I'm a greeny and think that the ETS is a crock of faeces

[shrub]

I am unashamedly a greeny (I love riding in this beautiful country too much to be anything else), but I think the shiny new ETS scheme Our Masters have decided to bless us with is not a good thing for the environment or the ordinary people of NZ.

Any emissions trading scheme is based on the idea that if I pollute, all I need to do is purchase credits from someone who doesn't pollute and put my prices up to cover my increased costs. As a classic example of how it works, I have a business that pumps carbon in the atmosphere and have to do something about it. The best solution would be for me to have to clean up my act and stop polluting, but that takes effort and would cost a fortune, so I discover that there are a heap of farmers in India who use bicycles to pump water from wells instead of electricity or fossil fuels, which means they're able to sell their carbon credits (this actually happened).

So I buy their carbon credits to offset my emissions, and raise my prices accordingly; I can't help it, those evil greenies made me do it by forcing in the ETS. The consumer pays more, the guys on their bikes can't afford to buy electric pumps because if they did they'd lose their carbon credits and I continue to pollute. Fantastic.

And I haven't even begun to discuss the disproportionate impact on ordinary consumers like you and I compared to the impact on the corporate sector. I'm just glad I have a tax cut to look forward to so I can cover the costs of increased GST, increased ACC and now the ETS.

[avgas]

I hate to add salt to the wound.....but the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper than that even.

Not many NYC investment bankers (origins of many credits) decrease carbon emissions, they simply "buy" and "resell" the figures....

Hence why its an ETS - not a regulatory commission.
Only other thing I think it compares to it would be the "options" market. Where you are not buying anything that exists - but a fictitious figure, stating something will change. Unlike the stock market where you are buy a figure of value in a corporation.

[shrub]

I hate to add salt to the wound.....but the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper than that even.

Not many NYC investment bankers (origins of many credits) decrease carbon emissions, they simply "buy" and "resell" the figures....

Hence why its an ETS - not a regulatory commission.
Only other thing I think it compares to it would be the "options" market. Where you are not buying anything that exists - but a fictitious figure, stating something will change. Unlike the stock market where you are buy a figure of value in a corporation.

Absolutely. And the hole goes deeper still - Our Masters will now put their hands on their hearts, put on an earnest expression and announce that "we've done our bit for climate change", meanwhile the problem grows and grows and grows and grows..... Kind of like Bradford's Bill a couple of years ago - well meaning, but instead of addressing the problem yet another law was passed meaning Our Masters can wash their hands of the problem - "smacking is illegal, what more can we do?"

[Scuba_Steve]

ENRON anyone???

[george formby]

Just another business in the 1st world economic model. ETS is not intended to fix anything, it is designed to make money for the brokers & carbon traders. If the gummint really wanted to do something positive they would be spending money on alternative energy solutions & closed loop industrial & building practices developed, designed & made right here in little old godzone.
We don't need your steenkin ETS.

[slofox]

ETS is the best example of total bullshit I have seen in a while. As the OP said, it doesn't fix anything - it just works on the principle that "if ya throw money at it it'll all go away". ETS fixes NOTHING!
As Murray said this morning on another forum, "BAH! HUMBUG!"

[retro asian]

I wonder who the minister in charge of ETS is....???


....oh yeah, that's right:

<img src=" http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=153365&d=1259839219" width = 640>

[Naki Rat]

Absolutely. And the hole goes deeper still - Our Masters will now put their hands on their hearts, put on an earnest expression and announce that "we've done our bit for climate change", meanwhile the problem grows and grows and grows and grows..... Kind of like Bradford's Bill a couple of years ago - well meaning, but instead of addressing the problem yet another law was passed meaning Our Masters can wash their hands of the problem - "smacking is illegal, what more can we do?"

And of course the costs of ETS are just passed down the line to the consumer whose only retaliation is to boycott, but when the ETS is so all encompassing we are pretty much pissing in the wind on that front :no:

[shrub]

And of course the costs of ETS are just passed down the line to the consumer whose only retaliation is to boycott, but when the ETS is so all encompassing we are pretty much pissing in the wind on that front :no:

One of the interesting features of business in the 21st century is the decreasing number of players in a given sector as businesses engage in takeovers and mergers, which opens the door to widespread collusion and removes the opportunity for consumers to find genuine alternatives. We're kind of heading from democracy to feudalism, only this time our lords and masters are global multinationals.

[MisterD]

The best solution would be for me to have to clean up my act and stop polluting, but that takes effort and would cost a fortune,

Yeah, but you putting your prices up is supposed to put you at a competitive disadvantage against someone who isn't polluting (coal power station vs hydro f'rinstance). Theoretically, anyway.

It's a bag of shite from top to bottom and I have no idea why the government is so keen to cripple our economy...it's not as if JK needs a job at the UN after his terms as PM.

Nice to see Nick Smith standing up against the power companies though and making sure they don't use the ETS as an opportunity to rort us. We can't have anyone encroaching on the government's monopoly in that regard now, can we?

[shrub]

Yeah, but you putting your prices up is supposed to put you at a competitive disadvantage against someone who isn't polluting (coal power station vs hydro f'rinstance). Theoretically, anyway.

Only problem is the modern business model doesn't work that way because the small number of players mean everyone is basically doing exactly the same thing.

What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner. What we have is a "business as usual" model.

[mashman]

ENRON anyone???

No thanks i've just eaten :)...

did none of you see the program on Swarms last night? They said there is a massive population explosion of Pyrosomes... Pyrosomes, and some jellyfish, take carbon to the seabed believe it or not... perhaps a pool full of these suckers would bring your carbon footprint down :)

[NighthawkNZ]

You really think they want to true fix any problem... sorry but there is too much money to be made...


just slaves to the system...

go search NASA website and burried deep within (enough to hide it but not enough to say it was hidden) all the planets are warming up at the same increased rate as Earth... hmmm but they can't tax you on that because how did we effect Mars???

[Mully]

On an unrelated note, I'm offering a "Last day of June" special for all KBers:

Buy some carbon credits from me, and I'll throw in some magic beans!! No postage required, because these are magic beans that will just appear to you.

Sorry, cheques not accepted. Direct deposit preferred. PM for account details.

Form an orderly queue please - I have plenty.

[bogan]

What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner.

fucking aye!

does the ETS directly affect farmers, ie does a tree earn them x$ and a cow cost them y$

I found some shit about planting trees on thier site

To be eligible to earn emission units, the forest needs to be a minimum of 1 hectare, planted after 31 December 1989 with a forest species capable of growing to five metres plus.
which is weird, cos I was unaware that 20 year old trees stopped converting 'bad air' to 'good air'

[MisterD]

Only problem is the modern business model doesn't work that way because the small number of players mean everyone is basically doing exactly the same thing.

Which is why I used the word "theoretically".



What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner. What we have is a "business as usual" model.

There's lots of good work going on in ag research in this area...except that the greenies are throwing their hands up about the fact that it may require genetic engineering. Ya can't have it both f-ing ways...

Questions I'd like to see Key and Smith answer:
1) What investment exposure do you have to carbon credits / carbon trading companies?
2) What campaign donations have you received from companies involved in carbon trading?

Key obviously has a background in currency trading and had lots of contacts in that "world"...

[davereid]

I was unaware that 20 year old trees stopped converting 'bad air' to 'good air'

I never quite worked out how a forest is supposed to be a carbon sink. Unless you cut it down and make houses out of it anyway !

The tree grows, using photosynthesis and carbon dioxide as its raw materials.
Then it stops growing, dies and crashes to the forest floor, where it releases all of its carbon dioxide.

That sort of makes it about as useful in the carbon sequestering business as my pet rock, which over it's life-cycle captures the same amount of carbon as my dead-and-rotted tree.

Except I would still have my rock, and I would have no carbon credits.

[bogan]

I never quite worked out how a forest is supposed to be a carbon sink. Unless you cut it down and make houses out of it anyway !

The tree grows, using photosynthesis and carbon dioxide as its raw materials.
Then it stops growing, dies and crashes to the forest floor, where it releases all of its carbon dioxide.

That sort of makes it about as useful in the carbon sequestering business as my pet rock, which over it's life-cycle captures the same amount of carbon as my dead-and-rotted tree.

Except I would still have my rock, and I would have no carbon credits.

it doesn't release carbon dioxide as it dies, as the co2 get converted to sugar and other compounds during photosynthesis.

