John Key has just announced the deal he has signed with ACT, allowing National to form a minority government. It looks – at least in terms of the agreement on climate policy, very much like Hide’s tail is wagging the National dog, and New Zealand’s stance on climate change is about to take a big turn for the worse. Implementation of the ETS is to be delayed until a special select committee reports on climate policy. The agreement includes the following section on climate policy:
National is committed to retaining measures to address New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations, by making amendments to the legislation that will balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic needs. ACT campaigned on a policy of abolishing the ETS.
National agrees to a review by a special select committee of Parliament of the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and any amendments or alternatives to it, including carbon taxes, in the light of current economic circumstances and steps now being undertaken by similar nations.
National further agrees to pass forthwith an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation, repealing the thermal generation ban and making any other necessary interim adjustments until the select committee review is completed.
ACT is not opposed to New Zealand adopting responsible climate change policies. What it opposes is an ETS that was never adequately justified. If a rigorous select committee inquiry establishes a credible case that New Zealanders would benefit from action by New Zealand, in conjunction with other countries that are important to us, ACT would be prepared to support legislation giving effect to such action. National agrees that the Terms of Reference for such an inquiry will be mutually agreed between ACT and National and that the Terms of Reference proposed by ACT are attached as Appendix 1 will be an initial basis for discussion.
Before the election, National was committed to retaining the ETS. Now it is only committed to “retaining measures to address New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations”. It looks very much like the current framework of policy on climate change is about to be dismantled, and that John Key has failed his first test as prime minister – before he’s been sworn in.
Full text of ACT’s proposed terms of reference below the fold:
Terms of reference:
The committee shall:
• hear competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change from internationally respected sources and assess the quality and impartiality of official advice
• hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspects of this issue
• consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto I, and the form such an agreement might take
• require a high quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and commercial benefits and costs
• consider the impact on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households of any climate change policies, having regard to the weak state of the economy, the need to safeguard New Zealand’s international competitiveness, the position of trade-exposed industries, and the actions of competing countries
• examine the relative merits of a mitigation or adaptation approach to climate change for New Zealand
• consider the case for increasing resources devoted to New Zealand-specific climate change research
• examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change
• consider the need for any additional regulatory interventions to combat climate change if a price mechanism (an ETS or a tax) is introduced
• consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government.
Future work on climate change, including the work of the select committee, shall be resourced by a high quality advisory group comprising government officials and private sector experts.
If this anything like the final shape of the terms of reference, National will not only be reinventing the wheel, but riding backwards on it like a drunk on a unicycle.
I suspect ACT is just national’s excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway.
They can blame MMP for it……even better, from their point of view.
Depressing.
Hmm
The first bullet looks to to be interesting. Who will they get who is respected for the competing scientific view? I suppose they will roll out Bob Carter but he is not professionally active in climate science (it’s his hobby and he publishes on the economics and policy side of things).
Not VG as I suspect he would be a liability for the skeptics.
Any thoughts from anyone about who it might be?
Also any thoughts as to who you would get from the science community to shoot down the BS? They need to be good communicators and as much as I like our boys and girls at NIWA most haven’t mastered the art of communicating to lay people such as MPs.
For that matter who on could be on the Select Committee that is qualified to judge the science? Not RH as I suspect the last time he read a science article in reputable journal was in the early 1980s.
Doug
Doug,
If that first “science” point makes into the final terms of reference, then it will be a sign that ACT and the deniers in National’s caucus are running the show. If it does, it should provoke howls of protest from – amongst others – the Royal Society. It is not the role of Parliament or politicians to decide on what constitutes the science. Their job is to get the best advice, and then act on it. The Royal Society’s statement earlier this year should be the starting point for any committee, not something to be debated.
Depressing? No, tragic.
And if I was an official dealing with climate policy, I’d be tempted to resign on the spot!
The sad thing is, that dragging the chain now will only end up costing more later.
Terribly shortsighted, and the cynic in me believes that this ACT policy is closer to Nationals heart than they led us to believe in the campaign.
