Free allocation for coal exporters??

Nick Smith admits NZ hasn’t got a 2020 target. “NZ is unusual. Large proportions of emissions from Ag and forestry….NZ will not finalise our 2020 target… until we get the key satellite data around deforestation in July.”

NZ and Australian economies and policies should be harmonised… we have a tougher job here because of ag. emissions. Australians have an easier job because of its coal-fired power stations.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0012/1936659/mnr-20090505-0640-Australia_to_delay_carbon_emissions_scheme-m048.asx

Did you notice, BTW, how much time and effort you put into elaborating and engaging in flights of fancy about your misunderstanding, when a minute or so of careful perusal of the source graphic would have resolved the issue? You’re welcome.

Re listening to the climate scientists about climate change, should we stop listening to economists about the economy now that monetarism and the efficient markets hypothesis have been so spectacularly disproved?

Along with climate science, you obviously don’t understand democracy.
Do you use this argument for every bit of legislation that government passes?

No? Why not?

The government is voted in every 3 years, and is mandated to make the best decisions for it people. It bases its decisions on the ‘best’ advice possible. When it come to climate policy, I would rather it basis policy on advice from climate science, as opposed to idiots’ opinions who don’t understand science.

“Should our government be acting on the will of the IPCC or the will of its people?”

It should bases it on the best advice, not from muppets like you. Grrr.. these stupid people just grate me at times. I don’t care about being nice to these ****.

IF the hockey stick graph is MBH1999 , and MBH1999 ends in 1980, the instrumental record is a separate data set, then MBH1999 isn’t much of a hockey stick?

“How can a person who’s made no systematic study of this material draw any conclusions about it, lack of suitable expertise aside?” – Well the EU, US, Aussie, and NZ governments are introducing legislation to ‘fight climate change’, in a democracy every citizen needs to draw the best opinion they can on the subject. Is global warming such a complex issue that we need a scientific dictatorship to legislate the nessecary measures? If I can’t draw conclusions who can? Only the IPCC?? Is it better to just ‘believe’ everything people tell us without critical discussion? Should our government be acting on the will of the IPCC or the will of its people?

“The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.

“McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).”

Is there something that’s not clear about this? Just in case: MBH good, M&M (and S+B for that matter) bad. Re the graphics, had you read MBH 99 carefully you would have seen the graphic caption saying that the recon ends in 1980. The instrumental record was overlaid (not spliced), just as in the AR4 spaghetti graph.

“I am here searching for solid evidence, but so far coming up short.” So you still didn’t do that reading. “And the conclusions the IPCC report finds are predetermined anyway, it is always going to find in favour of AGW.” Well, that sure makes it easy to reject any evidence you don’t like.

“I agree with what [the AR4] says, for the most part, but not all the conclusions it draws.” On what body of knowledge do you base your disagreement? How can a person who’s made no systematic study of this material draw any conclusions about it, lack of suitable expertise aside?

“…[MBH 99] presents the clearest picture in favour of AGW.” Wrong. You didn’t read the hockey stick material I linked. Forget the MWP, though, the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of the Phanerozoic. That says what exactly about the present warming?

In a prior comment you asserted “the contaminated urban data is presented as having the same weight as uncontaminated proxy data.” What contaminated urban data? The instrumental record? Please.

“The 2nd shows that all proxy records show northern hemisphere temperatures are about the same as they were in 2000.” Nope. Look again. After you’re done with that, try to see if you can find the discussion of the southern hemisphere proxy data.

“It is usually the last resort of someone who is in the wrong.” Or just exasperation regarding someone who repeatedly acts like an idiot.

I don’t think i have ever stated AGW as wrong on this blog?

You don’t have to……

And the conclusions the IPCC report finds are predetermined anyway, it is always going to find in favour of AGW.

This (and comments like it) give away your prejudices.

And why do you think that McCabe is a climate scientist? Paleolimnologist doesn’t fit the bill for me.

Andrew

But to address your hockey stick comments above: the point you miss is that the early MBH papers provided a foundation on which others have built. AR4 reflects the current state of play – that’s why it has the “spaghetti” graph with lots of curves from lots of studies. And that’s the primary evidence for the MBH papers not being “discredited”. Nobody thinks they’re “right” or “wrong”, but they are and have been useful.

You might want to read the Wikipedia reference I provide in the evidence. It provides a very balanced overview of the whole topic.