[sinned]

fucking aye!

does the ETS directly affect farmers, ie does a tree earn them x$ and a cow cost them y$

I found some shit about planting trees on thier site

which is weird, cos I was unaware that 20 year old trees stopped converting 'bad air' to 'good air'
If the 20 year old tree is fully grown it has absorbed all the carbon it is going to. Burn it, cut it up etc it releases the carbon.


I never quite worked out how a forest is supposed to be a carbon sink. Unless you cut it down and make houses out of it anyway !

The tree grows, using photosynthesis and carbon dioxide as its raw materials.
Then it stops growing, dies and crashes to the forest floor, where it releases all of its carbon dioxide.

That sort of makes it about as useful in the carbon sequestering business as my pet rock, which over it's life-cycle captures the same amount of carbon as my dead-and-rotted tree.

Except I would still have my rock, and I would have no carbon credits.
And therein lies why national park native forests don't count - they are in a state of growth and decay that balances out; unless you burn them down then the carbon is released.

If you have a better option than the ETS let Nick know.

[davereid]

it doesn't release carbon dioxide as it dies, as the co2 get converted to sugar and other compounds during photosynthesis.

Hmm...I have a still at home.

I deliberately rot sugars (carbohydrates).

I get carbon dioxide, and alcohol as my result.

[bogan]

If the 20 year old tree is fully grown it has absorbed all the carbon it is going to. Burn it, cut it up etc it releases the carbon.

That makes sense, would have thought the period was longer than 20 years though. Still, having that carbon tied up in trees is better than not having the trees as it would then be in the air.

[phill-k]

We have a little bit of land up north, have planted about 150 trees so far the first 17.89 trees take care of our footprint, happy to "sell" anyone who gives a "shit" any number of tree credits - 1 tree equals 16.47 (gst receipt available) plus an on going 5.38 per annum, if you buy 3 you can feel free to do what you want and we will guarantee that you will be protected from any of the effects of climate warming. Please note the above figures assume you don't ride more than437km a week and your bike is less than 987cc. Please fee free to pm if you want a tree or three, 3 monthly photos will be forwarded of your tree by email. :Punk:

[slofox]

Hmm...I have a still at home.

I deliberately rot sugars (carbohydrates).

I get carbon dioxide, and alcohol as my result.

I got one of dem as well.

Rotting the sugars doesn't release ALL of the carbon though. The alcomohol still cacrries some - two atoms per molecule.. By drinking that alcomohol all up, you are STORING THE CARBON IN YOUR BODY and acting as a living carbon sink. Ergo, they oughta be paying us to drink more booze...or at least giving us carbon credits...

Tell THAT to Snick Miff

[rainman]

We're kind of heading from democracy to feudalism, only this time our lords and masters are global multinationals.

Sadly, too true.


What we need is an environment that supports innovation, entrepreneurialism and vision, and for us to use our legendary Kiwi ingenuity to develop technological advances that can produce energy and products in a low carbon manner.

Government cannot give you this. (They could help, but this lot won't). The only option is to "do it yerself mate" as the Mitre 10 kids say.


go search NASA website and burried deep within (enough to hide it but not enough to say it was hidden) all the planets are warming up at the same increased rate as Earth... hmmm but they can't tax you on that because how did we effect Mars???

Linky please or I call bullshit um I mean denier mythology.


That sort of makes it about as useful in the carbon sequestering business as my pet rock, which over it's life-cycle captures the same amount of carbon as my dead-and-rotted tree.

Do you have a permit for that long-term thinking?


That makes sense, would have thought the period was longer than 20 years though. Still, having that carbon tied up in trees is better than not having the trees as it would then be in the air.

Over 20 years, sure, the storage effect is all good. Long-term, the problem won't be solved with more trees - and I'm a greenie and like trees (and also think this ETS is crap) - the problem will be solved with less "civilisation". Unfortunate, but true.


Ergo, they oughta be paying us to drink more booze...or at least giving us carbon credits...

A philosophy that I would vote for!

[Woodman]

Someone needs to start blowing the big polluters up. Waste of time doing it legally. The ets is a crock of shit.

[ukusa]

emissions trading scam. another example of where average Joe Public is hugely against it (ah la Bradfords smacking bill, 85% against from memory), but the govt push the fucking thing through anyway...wankers. Problem is, there's no one else worth voting for.
Personally, I've yet to meet a person who thinks it's a good idea!

[Winston001]

I am unashamedly a greeny.....

Any emissions trading scheme is based on the idea that if I pollute, all I need to do is purchase credits from someone who doesn't pollute and put my prices up to cover my increased costs.



Yep but I can't see why it won't work. Money is a powerful persuader - just consider the threads on here about the cost of gear, bikes, workshops etc. Some posters seem to be having apoplexy at times particularly on the ACC topic. And what are they on about....???

MONEY.

So we cannot pretend that putting prices up won't matter. If a ream of paper from a low-carbon supplier is cheaper than from a high-carbon supplier, guess which one will sell best? Heck good old wool and cotton might make a comeback against the oil fabrics - nylon, polyprop etc.

The rational business decision is to reduce the carbon consumption so you don't need to buy credits.

[Jonathan]

Yep but I can't see why it won't work. Money is a powerful persuader - just consider the threads on here about the cost of gear, bikes, workshops etc. Some posters seem to be having apoplexy at times particularly on the ACC topic. And what are they on about....???

MONEY.

So we cannot pretend that putting prices up won't matter. If a ream of paper from a low-carbon supplier is cheaper than from a high-carbon supplier, guess which one will sell best? Heck good old wool and cotton might make a comeback against the oil fabrics - nylon, polyprop etc.

The rational business decision is to reduce the carbon consumption so you don't need to buy credits.

I am with you on this one. Businesses are amoral, money is the only language they speak. ETS is simple - you get money for activities that reduce carbon; you save money by reducing activities that emit carbon. What can be wrong with that?

It may not solve the issue of climate change, but it is a step in the right direction.

[Usarka]

I am unashamedly a greeny (I love riding in this beautiful country too much to be anything else), but I think the shiny new ETS scheme Our Masters have decided to bless us with is not a good thing for the environment or the ordinary people of NZ.

You ride a machine running on fossil fuels for fun? You're about as green as an arse biscuit thats fallen behind the damp sink along with the zit puss and pube bleach.

[oldrider]

These MMP governments just keep raising our taxes by calling them all sorts of imaginative names but soon the last straw will be reached!
History tells us that sooner or later the peasants revolt!.............cant be too far away from breaking point with this lot, surely! :stoogie: Viva la revolution! :ar15: Nick for a start! :mellow:

[slofox]

the peasants revolt!.............

Peasants have always been revolting haven't they..?.....errrr...hang on, that doesn't sound quite right..or something...

[shrub]

You ride a machine running on fossil fuels for fun? You're about as green as an arse biscuit thats fallen behind the damp sink along with the zit puss and pube bleach.

Ah yes, the old "you're a greeny so you have to ride a bicycle and wear organic hemp clothing" argument. Sadly for people like you who need a simplistic view to understand the world, life is not a binary; in other words everyone who is a greeny isn't a hard core vegan eco warrior living in a mud brick house on Waiheke island; and there are an infinite number of interpretations of "green" as a behaviour. For example, I eat meat, ride a motorcycle and wear leather when I ride, yet I also grow my own vegetables, minimise the use of my car, use my pushbike for round town and short trips, am a member of the Green party and don't believe in the munificence of the global corporates. Confused? It gets worse: I also think that GE might have some important answers to the problems we face and think that nuclear power may one day be a good thing (but not here if that's OK), yet I am engaged in fulltime research looking at ways that businesses can operate sustainably and profitably and support the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace.

Sorry to dump such confusing and scary stuff on you first thing in the morning and I hope the voices in your head aren't arguing too loudly.

[shrub]

These MMP governments just keep raising our taxes by calling them all sorts of imaginative names but soon the last straw will be reached!
History tells us that sooner or later the peasants revolt!.............cant be too far away from breaking point with this lot, surely! :stoogie: Viva la revolution! :ar15: Nick for a start! :mellow:

History also tells us that the best way to give the peasants a voice is with proportional representation.