I think I must have something of the cynic in me too Tim. I misread the appendix as part of the agreement rather than a basis for discussion and shot off an angry letter to the Herald – then rushed to withdraw it an hour later when the truth dawned. But it’s bad enough to see them even ready to discuss the possibility of the select committee hearing “competing views” on the science. And repealing the thermal generation ban, which they have agreed to, is very bad. They seem to suggest lifting the ban may only be an interim measure, but presumably it opens the possibility of new long-term investment in thermal generation. There need to be regulatory accompaniments to the ETS, of which the ban was a good example.
In 2000 Mbeki convened an inquiry to discuss the cause of aids although the science was already clear. Is Key prepared for the comparison?
I might be wrong, but I think repealing the ETS, even just to delay its implementation, requires an amendment bill, which needs to pass through Parliament the usual way. Meaning existing ETS implementation timeframes stay active, meaning officials need not resign in protest just yet. Although this other select committee review will surely only add to the overloaded work loads of those souls.
With reasonable doubt about climate sensitivity to CO2 in well-informed minds around the world; with recent scientific results, such as on water vapour feedback, ice sheet dynamics and cloud cover response, unconsidered by the IPCC; with the all-important temperature record ambiguous towards warming and subject to vigorous examination; with the electorate in two minds over AGW and having just decided an important change of direction, and with the world financial system in disarray, what is wrong with pausing to take a leisured, judicious look at what was passed, uncontestably, in haste? The climate is not evidently changing so quickly that we must hurry.
Such an enquiry could confidently be expected to strengthen, not weaken, the position of whoever backs the truth. Nothing is threatened by this proposal and nothing yet lost. Some of the reactions here are premature and exaggerated. Now more than ever we need people capable of careful consideration and able to avoid the knee-jerk reaction.
Cheers.
Richard Treadgold.
rtreadgold: There is no ambuguity in the science. Warming is occurring and it is caused by humans. New evidence is coming out almost every day showing that this is true and that it appears to be accelerating. The Arctic Ocean ice is one example and the methane release occurring in that region and others is yet another.
Unfortunately, many people can’t and wont take prudent action until after disaster has struck. I know these people well. They have obstructed almost every major effort to avoid disaster in the history……Look at how it took almost 40 years to get people to do anything about the obvious, proven health dangers of cigarettes and smoking…..and STILL 25% of us smoke regardless….
Climate change is / will be just another example of this bloofyminded stupidity.
I have come to accept that we don’t collectively have the intelligence to do anything about climate change and instead those of us who do understand what is at stake would be best advised to arrange our personal affairs so as to minimise the disruption and risk to ourselves, our families and – if we can – our communities.
But it is a shame that people are being mislead into thinking we have the luxury of time…..when it may already be too late.
Richard, you are a past master at sounding reasonable, but then you go and blow it by saying something so obviously wrong. The global climate is currently changing at least 20 times faster than the rapid warmings out of recent ice ages, and the indicators – loss of sea ice, decline in ice sheet mass, regime shifts in ecosystems are all pointing in the wrong direction, and accelerating…
I would be more forgiving of National’s action if they had taken up my proposal (outlined here), but instead they have set up a process designed to prolong uncertainty (damaging to business) and pander to business lobbyists.
Truth Seeker –
Take the UAH temperature record since early 2002: does it show warming, cooling or stasis? An objective view would form no conclusion about the climate from such a short record, but it does illustrate ambiguity.
What is the evidence? Just from the last couple of weeks, say.
NASA says the (seasonal) reduction in Arctic sea ice was caused by ocean currents bringing warmer water in, not air temperature.
What is the evidence, please? It was discovered recently that global levels of methane rose, but nobody knows why. Are you sure that you know?
Cheers.
That’s off topic rubbish.
You ask what this review threatens. How about our international trade and environmental negotiation reputations, how about forestry investments (and consequent impact on our Kyoto liability), how about domestic economic policy certainty?
