Comments on: Herald censures IPCC on flimsy grounds

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:51 +0000

I would also add as lies:
– quoting supporting papers that don’t exist
– claims a “supporting” paper says something it doesn’t.

Works for people who arent going to check. Those that check werent going to be convinced anyway so good tactic in war for public opinion.

- employing a PR firm to write FUD on blogs under guise of being concerned public citizens.

By: Sunday Times opens another gate â€” Hot Topic

Sunday Times opens another gate â€” Hot Topic — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:55:00 +0000

[...] sentence is referenced is apparently not peer-reviewed.Â Iâ€™ve already pointed out in another post that it is not a requirement for IPCC authors that all references be to peer-reviewed material, and [...]

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:33:14 +0000

“Muddying the waters is not the same as telling lies.” There is a difference here – the wacky stuff like Autism is pushed by people who sincerely believe it is true. Statements around “arctic melt nothing to worry about – look at Amundsen” or statements about “Volcanoes produce more Co2 than humans”, or “Glaciers are growing”, are coming from sources that know better, phrased very carefully and then taken up by sincere people who do not know better. I have every respect for alternative opinions and certainly for alternative models, but not for deliberate misconstructions of the truth.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:19:20 +0000

Muddying the waters is not the same as telling lies. In my ultimate fantasy someone like Jenny McCarthy would be taken outside and sho- I mean given a stern talking to – over her promotion of wacky Autism theories. However the nature of the world we live in means alternative viewpoints are allowed to be promoted regardless of whether they are backed up with sufficient evidence. Science in fact requires people to keep trying to think of ways of breaking the current paradigm so that it works efficiently.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:16:04 +0000

Gosman – see articles on methane. CO2 matters because it is the major GHG forcing globally. NZ is pretty unique in its methane profile. Other gases are either minor or linked to same as activities that produce CO2 and CH4.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:13:26 +0000

Well I think it would be better if you couldnt buy a politician myself. However, the issues on demonizing oil companies are focussed on Exxonmobile – as you point out BP and Shell have acknowledged the problem. And shareholder meetings at Exxonmobile have certainly shown that some (led by Rockafellers) are trying to change that. As to denial, they are charged with funding various organisations (eg Heartland, Cato, CEI) which do their dirty work for them. I do notice in oil industry rags some questioning as to whether this is likely to leave them open to later class actions as is happening with tobacco.

Myself, I would like some real consequences for attempts to deliberately influence public policy by telling lies.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:12:43 +0000

I am interestied in Gareth and Bryan’s position on one topic of the Climate Change debate that is unrelated to what we have been discussing to date. Apologies if they have touched upon this already on this site. If it has I would really appreciate if I could be directed to the particular post or posts.

Why is there such a focus on the total amount of CO2 as a proportion of the Atmosphere? Surely we should be more concerned about the warming caused by the total greenhouse gas emissions rather than focusing on one particular input into this equation?

By: Gosman

Gosman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:59:21 +0000

What you need to do then is to change the mindset of the owners of those companies you feel are causing the problems. This can either be done vioa changing the owners or by influencing the current owners via various methods. This might not be a easy job but I think it is better than any alternative I have seen.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:55:38 +0000

I’m not sure I have seen any of the oil companies come out and dispute the Science behine climate change directly Gareth. Certainly the major European based oil companies like Shell and BP at least pay lip service to the idea in their corporate structure.

I know people who work/ed for some oil companies and they all have strategies on Sustainability and Green energy development. You might not like the speed or amount of effort they expend in this area but it isn’t as if they aren’t making any effort at all.

What really needs to be done is more investment in alternative forms of portable energy. Instead of someone like Al Gore deciding to spend millions and millions of dollars on ‘Educating’ people about the dangers of Climate change perhaps it would have been better to use this money to fund research into clean portable energy sources.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:55:29 +0000

I dont demonise oil companies for wanting to make money – I do when they facilitate this by corrupting governance and disrupt efforts to deal with climate change by knowingly paying for disinformation campaigns, the purpose of which is to hamstring democracies through doubt. The key word here would be “knowingly” – the uproar at ExxonMobile AGM would seem to justify this charge as does their declared investments.

The right way for companies to make money is produce consumer goods at a price/quality better than your competitor. Got a long list of wrong way (eg graft, monopolizing, market positioning by lobbied legislation etc.)

The problem with oil companies move to other portable energy is that electric vehicles dont give much room for them at the moment. Dont see a lot of oil company investment in say batteries yet. On other hand, I do see investment in biofuel but I guess I doubt very much whether biofuel is much more than speciality item in a long term solution. Happy to be convinced otherwise.