to invest $50 trillion by 2050 to combat climate change”
This research was quoted in a recent speech by Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of UN.
This will give you an indication of where the money will come from and to whom it will be channeled back to:
“In 2003, Ceres launched the Investor Network on Climate Risk here at the United Nations. The Network’s membership has since grown 10-fold in four years and it now includes 65 investors with assets totaling $5 trillion. Leading pension funds from California, Connecticut, New York as well as American International Group Investments, Deutsche Asset Management, and State Street Global Advisors are just a few of the big institutional investors and asset managers that have joined the network.
In February of this year, in this building, Ceres had the honor of co-hosting, with the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, and the UN Foundation, more than 450 investors, representing over $22 trillion in assets, at the third Investor Summit on Climate Risk……… This is a start. Achieving the large-scale greenhouse gas reductions that scientists say are needed will require a massive global shift to cleaner energy sources and technologies.
The International Energy Agency recently estimated that the world will have to invest as much as $50 trillion through 2050 in new energy infrastructure and equipment in order to reduce carbon dioxide levels to half of today’s levels.
The renewable energy market is already taking off. Global clean energy investments quadrupled in the past four years, to $150 billion in 2007. Toyota is growing at breakneck speed because it saw that consumers wanted hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles. US automakers ignored climate change – and now their large sport utility vehicles are sitting unused in car lots and their very survival is at stake.
No wonder one of America’s leading venture capitalists, John Doerr, calls clean energy and other climate change solutions “the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century.”
Many major banks and investment firms – key drivers in the global economy — are also responding in significant ways to climate change. A Ceres report issued in January found that many United States, European and Japanese banks are setting internal greenhouse gas reductions targets, boosting climate-related equity research and elevating lending and financing for clean energy projects.”
http://www.ceres.org/Page.aspx?pid=913
The question for me is how much is longterm natural? how much short-term man?
Some here suggest what can it hurt to invest in greener world even if it turns out not to be short-term man. The point of contention for me in that is the word “invest”.
Given that 97% percent of the worlds money supply enters circulation as interest bearing created credit money owed to the privately owned international central banking network, when the powers that be say the world must “invest” $50 trillion to combat climate change before 2050, by “invest” they infact mean “borrow”, thus I am as concerned about how they propose the fight against climate change has to be funded as whether it is or isnt happening. Under the current private debt based monetary system if the cause is longterm natural the common world will go bankrupt with very little hope of fighting nature, if short-term natural we will be bankrupted by having to pay the central bankers 2-3 x true value + compounding interest for everything done in an attempt to correct it. If longterm natural central bankers win causing great misery until we all lose together, short-term man problem maybe solvable but central bankers and their transnational corporate subsidiaries will end up owning much of the entire means of production of the world.
This is all very, very sad when new sustainable natural energy sources would be the perfect way to spend into circulation an interest free public created credit monetary base that could reduce the impact of compounding interest down the food chain and contribute to a more stable economic and political world. Many a past leader has lamented not taking the opportunity to do just that when the time was right in the past. Will the current crop become more lamenters that wasted another of human species lifes or will they have the decency to change?
September 27th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
@Iain P: personally Im wondering if the AGW is a smokescreen for do something about peak oil but make it look like we dont have to…The pollies have promised us un-ending growth and better lifestyles if we only vote them in, for decades….admiting now to peak oil is a slap in the face of that….I mean anyone should ask, if peak oil was known about decades ago, why didnt we do anything about it? and they didnt. AGW on the other hand is “new” its like “oops we got caught out here we have to spend a shed load of $s fixing it”…when in fact the fix fixes the peak oil problem, oh how neat is “circumstance”….”Will the current crop become more lamenters” yes….they wont do a thing until forced, like the bankers and fund managers the Pollies are safe in the crowd…no one stands out, no one looks especially a fool if everyone does…….
I mean there is some (small) doubt about AGW, yet the Pollies seem to be jumping on board en mass…yet there is no doubt about peak oil (in comparison) yet its ignored….it just does not add up….unless what I suggest above is correct….
“The question for me is how much is longterm natural? how much short-term man?”
For me its all short term or significantly anyway, man, beyond reasonable doubt, ie it doesnt have to be 100% proven, just high enough probability that the risk is significant and impact severe at that point its prudent for sane ppl to think about avoidance or mitigation.