Gareth –
It’s not ‘obviously’ wrong by any means. Twenty times faster climate change? That’s bizarre! What’s the evidence for all those statements? What does “currently changing” even mean? That is, what aspect, what metric of climate is measurably changing that fast? The UAH northern polar monthly mean temperature anomalies show no marked trend—the Arctic is not warming; or only a bit since 1979. Ice sheet mass decline was seasonal only and recovered faster than ever in the instrumental record. Ecosystem/habitat range excursions have not been proved beyond natural limits.
Your preference for a non-partisan approach to global warming/climate change is one I have some empathy for. For one thing, it would force more contrasting viewpoints to the table, so (one might hope) ensuring more measured discussion. It would certainly prevent waiting for the next tri-annual modifications. However, with the Greens involved, who bring along so much social engineering baggage with their climate proposals, I guess most Kiwis find it less of a pain simply to leave them out of it.
What do you think’s wrong with a Royal Commission? (Not that it looks as though we’ll get one.)
Cheers.
Richard, before calling my statements “bizarre” perhaps you could do a modicum of research – like reading my book?
Re rate of warming: this is something I’ve discussed here many times. When the globe warms out of an ice age, the increase is typically about 5C over about 5,000 years – in other words, about 0.1C per century. Current rate is somewhere between 0.15 and 0.2C per decade, depending on the data set.
Re UAH “polar”: UAH does not produce temp figures for anywhere north 0f 70º. The Arctic is most certainly warming. Read NOAA’s Arctic scorecard.
Ice sheet mass decline was seasonal only and recovered faster than ever in the instrumental record. This is garbled. Ice sheets all over the globe are showing significant mass loss. If you’re referring to sea ice, you’d do well to search this site for info – I’ve been covering events in detail. The picture is not rosy.
Your bold assertion re ecosystems flies in the face of the evidence (see AR4 WG2, and many more recent papers).
I think the opportunity for a Royal Commission on climate policy passed several years ago. There are no reasonable grounds for a RC on climate science – not unless the NZ government wants to make itself a laughing stock.
password1 –
I must presume your remarks are directed to my comments, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
No, I address the review mentioned by the post itself.
Actually, I simply said nothing is threatened. The eventual results of the review could threaten one position or another, but not the review itself. Simply looking out of the window will cause no reaction, but recognising the approaching storm/tornado/bushfire might.
From John Key’s actions so far, we might actually look forward to more, not less, cross-party consultation, so moving closer to Gareth’s preference and closer to domestic economic certainty than at present. So, your reaction could be unnecessarily anxious.
Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.
.
Gareth –
That I did, Gareth: I cited a temperature graph from UAH which you acknowledge by refuting. So you are in error to claim I did not do even a modicum, etc., etc.
I resist, so far, reading your book. There are other valid sources.
Rate of warming: That is truly amazing. Does this mean the ice age is over—or what IS the significance? A quibble: UAH quotes 0.13°C/decade—only 13 times higher.
Polar rate of warming: UAH do provide a “Northern polar” graph which is unalarming; I’ve done a quick search but cannot verify the latitude you mention. The NOAA “scorecard” looks alarming, which raises suspicion.
“Ice sheet mass decline was seasonal only…” Sorry, I meant to refer to sea ice extent. Ice sheet mass changes are, as you ought to acknowledge, vigorously disputed. Different studies come to different conclusions.
Sea ice … not rosy: The latest figures at The Cryosphere Today are normal, so what do you mean?
Doug Clover 11.16.08 at 3:50 pm
The first bullet looks to to be interesting. Who will they get who is respected for the competing scientific view? I suppose they will roll out Bob Carter but he is not professionally active in climate science (it’s his hobby and he publishes on the economics and policy side of things).
Geology is an essential part of climate science. Who else but geologists and palaeontologists (a subdivision of geology) know anything about climatic history?
rtreadgold: There is no shortage of evidence that climate change is both happening and due to human influence. You could try the link to the right. I’ll past it here. There are dozens of stories which, if read, provide a cumulative picture of human-driven climate change.
http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwnews.html
This recent BBC story is one sign post on the way to a warmer future through willful ignorance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm
Truth Seeker 11.17.08 at 10:39 am
rtreadgold: There is no ambuguity in the science. Warming is occurring and it is caused by humans. New evidence is coming out almost every day showing that this is true and that it appears to be accelerating. The Arctic Ocean ice is one example and the methane release occurring in that region and others is yet another.
