No surprise: the NZ climate crank coalition has rushed to support the ACT/National review of climate policy. Rear-admiral Jack Welch issued a press release on Sunday welcoming the coalition deal, and ACT’s demand that the science of climate be reviewed:
We are confident that once the Select Committee has an opportunity to hear all sides of the scientific debate on the man-made global warming hypothesis, it will conclude that climate variation is natural and cyclical and does not justify the costs and restrictions on human activity which have been proposed on the basis of computer projections rather than what meteorological observations and the earth’s history have demonstrated over the centuries.
So this committee of parliamentarians is going to judge the work of the entire climate science community and decide that it’s wrong? Wishful thinking (I hope). But it gets better:
Admiral Welch said qualified coalition members look forward to assisting the Select Committee and to serving on the proposed advisory group of government officials and private sector experts.
Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee, and if any of them get anywhere near any “advisory group”, New Zealand will be going to hell in a handbasket.
Time for the NZ scientific community to make it clear to Nick Smith and National that the starting point for any review of climate policy has to be an acceptance of the IPCC’s Fourth Report, and the NZ Royal Society’s statement issued earlier this year. Anything else would be like appointing Ken Ring to run MetService.
Related posts:
{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
“More misery and gnashing of teeth”
Agreed!
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0811/S00378.htm
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Have you had the courage to check the references? Took me five minutes to discover that there’s been an editing failure somewhere. I read “Alternative calculations by independent scientists suggest an increase of only 0.2-1.0℃ for a doubling of carbon dioxide (Isdo 2001).” For one thing the guy’s name is Idso, and for another neither appear in the reference list. Got anything that’s in a form fit for publication?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
One out of how many? Nit picking is all you are good for.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Smart guy Roger, please explain this then
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/c.....oct-pg.gif
Looks like global warming is back on for the month of October.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
>Looks like global warming is back on for the month of October.
Bloody well felt like it too! Nothing like a bit of snow in October, or was it November?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Thnaks for the explaintion Mr Expert.. I guess you are right, a local event counters the global evidence.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
> Smart guy Roger, please explain this then
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/c…..oct-pg.gif
>Looks like global warming is back on for the month of October.
NOAA graph is a bog standard version of the official ground temperature record.
The high October figure is an artifact of Hansen’s widely known miscalculation.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
No, it’s not. It’s a different analysis, produced by a differenrt organisation after the original error had been corrected.
You might want to read this page which includes the following:
But then, I guess the blinkers are on…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
You hang your case on one month?
You might care to read this:
http://www.spiked-online.com/i.....icle/5956/
There are far more important issues for humanity than carbon dioxide. The most important is overpopulation. If you care to get stuck into that I would be on your side. The loss of rainforest and the ever increasing areas of concrete do have an effect on climate through the change in albedo. But that is not the principal problem. Britain is now facing shortages in water supplies. These will get worse as the population increases. As population density increases there is increasing friction between people exacerbated by racial and cultural differences. When I came to this country fifty years ago it had a population of about 2.5 million. It had a standard of living among the top three in the world. Crime was a fraction of present levels. Criminal gangs did not exist. Most did not even bother to lock their houses when they went out. There was no armed offenders squad and the police were unarmed. I could carry a .303 rifle down Willis Street or onto a NAC DC3 without comment. Now we have a population of 4 million. Our standard of living is well down the list. Crime is rampant. Restrictions abound etc etc.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
What? Are you seriously going to defend scholarly incompetence? You linked a review article, which means that to assess the actual science I have to look at the citations. The Idso reference was the second one I looked at.
Have you checked the references out to see if the scientific evidence matches the assertions? Or did you just take that on faith?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
When are you going to come to your senses and realise that you are just useful idiots for big oil? Do you really suppose that the big oil companies did not see which way the wind was blowing long ago? They did. They put their money into wind farms etc, funded useful mega-idiots like Al Gore, though he may be too thick to know that, and backed both horses in the race.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Smart move I’d say, maybe there’s a buck to be made in being green after all.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t follow the argument. We propose policies that will discourage the use of their products by promoting energy efficiency and renewables and we are supporting big oil? In the words of one of my favourite bands that’s Pretzel logic.
My take on the minuscule amount invested by big oil in renewables is it’s mostly greenwashing and, maybe maybe some realisation that they are in a dieing business due to CC and Peak oil. So it could be part of their exit strategy, but if so it is pretty half hearted.
Doug
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Doug Clover 11.22.08 at 2:24 pm
>I don’t follow the argument. We propose policies that will discourage the use of their products by promoting energy efficiency and renewables and we are supporting big oil?
Try putting whatever passes for your mind into gear. Finding an pumping oil is a highly competitive and risky business. Milking the taxpayer for subsidies is money for jam. Big oil is smart enough to see that even if you and the rest of the useful idiots are not.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I don’t deny that the oil industry actively and successfully seeks subsidies with respect to oil exploration and production, and the protection of their markets. But this activity is overwhelmingly in regard to their oil business. What money and effort they spend on renewables (or in promoting energy efficiency) is trivial (window dressing).
In addition the amount of money spent by oil companies, of which Exxon is the most well known, in funding lobby groups to delay any effective efforts to mitigate emissions your theory that big oil is behind a “AGW conspiracy” so as to get move into and dominate the renewable energy sector seems tenuous.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Doug Clover 11.23.08 at 12:23 pm
Try this:
http://www.spiked-online.com/i.....icle/5956/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
It’s great to see the Christian right saying:
“My own view is that the elections in USA and NZ shows the death of the white, evangelical voter which have traditionally lined up on anti-abortion, pro-‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ and “global warming is bunkum” issues.”
Dr. Michael Kidd: The Family Party
What a joke!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Most scientists these days are agnostic whether pro or anti global warming. I have not met any geologist who indicates that he has any religious belief since about 1960. On second thoughts I can think of one exception, a Mormon in Australia. Abortion and corporal punishment are not common subjects for discussion in geological circles anyway.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
← Previous Comments