This is one of the points that surprises me the most about some other posters in here. Some if not many are business ppl, so they run a business and should surely be aware of or wish to know of anything that would put their business at significant risk. I am not talking of AGW here or even peak oil but the disapline of systematically assessing any and all risks to their business and dealing with those of high enough probability where possible….yet I see little sign of that being done with Peak oil or AGW.
eg farmers, if there is climate change and your area of the country is wetter or dryer doesnt that mean you may have to change what you farm? or increase drainage or irrigation? is that viable?
Can your remote farm survive and prosper on $3 litre diesel? $5? $10? if diesel gets that expensive, what does that do to the value of the farm? what about if fertilizer is 5 times its present cost? is the farm still viable?
If the answer is no, and these prices are highly probable, then shouldnt you consider an exit strategy?
“Natural” changes seems to be fairly stable…
regards
September 27th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Steven
Your comments are amusing.
Are you trying to suggest that there the world is running short of energy?
Obviously you haven’t noticed that we are spinning on a molten rock hurling itself around a giant nuclear furnace!
We aren’t short of energy, just short of ways to capture it easily – something time and ingenuity will solve.
We should move away from fossil fuels, not because of “Global Warming” but because we should neither be paying “taxes” to the middle east nor filling our cities with vehicle exhaust gases.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Sally:
“1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 percent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?”
This is a common argument made out of ignorance….for 1 elneno as mentioned above
Steven has chopped down enough trees to notice that the rings change in size every 7 yrs, which also corresponds to normal cyclic weather changes…
If these cycles are plugged into the model, the model should still show the changes that you question.
Then there are bigger cycles every 21 yrs and bigger every 50 yrs and so on till we hit the ice age cycles……
This then posses the question dose digging up the carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere artificially bring the bigger cycles closer? and would this cycle be abnormally huge than normal…..
The last big cycle was back in the 1300 to 1700s…
Why did so much exploration take place around the 1600/1700s….sailing technology did not increase that dramatically….but the weather did settle down dramatically.
The Maori got to NZ before the dark ages and bad weather cycle.
So the question are, this carbon we are digging up bring the next cycle faster?
If so , carbon is not a normal part of climate cycles….with high carbon levels is this cycle going to eventually reverse naturally? how fast, how serious will it be? or will it compound on its self to catastrophic proportions?
Do we take the chance and do something about it, or ignore it and cross our fingers, and hope history in a few 100 or 1000 yrs shows us as idiots with our heads in the sand?
September 28th, 2009 at 8:13 am
All these worries about carbon and exhaust fumes, the answer is to go electric, buy yourself an EV or hybrid and be part of the revolution man. (disclosure. Wally owns part of a copper mine)
September 28th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Steps..so when things get warmer it is global warming
when things get cooler it its “natural weather cycles?”
and of course the suns radiation cycles are irrelevant too?
to me plugging things into a computer model is more about computer science than climate science
September 28th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Steven said…
That’s either a mistake or a bare faced lie.
You call me a liar? Look Mr. Engineer, I read deep scientific peer review research papers in climate modeling frequently, because I can understand them. Second, I implement more advanced numerical models (published in other research journals that are not main domain of climate science ), that performed better than existing ones used by climate modelers of today , where those techniques are still unknown to climate scientists. It is equivalent to me talking about non-equilibrium economics which is something that is so unknown to or unfamiliar with our blog author Adolf Stroombergen. WHY? Because the topic is covered more in depth and published in issues of physics journals (eg : Physica A – Statistical Mechanics journal) rather than being published in an economic one.
It is obvious to me that you didn’t understand what I was talking about? Do you understand Complex systems ? If you did, you wouldn’t have made that stupid comment of yours above. Current climate modeling of today doesn’t adopt complex systems technique, because they’re so difficult. Climate system is truly complex and therefore must adopt appropriate models. What’s in use is of course the thermodynamic laws and fluid dynamic laws of the small scale being applied to the large as in climate which is a complex system.