Actually it is not warming and has not been for some years. It is not caused by humans and there is no evidence at all!
Climate changes naturally. Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes it gets colder. It looks as though we are in for a period of cooling. If it gets cooler there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. When the climate cools towards the next ice age there will bloodshed world wide. That is what you should all be worrying about.
Gareth 11.17.08 at 11:41 am
Richard, before calling my statements “bizarre†perhaps you could do a modicum of research – like reading my book?
Why should he read your book when there is plenty of science to read?
Your definition of normal must be different to mine, as CT shows today’s anomaly to be roughly 0.5m km2 below the 1979-2000 average.
Sea ice summer minima are showing large declines: 2007 was a new record and 2008 got close. The volume of sea ice is in decline (halved in recent years, according to one recent paper), and the amount of multi-year ice has reduced enourmously.
But I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know this stuff. Apparently you find the Arctic scorecard to be suspicious, because you don’t like the look of what it’s telling you. Rose-tinted spectacles, perhaps?
Someone rattle your cage, Roger? You’d learn a bit by reading it, too.
But I’m not holding my breath.
“Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes it gets colder. It looks as though we are in for a period of cooling”
That’s right, yesterday was hot, today is cold, AGW… what a load a bull. These climate chnage liars are really onto something.
Gareth –
Correct, for the Northern Hemisphere; while at the same time the global anomaly sits right on the mean. Normal.
Summer melt varies; the period of record is only 30 years, not much for the climate; I’m not perturbed by those figures. Anybody would be reassured by the rapid recovery of sea ice this northern autumn.
Yes, perhaps. I don’t deny I’m sceptical of the AGW hypothesis, so yes, I move cautiously. But I defend that attitude as being still very likely to discover the truth. I’m still researching Arctic temperatures.
As Roger says, there is no evidence of dangerous, man-made climate warming, now or in the future. If you have some, please show it to us.
Cheers.
“As Roger says, there is no evidence of dangerous, man-made climate warming, now or in the future.”
So now you can read into the future? So your mind is made up? Now how is ‘closed minded’? More like small minded, maybe?
Not much point, because your “proceeding cautiously” seems to mean turning a blind eye to the stuff you don’t like.
jonno –
No, I’m not claiming to see the future. I expressed it poorly, but I meant that there is no evidence for past or present man-made warming and there is no convincing hypothesis to predict future man-made warming.
Gareth –
Your comment certainly avoids having to present weak data. Is that its purpose?
I did not say I was turning a blind eye to claimed Arctic warming—just the opposite: I’m looking into it.
So feel free to present any evidence you have. I’m paying very close attention.
Nonsense. Get back to me when you’ve finished reading that Arctic Scorecard and the material it references. You’ll find a great deal more material referenced if you follow the Arctic sea ice sequence of posts I’ve made here over the last 18 months. Hint: use the search box.
So? Any evidence of man-made warming? Summarise for me.
Ta. Though any warming does not verify an anthropogenic influence, which is the vital (oh, so vital!) matter.
It seems you’ll get no arguments on that score here, Roger. It goes without saying the best ones to comment on current climate trends are those who’ve studied the historical trends.
Quite a few, actually. You could start with dendrochronologists, atmospheric chemists and ice drillers, paleobotanists – it’s a long list.
The study of climate is multi-disciplinary. Geologists have input , but it doesn’t trump anyone else’s…
It is the multi-disciplinary nature of the study of climate which denialists – or the reasonable-sounding agnostics into which they seem to be morphing – are either unaware of or choose to ignore. The contributing evidence crowds in from a vast range of scientific investigation. Richard, along with Rodney Hide, needs to read more books, or perhaps even some books.
Dewhurst: The world is warming. It isn’t even. Thresholds must be reached – and crossed – before the next phase begins. The ice is melting. The seas are warming in places where they used to be cold. If we were seeing year-on-year temperature increments, it would likely be FAR too late to do anything at all. There is more than enough evidence that the world is warming. That it is not happening at the pace of a Hollywood disaster movie isn’t a refutation of the evidence….