[Usarka]

Ah yes, the old "you're a greeny so you have to ride a bicycle and wear organic hemp clothing" argument. Sadly for people like you who need a simplistic view to understand the world, life is not a binary; in other words everyone who is a greeny isn't a hard core vegan eco warrior living in a mud brick house on Waiheke island; and there are an infinite number of interpretations of "green" as a behaviour. For example, I eat meat, ride a motorcycle and wear leather when I ride, yet I also grow my own vegetables, minimise the use of my car, use my pushbike for round town and short trips, am a member of the Green party and don't believe in the munificence of the global corporates. Confused? It gets worse: I also think that GE might have some important answers to the problems we face and think that nuclear power may one day be a good thing (but not here if that's OK), yet I am engaged in fulltime research looking at ways that businesses can operate sustainably and profitably and support the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace.

Sorry to dump such confusing and scary stuff on you first thing in the morning and I hope the voices in your head aren't arguing too loudly.

I bow to your superior intellect and lack of humour. :not:

[shrub]

I bow to your superior intellect and lack of humour. :not:

Of course you do. And I have a great sense of humour - I find you rather amusing.

[Pixie]

Effectively Taking us for Suckers

[avgas]

which is weird, cos I was unaware that 20 year old trees stopped converting 'bad air' to 'good air'
They must do - cos Carter Holt Harvey cuts them down around then and plants new one.
Lets cut down some Kauris, those fuckers must be horrible for the air

[avgas]

History also tells us that the best way to give the peasants a voice is with proportional representation.
That's why the ocean changed when I pissed in it?

My moto is fire is the best way to give peasants a voice.

[sinfull]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LgbEYSbyepM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LgbEYSbyepM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[avgas]

You ride a machine running on fossil fuels for fun? You're about as green as an arse biscuit thats fallen behind the damp sink along with the zit puss and pube bleach.
Someone take a dump in your coffee this morning?

[davereid]

Yep but I can't see why it won't work. Money is a powerful persuader - just consider the threads on here about the cost of gear, bikes, workshops etc. Some posters seem to be having apoplexy at times particularly on the ACC topic. And what are they on about....??? MONEY.So we cannot pretend that putting prices up won't matter. If a ream of paper from a low-carbon supplier is cheaper than from a high-carbon supplier, guess which one will sell best? Heck good old wool and cotton might make a comeback against the oil fabrics - nylon, polyprop etc.The rational business decision is to reduce the carbon consumption so you don't need to buy credits.

Its only $3 a week. As I have commented before, that's not going to change anyone's habits. Even the poor will still be able to drive, keep warm, and eat meat. It would have to be $30-$300 a week to really change habits.

But where is the money going ? We can track some of it. Gmint has budgeted 1.6 to 2 billion for payment to forestry operators. (It depends on how many agree to take the money instead of cutting down the trees.) The more that take the money, the more expensive wood will become, and the more tax you will pay.

Say it was $1.8 billion, and it was distributed on the basis of forestry area.

Then, here's how the money would be divided up.

[NighthawkNZ]

money money money.... money sucks I hate the shit...

[Scuba_Steve]

money money money.... money sucks I hate the shit...

I'm willing to take yours if you don't want it anymore

[oldrider]

History also tells us that the best way to give the peasants a voice is with proportional representation.

True but it doesn't have to be MMP!

[NighthawkNZ]

I'm willing to take yours if you don't want it anymore

haven,t got any to give...

[slofox]

money money money.... money sucks I hate the shit...

Yeah. I hate it too...especially not having any...

[Jantar]

Yeah, but you putting your prices up is supposed to put you at a competitive disadvantage against someone who isn't polluting (coal power station vs hydro f'rinstance). Theoretically, anyway.....
No. That can't be it. Because in the NZ electricty market, all generators get paid the cleared price of the highest cost generator on the system. If that one is one that has to buy carbon credits then that price is higher for all geneartors irrespective of fuel source.

Now that may sound like a win for Hydro generators, but it isn't. At the same time all retailers have to pay that same that same higher price, and that is passed on to the consumers. So there is no win and no loss for any of generators irrespective of fuel and there is no win and no loss for any of the retailers, it is only the consumer who suffers. Yes, even the consumers who live in the South Island and have only hydro plant still have to pay the increased costs due to ETS.

[sinned]

Someone needs to start blowing the big polluters up. Waste of time doing it legally. The ets is a crock of shit.
Easy to blame the big polluters; who pollute to give you products at a lower price than from a non/lower polluter. Are you driven to buy cheap?


emissions trading scam. another example of where average Joe Public is hugely against it (ah la Bradfords smacking bill, 85% against from memory), but the govt push the fucking thing through anyway...wankers. Problem is, there's no one else worth voting for.
Personally, I've yet to meet a person who thinks it's a good idea!
It is possible you don't know anyone who knows jack shit.


Yep but I can't see why it won't work. Money is a powerful persuader - just consider the threads on here about the cost of gear, bikes, workshops etc.

The rational business decision is to reduce the carbon consumption so you don't need to buy credits.
You seem to be onto it.


I am with you on this one. Businesses are amoral, money is the only language they speak. ETS is simple - you get money for activities that reduce carbon; you save money by reducing activities that emit carbon. What can be wrong with that?

It may not solve the issue of climate change, but it is a step in the right direction.
It may not be popular but is a step in the right direction. There are two options:
1) Tell most of the world to get fucked we are not going to do anything and don't care if we damage NZ image of 'clean green', nor do we care if we can't sell our primary produce overseas. This will probably mean the only motorbikes you will be able to afford are those cheap horrible things from China.
2) Regulate and introduce a range of carbon taxes to reduce carbon.

ETS sounds like the best option to me.

BTW: Labour and the Greens are on side. ACT are playing some weird game to keep in the news.

[Woodman]

Easy to blame the big polluters; who pollute to give you products at a lower price than from a non/lower polluter. Are you driven to buy cheap?


s.


Don't always go for the cheapest , no. But otherwise guilty as charged. We all support them, and don't always feel good about it.

[mashman]

So yet again the consumer literally pays for the lack of business innovation, too much money going into private hands and not into real R&D... fuckin pathetic.

[Conquiztador]

So if I make my boys use the generator pushbike to charge our batteries and therefore disconnect us from the grid, and we pushbike everywhere, someone somewhere will pay me money?

[dipshit]

so I discover that there are a heap of farmers in India who use bicycles to pump water from wells instead of electricity or fossil fuels, which means they're able to sell their carbon credits (this actually happened).

Actually Indian government ministers sold their carbon credits. The farmers that use bicycles to pump water didn't get a single sausage.

[Swoop]

Effectively
Taxing
Suckers (unfortunately)





Buy some carbon credits from me, and I'll throw in some magic beans!! No postage required, because these are magic beans that will just appear to you.

Sorry, cheques not accepted. Direct deposit preferred. PM for account details.

Form an orderly queue please - I have plenty.
Do you still have any snake oil? I used up that last bottle and I'm still waiting to see the "changes" that were promised. I think I really need to buy some more.

[Scuba_Steve]

Effectively
Taxing
Suckers (unfortunately)


& here I was thinking it ment
Excessive
Tax
Scam

[Winston001]

Sadly for people like you who need a simplistic view to understand the world, life is not a binary; in other words everyone who is a greeny isn't a hard core vegan eco warrior living in a mud brick house on Waiheke island; and there are an infinite number of interpretations of "green" as a behaviour. For example, I eat meat, ride a motorcycle and wear leather when I ride, yet I also grow my own vegetables, minimise the use of my car, use my pushbike for round town and short trips, am a member of the Green party and don't believe in the munificence of the global corporates. Confused? It gets worse: I also think that GE might have some important answers to the problems we face and think that nuclear power may one day be a good thing (but not here if that's OK), yet I am engaged in fulltime research looking at ways that businesses can operate sustainably and profitably and support the Sea Shepherds and Greenpeace.


Agreed, we think alike. I'm a rationalist probably with both green and liberal tendencies. I don't like pollution and hate the greenhouse anthropomorphic debate because it obscures the much bigger problem of finite resources and a finite planet. Too many people living in increasingly desperate conditions -Africa, Asia, and South America.

I think wind power is weak and only pursued because it is easy and visible. Tidal, hydro, and thermal power have much more to give us. IMHO New Zealand is too small for competing electricity generators and we would be far better off with a government operated national energy company. NZED anyone???

Nuclear fission has much to offer but if we bide our time others will produce a viable fusion technology. Let the Europeans do the experiments. :D In the meantime tidal and geothermal should be developed. We have one of the thinnest crusts in the world around Rotorua with magma just below the surface. We have a huge coastline with tides running twice a day - its a no-brainer. Tough technological challenge certainly but it can be done.