What’s the difference ? Standard laws (thermodynamic and fluid dynamic) are reductionist approach, ie, the idea that these laws are universal which must work the same in the small and in the large. Well this is false when applied to Complex System, where reductionist is out the window. Reductionist works from bottom up, ie, the behavior of the large as a whole can be reduced to that of its parts or being described by the properties of its parts. No, climate system doesn’t work like that. Hurricane/storm (self-emergence system behavior – a typical complex system phenomena) is not reduced to the set of equations of standard fluid/thermo dynamic laws. Complex System works in both direction, ie, both bottom-up and top-down, the system as a whole can affect the individual (or parts) and so its parts can affect the system as a whole and this is why reductionist approach to climate modeling (standard laws) have huge disagreements with observations. Now, if you know anything I am not aware of in adoption of complex system climate modeling in current environment then please cite it here. As far as I know, the attempts have failed and this is why I mentioned it above, where you call me a liar.
The closest I have seen in the literature, was a paper published by NASA (Dr. W Rossow, et al ), shown below:
Inferring instantaneous, multivariate and nonlinear sensitivities for the analysis of feedback processes in a dynamical system: The Lorenz model case study
The above publication is not complex system modeling (CSM) even though CSM involves (units/parts) interconnected non-linear feedback, but it is a step in the right direction. You must read the whole paper to understand why I said that it’s an exaggeration to hear from a climate scientist that they have developed a climate complex system modeling. Those attempts have failed so far. If you don’t understand anything (concepts) in that paper above that I am urging you to read, then post back here, so I can explain it to you (ie, simplify).
Steven, don’t try and insult me, because I know what I am talking about. You should stick to quoting yourself as an engineer and leave the expert comments on scientific issues to us physicists because we definitely know what we’re talking about.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Oh dear: it’s descended within the first few comments into an AGW Grand Politico-Scientific Consensus versus the rest.
The political fact is that we are about to do the very minimum required at Copenhagen (assuming That actually gets off the ground: The One’s speech to the UN hasn’t gone down too well back home). The point about agriculture and forestry being inside the tent, is that there is a considerable potential for reforestation and other sources of credits, allowing within-country offsets. Listening to Simon Upton, Tim Groser, and Nick Smith expound upon just this, a few weeks back, has convinced my skeptical self that it is a shrewd commercial move.
Forget the science (it’s all over the shop, as a quick glance at Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre will show). Concentrate on how we can get the most leverage out of this here boondoggle.
Either way, the Sun is gonna have the last word, and what will tell us is the reaction of plants, fish and animals, not scientists in the clutches of Big AGW grant funding. Or the increasing irrelevant Big Media.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Falafulu Fisi – useful comments. From, The Origin of Wealth – Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics – Eric D. Beinhocker, 2006, Harvard Business School Press.
“However, whereas those sciences continued to develop along many new horizons; quite exponentially in some areas since that time, economics seemed to spend more effort on justifying/rationalising various equilibrium focused arguments and principles.
This was assisted as more sophisticated mathematics and analytical technique became available, all in an attempt to improve correlation between theory, practice and policy. This contrast was captured nicely in a an exchange between physicists and economists taking part in an cross-disciplinary workshop sponsored by Citicorp in 1987 that initiated various areas of research focused on applying complexity theory into economics via the Santa Fe Institute; a not-for-profit set up with the goal of addressing some of the more awkward problems in science characterised as complex systems. The physical scientists had challenged the economists for continuing to use models that so clearly did not represent reality and were shocked at the magnitude of assumptions made. It appeared as if the focus was not on matching reality, but rather ensuring the currency of assumptions was common across the sub-theories and approaches being used in main-stream economics. Quoting from the book:
“The economists backed into a corner would reply, “Yeah, but this allows us to solve these problems. If you don’t make these assumptions, then you can’t do anything.
And the physicists would come right back, “Yeah, but where does that get you – you’re solving the wrong problem if that’s not reality.”
Book revew here http://www.mea.org.nz/events.aspx
Anyway, I’m wondering if someone somewhere might beat the GG’s to it when it comes to warmng the globe:
Iran test-fires missiles after nuclear revelations
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10600034
Let’s hope not eh?
September 28th, 2009 at 9:47 am
In my time, we were all doomed from the following; WWIII (movie ‘Threads’, nuclear armagedden), AIDS was going to get us all, SARS, Bird flu, Swine flu. I’ve probably missed a few. Oh, and the planet is going to warm up and keep warming up until we’re all fried, then drowned by rising oceans.
This thread, more than any other demonstrates how many of us are now experts when we learn how to copy and paste a url to some ‘authoritative’ website that backs us up. The day of reading text books, checking references etc. have long gone. Just a quick google can elavate us all to intelligence and wisdom. Or is it just taking a bit of html splashed across our computer screens as gospel?