Most worrying is the rapid warming of the Arctic Ocean. rtreadgold puts this down to warmer currents entering the Arctic Ocean, which he fails to trace back to the cause – climate change – which is why ther are warmer currents entering the Arctic Ocean for the first time in millenia…..
Those warmer currents are melting the permafrost on the seabed….and releasing methane. Methane is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I see a positive feedback loop operating already. That methane will amplify the changes already underway.
Buildings built on the permafrost in northern Canada and Alaska are collapsing as the permafrost melts…..and they had foundations metres deep.
In my view, as a geologist, all this argument about global warming and greenhouse gases based on data recovered in the last 50 or so years has about as much perspective as an ant climbing up a large pile of boulders.
This earth is about 4,500 million years old.
The first life forms appeared over 1000 million years ago.
The first animals leaving fossils appeared about 550 million years ago.
Etc etc, you can read this anywhere.
About 70 million years ago at the beginning of the Tertiary period the first mammals appeared; actually it might have been a little earlier, at the end of Cretaceous times. The climate remained warm, warmer than today, throughout Tertiary times until about 2.5 million years ago. All of the mammalian families, and early man, evolved during this period.
About 2.5 million years ago the ice ages of the Pleistocene period commenced. We do not know exactly how many ice ages there have been, perhaps 15 to 20. We have a pretty good handle on the last four or five. Typically these have lasted about 150,000 years and have been separated by interglacials lasting about 10,000 years. Some of these interglacials have been very much warmer than the climate is now as is indicated by the bones of crocodiles, hippopotami and other tropical animals, in Britain. In glacial times Scotland was covered with a couple of kilometres of ice and the ice extended as far south as London. Early man (not h.sapiens) occupied Britain in two or more of the later interglacials but was driven out by the advancing ice each time.
Modern man (h.sapiens) first appeared about 40,000 years ago and was contemporaneous with h.neanderthalensis who had appeared somewhat earlier and spread widely. The last ice peaked about 20,000 years ago and by about 10,000 years ago, or earlier, it had largely gone. With the ice went Neanderthal man to be superseded by modern man. With each glaciation a huge volume of water was locked up in polar ice causing sea level to drop by about 100 metres. The North Sea was above sea level as was much of the land between Taranaki and the South Island.
As the climate warmed vast grasslands spread northwards across the northern continents and across what was to become the North Sea. These were populated by vast herds of ruminants doubtless all farting methane. The last of these great herds were the bison of North America. Humans killed off the vast herds of ruminants and thus reduced the amount of methane emitted but the climate continued to warm nevertheless.
In historical times we have had the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period during which wines was made in the north of England, and the mediaeval warm period during which humanity flourished and much of the great architecture of Britain and Europe was constructed, Eric the Red farmed in Greenland and the polynesians paddled around the Pacific collecting the kumara from South America in the course of their travels. Then came the Little Ice Age from which the climate is still recovering.
In short there is nothing new.
Some old blah, blah… there is a difference between in rates Roger, what is it that you don’t understand?
There is a difference between local and global climate variation, what is it that you don’t understand?
The old thing that is not new is your climate change lies, same lies, different day.
So Dewhurst what’s your point.
Laurence 11.18.08 at 1:44 pm
So Dewhurst what’s your point.
The point is that AGW is bullshit, very expensive bullshit that we should have nothing to do with.
jonno 11.18.08 at 1:35 pm
Some old blah, blah… there is a difference between in rates Roger, what is it that you don’t understand?
There is a difference between local and global climate variation, what is it that you don’t understand?
The old thing that is not new is your climate change lies, same lies, different day.
What I and every other reader will understand is that you are rude, ignorant and being led by nose by others with a vested interest in peddling AGW nonsense.