[mashman]

Effectively
Taxing
Suckers (unfortunately)


Nah, as another KB member put it. Emissions Trading Scam... pretty much nutshells it...

[Quasievil]

Nah, as another KB member put it. Emissions Trading Scam... pretty much nutshells it...

yes built and adopted on the basis of the other global warming CO2 scam.
As I said in some other posts on another thread, its all about the money and we will be paying, and now hey looky looky whats happening.

Countries fucked mate, Im so tempted to leave, but to go where ?

[shrub]

I hate the greenhouse anthropomorphic debate because it obscures the much bigger problem of finite resources and a finite planet.

It's a bit hard calling it a debate - on the one side you have scientists and on the other you have religious nut jobs, right wing extremists, a few oddball scientists and big business. It is seen as a debate because the deniers make the most noise and don't bother wasting their time on research when they can find typos in the IPCC reports and take a few stolen emails out of context.

[mashman]

yes built and adopted on the basis of the other global warming CO2 scam.
As I said in some other posts on another thread, its all about the money and we will be paying, and now hey looky looky whats happening.

Countries fucked mate, Im so tempted to leave, but to go where ?

Well ya can't just lose a revenue stream... you have to replace it with something. lol, we came here...

[Winston001]

As I said in some other posts on another thread, its all about the money and we will be paying, and now hey looky looky whats happening.


I don't exactly agree Quasi but I'm not convinced about the ETS or carbon taxes either. None of these ideas were created by some dark cabal in New York to make money, but yes, traders will jump on the bandwagon if there is a dollar to be made. Then we need consultants, analysts, mathematicians, media advisors........so I can see why you might think there is an emperor's new clothes feel to the whole carbon market idea.

[davereid]

We have a huge coastline with tides running twice a day - its a no-brainer. Tough technological challenge certainly but it can be done.

Tidal Generation is an environmental disaster. Anywhere with tidal flow gets effectively cluttered with generation equipment, making the seabed look like a wind-farm. I sincerely hope that it never, ever happens.

Even if it turns out, that global warming caused by humans is happening, it is dealt with as if our only mechanism to deal with it is to put the price up.

That may reduce overall consumption, but at every turn, it will at a cost to the poor.

I watch protesters telling me we must tax carbon. I expect to see the same protestors at some time in the near future, concerned about the escalating cost of food, of families and pensioners that can't afford to keep warm, and of increasing numbers slipping below the poverty line.

There is nothing that can change this.
$5 a week is a completely insignificant amount of money to me. But over a year, for a pensioner its an entire weeks income, and more than half a weeks income for someone on the minimum wage.

The only future that makes us better off is technology. Not blind alleys like tidal and wind either. Real sustainalbe technologies like Nuclear Fusion.

If we HAVE to tax, instead of a market, the Government should just say "OK, we are taxing carbon at XYZ%, and all the money raised will be spent on healthcare."

But, its NZ. We will tax hardworink Kiwis, and send the money to Russia, where their nice clean nuclear fission reactors make them an environmental role model.

[Quasievil]

i think you should all realise that his is a small start, a few bucks a week isnt a big deal to most people sure, but what we have now is a system in place, wait for a few years and see what the ETS scam will be costing you.................fiscal creep I think its called, just like a 10% GST .....12.5%.........15% you get the story, same will apply

[Iggy]

This is ETS scheme is one the biggest bullshit political rorts of all time, I was watching a documentary a few weeks ago, some scientists have discovered that millions of years ago the earth was completely iced over and their theory is that what caused the ice to melt, they say that massive volcanic activty occured and the volcanic gas and CARBON MONOXIDE was released into the atmosphere and as the build up of carbon monoxide was 500 times more powerfull than todays standards. The ice, obviously over peroid of time began to melt.
I conclude in my opinion that, it is all a conspiracy theory by politicians to scare us into the thinking that the planet is dying???
Never ever trust the pricks and bitches we vote into power!!!

[Conquiztador]

This ETS tax is one of the most obvious scams that has been pulled over us. And nobody is saying a thing.

Here:
- We all pay a additional tax on all that creates Carbon Monoxide that we buy or we own.
- We then supposedly will get paid back if we plant trees or do other things that reduces this stuff.

And who is in charge of those dollars?? You guessed it...same crowd that increased the ACC to astronomical figures using so falseleading figures that even my 8yo could see it.

In the meantime a bunch of 3'rd world countries are burning more fossile fuels a day than we do in a year. And what do you think they will pay in ETS tax...

This government is sitting in the backrooms laughing at the NZ population and coming up with new money making schemes to see how much they can fool us.

[mashman]

The reaction to the yahoo pole (http://post.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quizresults.php?poll_id=55134&wv=1) says it all really.

But as I maintain, all we're worried about is our money and how it will and does affect our lives, not our lifestyles, our lives (we can live without stuff, but lack of money changes people). Get rid of that and so much worry/fear/hate/anger/lies/deception/greed/envy etc... dissapears.

[pete376403]

[QUOTE=Winston001;1129799918
IMHO New Zealand is too small for competing electricity generators and we would be far better off with a government operated national energy company. NZED anyone???.[/QUOTE]

So ETS should really be called the Max Tax (ie Max Bradford)

[pete376403]

This ETS tax is one of the most obvious scams that has been pulled over us. And nobody is saying a thing..
Some people are...
" The madness of the government's new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only ones in the world paying for it. It will drive up the cost of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand for negligible environmental gain." - Nick Smith, 2005

""The ETS is the most efficient and least-cost way to bring emissions under control, meet our international obligations and protect New Zealand's clean, green brand," - Nick Smith 2010*

'spose it depends which side of the room you are sitting on.


*Kerre Woodhams column in the Harold today

[Jantar]

It's a bit hard calling it a debate - on the one side you have scientists and on the other you have religious nut jobs, right wing extremists, a few oddball scientists and big business.
So true. Its quite enlightening when you study the IPCC reports that are supposed to represent the work of 2500 scientists, only to find that the final reports are written by less than 60 scientists, and the rest of the numbers are made up from those work is cited, whether they are scientists or not; from reviewers, whether they agre with the draft report or not; and from policy makers, who have been shown to direct what the report will say irrespective of the science. I don't quite see where religious and/or political views come into it though.


It is seen as a debate because the deniers make the most noise and don't bother wasting their time on research when they can find typos in the IPCC reports and take a few stolen emails out of context.
Whoops! It looks like you've suddenly changed your tune. Instead of debating the science it appears you've switched sides and started name calling and minimising the massive errors made the IPCC and a few highly funded researchers. I can't call them scientists because they simply dodn't follow the scientific method.

[shrub]

So true. Its quite enlightening when you study the IPCC reports that are supposed to represent the work of 2500 scientists, only to find that the final reports are written by less than 60 scientists, and the rest of the numbers are made up from those work is cited, whether they are scientists or not; from reviewers, whether they agre with the draft report or not; and from policy makers, who have been shown to direct what the report will say irrespective of the science. I don't quite see where religious and/or political views come into it though.


Whoops! It looks like you've suddenly changed your tune. Instead of debating the science it appears you've switched sides and started name calling and minimising the massive errors made the IPCC and a few highly funded researchers. I can't call them scientists because they simply dodn't follow the scientific method.

I normally wouldn't dignify a response this poorly informed with a reply, but I'm bored.

1. Where do you get the idea that the IPCC reports were the work of 60 people? Given I personally know 1 lead and 3 contributing authors, I think that there being only 57 others worldwide is a little hard to accept. So front up with an answer, and make it from a credible source, and don't waste my time with the bullshit that the Canada Free Press published by John McClean and Tom Harris. I want credible which means written by expert authors and based on solid research, not two conspiracy theory halfwits.

2. If you think me calling people who deny that climate change is man made "deniers" is name calling, then you're being very sensitive. Maybe your position isn't strong enough to cope with even the slightest challenge?

3. First, do YOU know what the scientific method is? And as far as I'm aware there were two errors in the 4th report (glaciers and dutch sea level), and both of them had absolutely no bearing on the outcomes of the report. There were 3 or 4 other issues, none of them substantial and no matter how much one wants to believe that dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases in the amosphere has no effect, it would take a lot of faith to believe that they negated the work of tens of thousands of scientists. Highly skilled, dedicated and very wel resourced scientists.

And before you ask, the earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth.

[Quasievil]

I normally wouldn't dignify a response this poorly informed with a reply, but I'm bored.