Dewhurst has reminded me that there was a discussion in Real Climate three months ago about geologists and climate change scepticism – warning it’s very long: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/
One quote from a contributor:
“As a geologist, one of my biggest criticisms of the science is that a large proportion of geologists are overly focused on the descriptive and qualitative. When you lack quantitative skills and do not understand the modeling process, it is natural to mistrust results derived from computer models.
“That said, my guess would be that most of the skeptics in the geology community are either older or employed in the extractive industries. Those are the same groups that resisted the plate tectonics revolution in the 20th century, so perhaps this is simply history repeating itself…”
The point is that AGW is bullshit, very expensive bullshit that we should have nothing to do with.
Only rude to those who are rude to begin with.
“What I and every other reader will understand is that you are rude”
What I and every other reader will understand is that you are a climate change lair and you are rude too!
>As a geologist, one of my biggest criticisms of the science is that a large proportion of geologists are overly focused on the descriptive and qualitative. When you lack quantitative skills and do not understand the modeling process, it is natural to mistrust results derived from computer models.
Some of them perhaps. I have been more involved with the numerical aspects of the work.
>That said, my guess would be that most of the skeptics in the geology community are either older or employed in the extractive industries. Those are the same groups that resisted the plate tectonics revolution in the 20th century, so perhaps this is simply history repeating itself…â€
I had accepted continental drift long before anyone though of calling it plate tectonics.
The problem you have Dewhurst is that the vast majority of the world population does believe in AGW, and well over half want action. Now you can piss yourself as much as you like but the fact is you’re just so much background noise, and, fading by the minute. As the changes on the ground become more and more obvious, they’re showing you and your ilk for the fools that you are.
So here’s the thing Dewhurst, me old china, if you don’t want to be part of the solution get out of the way, we’re coming through, and without you and your ilk crapping on the rug, the human race might just have a chance.
If you think I’m disrespecting you, you’re right. I have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant and chose to stay that way. There is no excuse, good information on the why and what of climate change abounds and you still insist on trotting out the same old bullshit. You lot have had every chance to inform yourselves and I think it’s long past the time for giving you the benefit of any doubt, time in fact for the slipper to come off and you to receive the kicking you deserve.
May be a carbon tax could be a good thing
Laurence 11.18.08 at 6:44 pm
> The problem you have Dewhurst is that the vast majority of the world population does believe in AGW, and well over half want action.
The vast majority have never heard of it and would not give a stuff anyway. The vast majority in this country knowing nothing about science may feel that the propoganda is true because the government tells them so. But it does not mean anything to them yet. it will do when they get slugged with the taxes though! But you do not pay taxes do you?
>Now you can piss yourself as much as you like but the fact is you’re just so much background noise, and, fading by the minute. As the changes on the ground become more and more obvious, they’re showing you and your ilk for the fools that you are.
On the contrary the sceptic viewpoint is gaining adherents while the warmers are ranting in frustration at the loss of their support.
>So here’s the thing Dewhurst, me old china, if you don’t want to be part of the solution get out of the way, we’re coming through, and without you and your ilk crapping on the rug, the human race might just have a chance.
The human race has no chance in the long term and little in the medium term. If it has not overpopulated this earth and blasted itself back to the stone age it will be decimated by the next ice age and those surviving will decimate each other.
>If you think I’m disrespecting you, you’re right. I have no respect for people who are willfully ignorant and chose to stay that way.
I do not really expect very much from a rude little boy whose bottom should have been spanked by his mother long ago.
>There is no excuse, good information on the why and what of climate change abounds and you still insist on trotting out the same old bullshit. You lot have had every chance to inform yourselves and I think it’s long past the time for giving you the benefit of any doubt, time in fact for the slipper to come off and you to receive the kicking you deserve.
Really, what do you know? How long have you been around? Have you or any other of warmers hanging onto Gareth’s coattails ever had a job in the real world? Mc Donalds is about as close to the real world as you have got.
You sad old man Roger… I am glad few people live in your world. You are just a foolish old man, hoping that someone will listen to your crazy stories.
Silly little boy. Your AGW world is collapsing around you. You know it. You cannot do anything about it except throw your toys out of the cot.
Tell us when you get a job better than McDonalds.
Sad.. really sad, you have no idea and now you are showing how sad you are… just a crazy old man… pity your life was useless… that’s what your problem is.. you know that your life was useless and can’t handle this fact.
The thing that is collapsing is the ice sheet and the world you living in!
You talk about being old, but still act like a child. Mate, a have a good job in the real world… and you live of my taxes.
Is this Roger Dewhurst the “Woger” from nz.general of (now many) years gone by?
If it is, he is considered by many to be a certified Net-loon going back almost 20 years. Almost always on the wrong side of any argument, seeking all the attention he can get.
Truth Seeker 11.19.08 at 5:35 pm
Is this Roger Dewhurst the “Woger†from nz.general of (now many) years gone by?
If it is, he is considered by many to be a certified Net-loon going back almost 20 years. Almost always on the wrong side of any argument, seeking all the attention he can get.
Hello cretin. Why not try presenting a little science in support of your childish viewpoint?
All that you imbeciles can do is to attack the individual presenting the view to which you are opposed.
Considering your complete inability to understand any of the science that has been presented to you so far, I think that giving you more would be a total waste of time. Now, given that you’ve had a fair suck of the sav don’t you think it’s about time you trotted off to see if you can find this growing band of sceptics you are so convinced of. Although I would suggest that you keep the ice age thing under your hat or you’re likely to get the short shift there as well.
Tough titty?
Italy and Germany agree that measures to cut greenhouse gases shouldn’t
weigh on the economy, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press
conference Tuesday, indicating government support for tough new measures
in Europe is waning. Germany’s public support of Italy’s position means
that E.U. leaders may find it harder to get the package approved this
year, as scheduled.
–Jennifer Clark, Dow Jones Newswire, 18 November 2008
Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that the global financial crisis could
cause leaders to renege on their environmental pledges. “The goals of
2020 remain, but let’s see how we can meet” them without putting too
much pressure on a weak economy, she said.
–AFP, 18 November 2008
In a body blow for Australia’s solar industry, the nation’s biggest
solar-panel factory will close early next year, taking 200 skilled jobs
with it, equal to one-eighth of the total Australian solar workforce.
The closure of the BP Solar plant at Sydney Olympic Park means
Australia’s solar industry is now primarily a research rather than a
manufacturing effort.
–The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 November 2008
Indonesia, the world’s largest palm oil producer and emitter of
greenhouse gases through deforestation, on Tuesday dealt a blow to hopes
it would step up efforts to combat climate change. Anton Apriyantono,
the agriculture minister, told the annual conference of the Roundtable
on Sustainable Palm Oil that sustainability criteria should not be made
a priority, particularly for smallholders, “when economic needs are not
being met” in the global financial crisis.
–John Aglionby, Financial Times, 18 November 2008
That is not the only reason why I have not spoken previously in this
House on the Climate Bill. The other reason is that I felt that it was
unbecoming for an unbeliever to take part in a religious service, which
is what all this is really about. Nevertheless, we have the amendments
that come back from the Commons to us today. The Bill will go down in
history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill
that this House and Parliament as a whole has ever had to examine.
–Lord Lawson of Blaby, House of Lords, 17 November 2008
(1) GERMANY JOINS FORCES WITH EU CLIMATE REBELS
Dow Jones Newswire, 18 November 2008
(2) ITALY, GERMANY TO SEEK JOINT APPROACH TO CLIMATE POLICY
AFP, 18 November 2008
(3) POLAND UNCONVINCED BY EU CLIMATE BRIBE
Financial Times, 18 November 2008
(4) OBAMA: THE GREEN REVOLUTION WILL START WITH CAP-AND-TRADE SCHEME
WSJ Environmental Capital, 18 November 2008
(5) AUSTRALIA: THE GREEN JOB REVOLUTION IS A SMASH HIT
The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 November 2008
(6) NIGEL LAWSON: THE MOST ABSURD BILL EVER
House of Lords, 17 November 2008
(7) THE BACKLASH U.S PRESIDENT OBAMA MAY SOON FACE
ABC News, 19 November 2008
(8) COUNCILS FEAR DOUBLE COST WHAMMY DUE TO EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME
Farm Online, 19 November 2008
(9) FINGERPRINT METHOD
DuPree Moore [dupreemoore@bellsouth.net]
(10) NEW PAPER ON CLIMATE POLICY
Bob Ferguson [bferguson@sppinstitute.org]
(11) AND FINALLY: EUROPE’S OBAMA: REMEMBER THE CLIMATE CHANCELLOR?