1. Where do you get the idea that the IPCC reports were the work of 60 people? Given I personally know 1 lead and 3 contributing authors, I think that there being only 57 others worldwide is a little hard to accept. So front up with an answer, and make it from a credible source, and don't waste my time with the bullshit that the Canada Free Press published by John McClean and Tom Harris. I want credible which means written by expert authors and based on solid research, not two conspiracy theory halfwits.

2. If you think me calling people who deny that climate change is man made "deniers" is name calling, then you're being very sensitive. Maybe your position isn't strong enough to cope with even the slightest challenge?

3. First, do YOU know what the scientific method is? And as far as I'm aware there were two errors in the 4th report (glaciers and dutch sea level), and both of them had absolutely no bearing on the outcomes of the report. There were 3 or 4 other issues, none of them substantial and no matter how much one wants to believe that dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases in the amosphere has no effect, it would take a lot of faith to believe that they negated the work of tens of thousands of scientists. Highly skilled, dedicated and very wel resourced scientists.

And before you ask, the earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth.


OH Dear another one taken hook line and sinker, Al coming for dinner tonight?

[Scuba_Steve]

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/image-shadow/cache/2ab29d23d158b982bd1cf12ece177fa2.jpg

[doc]

This is ETS scheme is one the biggest bullshit of all time, a conspiracy theory by politicians to scare us into the thinking that the planet is dying???
Never ever trust the pricks and bitches we vote into power!!!

I blame the Greenies, cos they bought it to the attentions of the politicians, now its not going their way. We are going to poorer like Quasi said just another rort to get more out of us, inflation will increase the levy over time. And nothing will change just more empire building. Ferk our mob could even privatise it and sell it

[shrub]

OH Dear another one taken hook line and sinker, Al coming for dinner tonight?

God no, I only have enough pies for me.

Sadly, much as I'd love to believe that climate change either isn't happening, or has nothing to do with human activity, I suffer from something called cognitive dissonance which means no matter how much I want to believe something, when all the evidence points the other way I have to follow the evidence. I'd also like to believe that mortgage rates will continue to drop, petrol will drop in price and Our Masters will drop the ACC levies and lift the open road speed limit to 120. I'd also like to believe that there is a bloke called God, and if I play nicely he'll invite me to spend forever in heaven riding any bike I want on perfect roads.

Only problem is, we live in an age of enlightenment, and we have these irritating people called scientists. I'd love to believe the right wing and religious bloggers that have created the impression that climate change isn't real, I find the scientists easier to believe. A couple of weeks ago I was having a beer with a guy who had just come back from 2 months in Antarctica. This guy has been studying his field forover 20 years here and internationally at some of the best universities on the planet and is probably the world's leading authority, so I tend to take what he says on board. When he says things like "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that man made climate change is real and the outcome of my research is unequivocal", I listen. And he's one of thousands that say the same thing.

On the other side you have the energy industry who really don't want to see oil consumption decline, you also have big business that are scared shitless of having to pay for the mess they're making of our environment, so they fund every possible argument regardless of how spurious. They also hire some of the best PR companies on the planet to create the perception that climate change is a great big scam introduced by Al Gore to make money, or that the scientists involved play along to get funding, or that the evil greenies invented climate change to screw over the poor little guys trying to make a living and drive everyone onto benefits because that's what they want. And then we have the religious right who are terrified of the evil commie greenies gaining an influence over society and reducing the power of God by introducing evolution as an alternative to creation, so they have piled on board.

But I'm always open to an alternative position, and if anyone can find one piece of evidence I can't readily counter; then I will admit I was wrong.

[shrub]

I blame the Greenies, cos they bought it to the attentions of the politicians, now its not going their way. We are going to poorer like Quasi said just another rort to get more out of us, inflation will increase the levy over time. And nothing will change just more empire building. Ferk our mob could even privatise it and sell it

You're right! Nandor Tancoz and Rod Donald (who never really died) invented climate change so they could crush the delicate flower of international capitalism. Why, I believe they probably sabotaged the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico to break poor little BP and are right now in their secret island hideaway planning world domination. Mark my words, the day will come when we will all be bicycle riding vegans wearing hemp clothing, women will stop shaving and we'll be speaking Esperanto.

Best I stock up on steak pies.

[doc]

:gob:

God no, .
I'd also like to believe that there is a bloke called God,
I'd love to believe religious bloggers greenies invented climate change
religious right who are terrified of the evil commie greenies gaining an influence over society and reducing the power of God
by introducing evolution as an alternative to creation, so they have piled on board.

But I'm always open to an alternative position, and if anyone can find one piece of evidence I can't readily counter; then I will admit I was wrong.

Edited a bit. But still looks like the ETS is a bit like religion for some

[shrub]

:me like religion

I'm assuming that your last post was an attempt to counter my position? Playing around with someone elses words is amusing but doesn't advance understanding.

[Jantar]

I normally wouldn't dignify a response this poorly informed with a reply, but I'm bored.

1. Where do you get the idea that the IPCC reports were the work of 60 people? Given I personally know 1 lead and 3 contributing authors, I think that there being only 57 others worldwide is a little hard to accept. So front up with an answer, and make it from a credible source, and don't waste my time with the bullshit that the Canada Free Press published by John McClean and Tom Harris. I want credible which means written by expert authors and based on solid research, not two conspiracy theory halfwits.
I'm sorry, I'm not aware of anything written by the Canada Free Press, so can't comment on that item, but how about "....
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,.....” as shown in Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony (2010) Climate Change: Climate Change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography
and if you need other sources may I suggest you try
Agrawala,S. (1998b) Structural and process history of the IPCC Climatic Change 39, 621-642
Bolin,B. (2007) A history of the science and politics of climate change: the role of the IPCC Cambridge University Press
Funtowicz,S.O. and Ravetz,J.R. (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
Hulme,M. (2009a) Chapter 3 in, Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity Cambridge University Press,
Schneider,S.H. (2001) Three reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Environment
Shapin,S. (1998) Placing the view from nowhere: historical and sociological problems in the location of science Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers


2. If you think me calling people who deny that climate change is man made "deniers" is name calling, then you're being very sensitive. Maybe your position isn't strong enough to cope with even the slightest challenge?
What challenge? Most people I know agree that climate change is mainly natural, and that global warming is Mann (1998) made.


3. First, do YOU know what the scientific method is? And as far as I'm aware there were two errors in the 4th report (glaciers and dutch sea level), and both of them had absolutely no bearing on the outcomes of the report. There were 3 or 4 other issues, none of them substantial....
Yes I believe I do. Particularly as I am one of the people listed in Anderegg et al. (2010) Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS. Although I am not highly listed I am honoured to even be mentioned among such well respected scientists as Pielke, Linzden etc.
As to the number of errors, only 2? You agree with the Himalayan and Dutch items, but how about the Amazon rain forest and the 40% decline, or African agriculture, or Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%, or 2009 paper confirming IPCC sea level conclusions withdrawn, mistakes cited etc.

[shrub]

Thank you, that is what I am looking for. I'll access the papers you cite and get back to you once i've read them.

[Quasievil]

God no, I only have enough pies for me.

Sadly, much as I'd love to believe that climate change either isn't happening, or has nothing to do with human activity, I suffer from something called cognitive dissonance which means no matter how much I want to believe something, when all the evidence points the other way I have to follow the evidence.

mate no doubt the planet is warming, every planet is warming, its a natural cycle........the human contribution is tiny, but this doesn't matter, the whole thing is how this has been twisted and manipulated by those in power to get cash out of YOUR pocket, which ISNT going to change one fucking thing.......EVER........PERIOD, end of story literally.

This ETS has Nothing to do with the enviroment at all, its only about the money mate, to argue against this comment the one would have to believe that in a few years the Polar Caps will enlarge, Glaciers will grow and island will climb out of the sea, and ever morning you will be greeted by rainbows and candy will fall from the sky and big busty maidens will pour you beer for $3.50. Dude it aint going to happen.

I will tell you what will happen, the globe will warm on its natural cycle and YOU WILL be punished as a BAD consuming Human parasite and you WILL be taxed more under the framework in place called the ETS.

NZ WILL sink backwards because of this.

[shrub]

mate no doubt the planet is warming, every planet is warming, its a natural cycle........the human contribution is tiny, but this doesn't matter, the whole thing is how this has been twisted and manipulated by those in power to get cash out of YOUR pocket, which ISNT going to change one fucking thing.......EVER........PERIOD, end of story literally.