Time Magazine, Spring 2007
Roger the Muppet, this still does not prove that the science is wrong. These countries still agree with the science. The worrying issue is that these countries are doing nothing to reduce emissions. Now, do what Laurence has said and run off, no one here cares about your lies anymore.
Roger (and anyone else): Debaters usually stick to the evidence until it becomes obvious someone isn’t taking any heed of it. Then, that person attracts negative attention.
What is the evidence that supports your case?
“Time to review the Emissions Trading Scheme”.
A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
20 November 2008
For Immediate Release.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Queensland Government to
follow the lead of New Zealand and initiate a complete review of the science
and the cost-benefits of the proposals to levy a new tax on coal and petrol
usage.
‘”All over the world, three factors are triggering a revolt against the
lemming-like rush led by the Anglo-Saxons to commit carbon suicide via
Emissions Trading Schemes.”
“Firstly, the science behind the scare forecasts from IPCC computer models
has been shown to be deficient by a growing band of independent scientists.
“Secondly, the globe itself is sending a warning as daily reports of
unseasonal frosts, snow and ice make a mockery of the global warming
hysteria. We certainly have climate change, but it is natural global
cooling, not man-made global warming.
“Thirdly, the world financial collapse has forced alert politicians to focus
on the immediate concerns of voters – real jobs, and the security of supply
for food and power.
“The revolt against new carbon rationing and taxes affecting New Zealand now
encompasses much of the world including India, China, Indonesia, Brazil,
Poland, Italy, Germany and the whole Ex-Soviet bloc. There is naturally no
support for carbon rationing from the OPEC world, and falling support from
Canada. There is also scant chance that the US Congress and Senate will
embrace any expensive new Kyoto pact.
“Soon the only true believers will be the blinkered political and Green
zealots in UK and Australia, with cynical support from nuclear-powered
France.
“Queensland has more to lose from carbon taxes and rationing than any other
place in the world. And there has been no unbiased assessment of the costs
and benefits of such moves. Any government honestly representing the real
long term interests of the carbon capital will lead the push to review where
we are headed, why and at what cost?”
No matter how many times you and your sad mates keep lying Roger, does not make it right.
“independent scientists” Yer right. More like liars.
Dewhurst: Evidence? No doubt you’ve been pointed toward the evidence dozens of times – maybe hundreds – and managed to avoid it so far. Nothing I can say is going to change that.
Ask Barack Obama. He knows about the evidence.
>Dewhurst: Evidence? No doubt you’ve been pointed toward the evidence dozens of times – maybe hundreds – and managed to avoid it so far. Nothing I can say is going to change that.
I have made my position clear enough. You have about 15% of the time perspective of Bishop Ussher and he was an idiot.
>Ask Barack Obama. He knows about the evidence.
Does he know where he was born?
My mistake; About 1.5% of the time perspective of Bishop Ussher.
Roger,
I presume you refer to Ussher’s often ridiculed date for the creation?
I know Vincent has equated acceptance of the climate science with creationism so naturally as a sceptic you will be familiar with some of the more famous writers on evolutionary theory like Stephen Jay Gould.
One of his essays is devoted to showing that – judged by the standards of the time – Ussher made an honest attempt to marry theory with knowledge.
Do you think that in the future it will also be said of sceptics that they made an *honest* attempt – judged by the standards of this time?
The misleading arguements, like Carter’s “no warming since 1998” or de Freitas on “real greenhouses” shows the opposite to be true.
Oh dear,
World publics strongly favor requiring more wind and solar energy, more efficiency, even if it increases costs
Most think it will save money in the Long Run
>Most think it will save money in the Long Run
And this explains why:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5956/