This ETS has Nothing to do with the enviroment at all, its only about the money mate, to argue against this comment the one would have to believe that in a few years the Polar Caps will enlarge, Glaciers will grow and island will climb out of the sea, and ever morning you will be greeted by rainbows and candy will fall from the sky and big busty maidens will pour you beer for $3.50. Dude it aint going to happen.

I will tell you what will happen, the globe will warm on its natural cycle and YOU WILL be punished as a BAD consuming Human parasite and you WILL be taxed more under the framework in place called the ETS.

NZ WILL sink backwards because of this.

No, New Zealand will sink backwards because we're too busy bickering about a few dollars a week tax to make the changes we need to. As for climate change, I find it hard to believe that dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't causing the changes we're experiencing, especially as there are no alternative causes that stack up. Climate does change, and there are a heap of causes, but the one that is most likely is human behaviour, not sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, urban heat islands or any other possible cause. It's kind of like saying "Hmmm... my bike is slowing down. It is being caused by my brakes dragging, my ignition system dying, my chain has dried up or my bearings are seizing" and ignoring the fact that the low fuel light has been on for 40 kms. There's a prinicple called Ockham's Razor, where you choose the most likely and simplesty explanation for a phenomenon.

[Quasievil]

No, New Zealand will sink backwards because we're too busy bickering about a few dollars a week tax to make the changes we need to. As for climate change, I find it hard to believe that dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isn't causing the changes we're experiencing, especially as there are no alternative causes that stack up. Climate does change, and there are a heap of causes, but the one that is most likely is human behaviour, not sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, urban heat islands or any other possible cause. It's kind of like saying "Hmmm... my bike is slowing down. It is being caused by my brakes dragging, my ignition system dying, my chain has dried up or my bearings are seizing" and ignoring the fact that the low fuel light has been on for 40 kms. There's a prinicple called Ockham's Razor, where you choose the most likely and simplesty explanation for a phenomenon.

Mate there is so much science we can discuss/argue, but I "honestly" cant be arsed as I have said it all before on here.

But can I ask you two things.

1/ How money from NZ Mum and Dads will affect the global climate change
2/ Why it is you think its only a few dollars a week now and in the future?


Cheers mate, just discussion eh ;-)

[shrub]

Mate there is so much science we can discuss/argue, but I "honestly" cant be arsed as I have said it all before on here.

But can I ask you two things.

1/ How money from NZ Mum and Dads will affect the global climate change
2/ Why it is you think its only a few dollars a week now and in the future?


Cheers mate, just discussion eh ;-)

Read my thread header mate, I think pinging you and I for an extra few bucks a week achieves NOTHING positive, and I agree, this is the thin edge. The people who do the real pollution need to pay, but they won't because we're an easier target.

[Conquiztador]

Read my thread header mate, I think pinging you and I for an extra few bucks a week achieves NOTHING positive, and I agree, this is the thin edge. The people who do the real pollution need to pay, but they won't because we're an easier target.

Nail on the head. And the money that is collected in NZ will go where? To some Brazilian tribe who is planting trees, or stay in the coffers of the guvment and used to prop up a poorly run country?

[mashman]

We're not a target, we're the consumer. Get yer stock market software here lol...

[davereid]

1/ How money from NZ Mum and Dads will affect the global climate change
2/ Why it is you think its only a few dollars a week now and in the future?

Of course, its very obvious that diminishing the standard of living of New Zealanders is a futile way of stopping anything.

But a few dollars a week ?

Its much more significant than that. Not only will we face increases in prices due to the tax, (and it's associated flow on effects) but New Zealand is extraordinarily placed to face faster, and much more painful increases in the price of electricity, and the flow on effects of that as well.

Some countries will simply step up the production of electricity from Nuclear Fission. Indeed, France (and thus all of Europe) already has, the UK and US are now planning and building new reactors, Canada is producing its latest generation of CANDU reactors, and those countries will watch their flow of cheap electricity rise. We won't even mention the Chinese !.

Breeder reactor technology means known reserves of fissionable material are good for hundreds if not thousands of years of production at more or less current prices.

Meanwhile, other countries will simply burn fossil fuels, and either pay for carbon, or most likely just ignore it.

But us good old kiwis. We shot down effective new growth in Hydro. Damn the Dam cried the fantail and all that.

We KNOW that nuclear is bad, so we wont use that. We will tax the fuck out of fossil fuels.

And quietly get poorer, and less competitive.

But we will be good for the planet.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nail on the head. And the money that is collected in NZ will go where? To some Brazilian tribe who is planting trees, or stay in the coffers of the guvment and used to prop up a poorly run country?

You'll properly find at the end of the day the money actually ends up with companies like BP, Rothschilds, & people like Al Gore. After all Al's already become the 1st "eco tycoon" already making his first billion a few months ago, that moneys gotta come from somewhere.

[T.W.R]

Have a read of:

Requiem for a Species : Clive Hamilton

Climate Cover-Up : James Hoggan & Richard Littlemore

ETS is just a ticket to keep going down the same track

[NighthawkNZ]

Some countries will simply step up the production of electricity from Nuclear Fission. Indeed, France (and thus all of Europe) already has, the UK and US are now planning and building new reactors, Canada is producing its latest generation of CANDU reactors, and those countries will watch their flow of cheap electricity rise. We won't even mention the Chinese !.

Breeder reactor technology means known reserves of fissionable material are good for hundreds if not thousands of years of production at more or less current prices.

Meanwhile, other countries will simply burn fossil fuels, and either pay for carbon, or most likely just ignore it.

The still make 80% of there electricity via burning fossil Fuels

[shrub]

Jantar, I have read as many of the papers you cited as I could find, and I agree that the process that the IPCC have used has not been as rigorous as it needed to be, but that is well documented. I have still to find anything credible that says climate change either isn't happening or that changes we're experiencing are not primarily caused by human activity.

[NighthawkNZ]

There is a difference between climate change and global warming...

[Jantar]

Jantar, I have read as many of the papers you cited as I could find, and I agree that the process that the IPCC have used has not been as rigorous as it needed to be, but that is well documented. I have still to find anything credible that says climate change either isn't happening or that changes we're experiencing are not primarily caused by human activity.
Now they are two totally different subjects to the one you challenged me on, and to what I answered.

You know what? I can't find anything credible that says climate change isn't happening either. That's because the climate is changing. It always has and always will. But lets discuss Climate change on http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/113818-What-happened-to-global-warming and leave this thread for ETS issues.

[shrub]

But lets discuss Climate change on http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/113818-What-happened-to-global-warming and leave this thread for ETS issues.

Good point. In my mind one the biggest failings of the ETS is that it supports all the beliefs that have been constructed by the contrarian think tanks and websites: namely that climate change is a scam designed by governments to find new ways to tax the poor hard working man in the street and then feed that money back into the limitless troughs of ever expanding government. Not that there's anything wrong with big government, unless you're a corporate looking longingly at the trough and wishing you could have a piece of that (privatised) pie.

So we are fed wall to wall propaganda telling us that climate change is is a scam, and then the ETS happens along and all the agrieved right wingers howl in indignation "see, we told you so".

[avgas]

The still make 80% of there electricity via burning fossil Fuels
Huh - what the hell are you smoking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG
Also France is the biggest source of generation in Europe. They export to Germany etc

[NighthawkNZ]

Huh - what the hell are you smoking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG
Also France is the biggest source of generation in Europe. They export to Germany etc


Was suppose to say the US of A Oppps

[Quasievil]

Good point. In my mind one the biggest failings of the ETS is that it supports all the beliefs that have been constructed by the contrarian think tanks and websites: namely that climate change is a scam designed by governments to find new ways to tax the poor hard working man in the street and then feed that money back into the limitless troughs of ever expanding government

it is a scam designed to feed governments and corporates, what are you on about?



Not that there's anything wrong with big government,

There is everything wrong with Big government, first thing is its doesnt need to be a ever ballooning tax swallowing machine with an ever growing appetite, the smaller and more efficent the better, Government DOESNT know how to spend your money better, they suck at it, always have always will


So we are fed wall to wall propaganda telling us that climate change is is a scam, and then the ETS happens along and all the agrieved right wingers howl in indignation "see, we told you so".

Man Made global warming is a scam, ETS was built on the back of it to reduce emissions, princepally the non pollutant gas called Carbon Dioxide.

As a community we where fed bullshit to enable this bullshit to reign supreme.

[avgas]

Was suppose to say the US of A Oppps
True - but when have we followed USA's thinking of ANYTHING lol
If it wasn't for an immigrant their power system would be on DC hahahaha

[davereid]

Was suppose to say the US of A Oppps

The US is way behind in Nuclear Energy production, mostly due to political pressure.

They don't even re-process fuel rods, so IMHO they can't be considered serious players, at least not just yet.

But when the US says its "game on" for nukes, they will just do it, fast and effectively.

[NighthawkNZ]

The US is way behind in Nuclear Energy production, mostly due to political pressure...

Not only that they can make more money out of Fossil Fuels... sell the fossil fuel and the electricity... ??? think of the etra tax the federial gooberment gets...


It all comes down to money... and the love of it, is the root of all evil (apparently)

[Winston001]

Thank you, that is what I am looking for. I'll access the papers you cite and get back to you once i've read them.

FYI Jantar is a decent and intelligent guy. He knows his physics. Of course he's wrong on this topic but hey - we can disagree and laugh. :D

[shrub]

FYI Jantar is a decent and intelligent guy. He knows his physics. Of course he's wrong on this topic but hey - we can disagree and laugh. :D

He is that, and I have been enjoying an intelligent debate with him off forum and we have challenged each other but I agree, he's off target with this subject.

I think one of the issues is that big business needs to start accepting responsibility for their actions and recognising that user pays doesn't just apply to you and I. For decades they have been merrily dumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without thought, and now we're realising that there is a consequence for that behaviour.

The only problem is, they don't actually want to pay for the mess they've made, so they have decided the best solution is to convince people they shouldn't have to by (very successfully) convincing people that climate change isn't real or is nothing to do with their behaviour and have made it a political issue, not a business problem. It has been interesting watching the process unfold and seeing the absolute mastery displayed by their various PR people.

The first problem was to create a perception that there is doubt about whether climate change is real, and given that the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists are convinced it is, you would think that was a big problem. Fortunately for them the scientific community is a little arrogant and is not used to defending their position. They tell us something is so, and expect us to believe them, and worst of all they make their information inaccessible for the ordinary person. They love their long words and complex concepts, and then they hide them in journals and publications that are not available to the general public. I have access to pretty much everything, but that's only because I'm doing postgrad research.

So they put up a whole pile of websites and blogs with really scientific sounding titles like "NZ Climate Science Coalition" and "Global Warming Policy Foundation", hired a few (usually irrelvant) "experts" like David Bellamy, and started producing screeds of easy to read and simplistic material that cast doubt on the dry and dusty reports generated by the scientists. Often these papers are written by journalists or people who have PhDs in something completely different.

Then came time to discredit the establishment. Al Gore was easy - has anyone seen his power bill lately? How can you take him seriously!!! And they had hundreds of people trawling through the IPCC reports, and inevitably found 5 or 6 errors, including the now famous Himalayan glaciers. By adding the suffix "gate" to everything they linked these errors in the eyes of the public with deliberate attempts to bullshit us like Watergate. Of course none of these "gates" had the slightest bit of influence on the overall conclusions generated by the IPCC report, but the public had been distracted. And of course how can we forget the stolen emails. After working through thousands of emails they found a few phrases that sounded very, very dodgy. They weren't, but they sounded dodgy and got a lot of media coverage (unlike the official report that found there was no problem). Damage done.

The experts remain convinced, but we've been told that the scientists were all wrong and are only doing it to get funding, and that IPCC were a bunch of crooks producing rubbish, and we're the ones who vote.

And the most important part was to show that climate change is a scam designed to fleece ordinary hard working people like you and I. We've been convinced that climate change isn't real, or is at the least in doubt, so when Our Masters introduced the ETS which mean we were all paying an extra few dollars a week, it was easy to say "it's a scam. They want your money for nefarious purposes and 'big government", and you're all being fleeced", so when Our Masters approach big business and demand they do something about their mess, they will have the support they need to tell them to go get fornicated. Which means Our Masters will decide to leave well enough alone because there's always an election coming up.

And in the meantime the climate continues to change, but it won't affect the rich old men who make our minds up for us.

[Jantar]

The issue I have with this post is the assumption that skeptics deny climate change is happening. We have been through this off forum, but in fact skeptics agree that climate change is happening. Where the disagreement occurs is in the cause of such change. Skeptics say that the change is natural, and challenge the warmers to show that it isn't. They have been unable to do this.

The next issue is the part that say
The first problem was to create a perception that there is doubt about whether climate change is real, and given that the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists are convinced it is, you would think that was a big problem. And given that Anderegg et al (2010) list a large number of scientists who do have a counter view, it becomes obvious that it is scientists who are debating the issues, and not "Big Business" as claimed.

[Winston001]

Guys - the core issue is pollution and that is what the ETS, carbon trading etc is aimed at. No-one seriously argues the Earth's climate doesn't change. We disagree as to whether human activities are contributing.

But that is a side issue. A common theme on KB and other forums blogs etc is the pollution of streams and rivers by agriculture. It isn't a greenhouse or carbon concern - just plain dismay at environmental pollution. And that is the real issue. Pollution.

Unless we recognise that, our passions are going to be distracted by pointless and unresolvable arguments over climate change.

[Jantar]

Guys - the core issue is pollution and that is what the ETS, carbon trading etc is aimed at. .....
I do wish I could agree with you, and then I'd be on your side and supporting the ETS fully. But the ETS doesn't target pollution, it targets Carbon. If it did target dairy effluent, paper mill discharges, toxins etc then I'd be saying "Hell Yeah". But instead the ETS targets carbon. In particular it targets carbon dioxide (CO2) that is an essential for life on our planet.

If pollution is the real issue, then lets stop all this nonsense on AGW, concentrate on pollution, and let the earths climate do whatever it wants.

[Swoop]

The reaction to the yahoo pole says it all really.
Huh? Is this like a fireman's pole, or a fisherman's pole?

Guys - the core issue is pollution and that is what the ETS, carbon trading etc is aimed at.
As far as I can see, the ETS does sod-all for preventing or reducing pollution.
If any government had credibility they would address issues directly, without sending large amounts of cash overseas.
Deal with issues caused by NZ companies, in NZ.

[Winston001]

You'll properly find at the end of the day the money actually ends up with companies like BP, Rothschilds, & people like Al Gore...

Actually it will be the companies like BP etc who will be paying - not receiving. A real life example: British Gas (a corporate giant) pays the Christchurch City Council just under $1 million annually to buy carbon credits. The carbon is captured by the city's recycling rubbish scheme which produces methane. That in turn heats the QE II pool complex as well as bringing in $1 million.

So the big energy companies which use fossil fuels have to pay out. $1 million is a pretty good starter as an incentive to make gas use more efficient.

[shrub]

Skeptics say that the change is natural, and challenge the warmers to show that it isn't. They have been unable to do this.

No, they have quite clearly shown that the change is primarily caused by GHG emissions. The deniers refuse to accept this and have been unable to point to any other cause, instead focussing on the CRU emails, inconsistencies in the IPCC 4AR and Al Gore's power bill; none of which cause climate change.

[Jantar]

..... The carbon is captured by the city's recycling rubbish scheme which produces methane. That in turn heats the QE II pool complex as well as bringing in $1 million. .....
How does that work. They burn methane CO with oxygen to produce CO2 and get credits?
2CO + O2 => 2CO2

So not only have they NOT reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, they have reduced the amount of oxygen at the same time. The only rationale (and the one skeptics have long used) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a plant fertiliser and a gas essential for all life on our planet.

[Jantar]

No, they have quite clearly shown that the change is primarily caused by GHG emissions. The deniers refuse to accept this and have been unable to point to any other cause, instead focussing on the CRU emails, inconsistencies in the IPCC 4AR and Al Gore's power bill; none of which cause climate change.
The proof that conclusively shows this is where?

[shrub]

The proof that conclusively shows this is where?

tut tut, you should know that there is no proof of anything outside of mathematics, however I'll start with a few:

White, 2009. 3.Geoscience of Climate and Energy 5. Ice Cores, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Geoscience Canada, Vol.36,Iss.2;p.78-80

Ramanathen & feng, 2009. Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment, Vol 43, iss 1

Zwiers and Hegerl, 2008. Climate Change - Attributing cause and effect. Nature, vol 453 iss 7193

i haven't read these articles yet (although I will), but the abstracts and introductions/discussion sections all point to GHG as being the primary cause of climate change.

I did a quick search on Web of Science through the university and there are dozens and dozens of peer reviewed papers, these were just 3 that were relatively accessible for an amateur such as myself

[Jantar]

tut tut, you should know that there is no proof of anything outside of mathematics, however I'll start with a few:

White, 2009. 3.Geoscience of Climate and Energy 5. Ice Cores, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Geoscience Canada, Vol.36,Iss.2;p.78-80....
OK, in turn: maybe you should have read them.

White (2009) does not corelate CO2 and temperature directly but cites (Loulergue et al. 2008).

So lets follow that link, and we find that Loulergue is all about atmosheric methane. Whats more on reading White in more detail we find that there is littel emphasis on CO2, but more on GHGs in general. He goes on to say
for example, a notable 5 to 10 ppm drop in CO2 around 1600 AD is contemporaneous with one of the Little Ice Age coolings. Yes it is contemperous, but the change in CO2 concentration lags the change in temperature. So no casue shown there.

[Jantar]

Ramanathen & feng, 2009. Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric Environment, Vol 43, iss 1
....
Wow, I didn't even have to read past the introdunction to find

1. Introduction
This article is largely a perspective on the role of air pollution in
climate change. It summarizes the developments since the mid
1970s. Before that time, the climate change problem was largely
perceived as a CO2-restricted global warming issue. Furthermore,
this paper also provides new insights into emerging issues such as
global dimming, the role of air pollution in masking globalwarming,
and its potentiallymajor role in regional climate changes, such as the
slowing down of the S. Asian monsoon system, and the retreat of
arctic sea ice and the tropical glaciers. It concludes with a discussion
on how air pollution mitigation laws will likely be a major factor
determining the climate warming trends of the coming decades.

I shall indeed go on to read this paper in more detail as it appears to show that the CO2 forcing is much less than previously thought, and that air pollution plays a greater role. Isn't this what Winston was referring to earlier?

[shrub]

OK, in turn: maybe you should have read them.

White (2009) does not corelate CO2 and temperature directly.

Strange, in the conclusion to his article he says "The general lesson drawn from these records is that, as predicted by simple radiation balance models, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leads to warming of the planet. Human additions to greenhouse gases are very large compared to natural variations, therefore anthropogenically induced global climate change is a simple expectation as opposed to a surprise, and thus not a matter of serious debate."

Now tell me how that supports your position?

[shrub]

Wow, I didn't even have to read past the introdunction to find


I shall indeed go on to read this paper in more detail as it appears to show that the CO2 forcing is much less than previously thought, and that air pollution plays a greater role. Isn't this what Winston was referring to earlier?

I think the impact of particulates as a dimming agent doesn't counter the argument that GHG cause warming and in fact are masking the impact of GHG. But when you read further you will find the following:

"Similarly, the CO2 blanket, traps the long wave radiation given off by the planet. The trapping of the long wave radiation is dictated by quantum mechanics. The two oxygen atoms in CO2 vibrate with the carbon atom in the center and the frequency of this vibration coincides with some of the infraredwavelengths of the long wave radiation. When the frequency of the radiation from the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere coincides with the frequency of CO2 vibration, the radiation is absorbed by CO2, and converted to heat by collision with other air molecules, and then given back to the surface. As a result of this trapping, the outgoing long wave radiation is reduced by increasing CO2. Not as much heat is escaping to balance the net incoming solar radiation. There is excess heat energy in the planet, i.e., the system is out of energy balance. As CO2 is increasing with time, the infrared blanket is becoming thicker, and the planet is accumulating this excess energy."

It would seem I am not wrong then

[Jantar]

I know you don't like blogs but have a look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/a-response-to-kevin-trenberth/
You will se that the radiation does come back into balance but with a lag.

In addition we can calulate just how much the temperature will change due to changes in CO2.
The standard IPCC formular for calculating forcing due to CO2 is
∆T=4.7ln(c/co)
Note the Ln showing that it is a logrithmic ratio.
This formula assumes that all forcing is due to CO2

If we replace CO2 as the only form of forcing with all GHGs that emit 15 micron radiation, then we get:
∆T=4.7*ln(ghg/ghgo)

Applying these we find that a doubling of CO2 if the only driver would result in ∆T = 3.2Deg C
and if only part of all GHGs then ∆T = .2 degrees C

[shrub]

I know you don't like blogs but have a look at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/a-response-to-kevin-trenberth/
You will se that the radiation does come back into balance but with a lag.

In addition we can calulate just how much the temperature will change due to changes in CO2.
The standard IPCC formular for calculating forcing due to CO2 is
∆T=4.7ln(c/co)
Note the Ln showing that it is a logrithmic ratio.
This formula assumes that all forcing is due to CO2

If we replace CO2 as the only form of forcing with all GHGs that emit 15 micron radiation, then we get:
∆T=4.7*ln(ghg/ghgo)

Applying these we find that a doubling of CO2 if the only driver would result in ∆T = 3.2Deg C
and if only part of all GHGs then ∆T = .2 degrees C

I don't like blogs as a source of information because they are opinion pieces and there is no accountability. Did you know that Dr Roy Spencer works for the DCI group, a public relations firm that, among others, has worked for Exxon and has been implicated in Philip Morris? Excuse my cynicism, and I'm sure Dr Spencer is a frightfully clever chap, but his opinion on climate change is inevitably going to be charged. listening to him is kind of like getting motorcycle purchase advice from an employee of Harley Davidson.

I find blogs a good way of guaging opinion and learning what people think but I prefer to get my information from more neutral sources, or at least sources that can be held to account.

[Jantar]

.... Did you know that Dr Roy Spencer works for the DCI group, a public relations firm that, among others, has worked for Exxon and has been implicated in Philip Morris? ....
Oh? :mellow:


About
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

[shrub]

Oh? :mellow: Let me guess, that quote didn't come from an independent source? Or did it perchance come from the good doctor's own website?

As you point out: "He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." I wonder whether DCI have asked him to do anything on behalf of Exxon Mobil? Or whether they hired him for his looks? I suspect that given he specifically mentions that Exxon Mobil never asked him to do anything, despite working for their PR firm and having the kind of credentials they would have really wanted, that he was kept at arms length so he could put his hand on his heart and declare his innocence of any bias.

And I'm interested in your response to my quotes from the papers I referenced. You didn't catch me out the way you thought you had, so I am wondering whether you're just going to let the posts fade into the ether.

[shrub]

Actualy it's even more complicated and convulated than I thought. A little digging and I discover that the good doctor didn't actually directly work for DCI, but instead worked for TCS Daily. And "in 2006, two US Senatorwrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out TCS daily as one such group. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy"

Interesting stuff. As they say in journalism, follow the money.

Which supports my hypotheses, namely that the majority of anti AGW material out there is strategically funded and managed by big business. I believe that this is to ensure that nothing is done about climate change until they're good and ready. By then they will have developed and patented alternative energy sources and quite probably own the carbon trading world.

[Jantar]

It did indeed come from Drs own website. If you have evidence from an independent source then that would be interesting. He is still employed by NASA and I believe they have a policy of not allowing their employees to have secondary employment in similar or related fields. I suspect that the reference to Exxon-mobil comes from the implied relationship on Sourcewatch, which is also not an independent source.

I shall continue reading the papers you referenced in the morning when I'm not drinking a nice wine.

[Winston001]

How does that work. They burn methane CO with oxygen to produce CO2 and get credits?
2CO + O2 => 2CO2

So not only have they NOT reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, they have reduced the amount of oxygen at the same time. The only rationale (and the one skeptics have long used) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a plant fertiliser and a gas essential for all life on our planet.

Cheers I still remember a bit of organic chemistry. Anyway, the explanation is that Christchurch generates methane from its recycling plant at Burwood. That means organic matter is used rather than contributing to a landfill and the methane is captured. It is a very effective greenhouse gas having 22 times the effect of CO2.

Yes CO2 is released but not the more complex molecule of methane. Thus the city earns carbon credits which it sells.

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/howthecouncilworks/energyefficiencyatthecouncil/projects/wastetorenewableenergyburwoodlandfill.aspx

[shrub]

An interesting news item in today's Herald: "The eastern US cooked for another day as unrelenting heat again sent thermometers past 100 degrees (38 Celsius) in urban "heat islands," buckled roads, slowed trains and pushed utilities toward the limit of the electrical grid's capacity.

Philadelphia hit 100 degrees for second straight day, breaking a record of 98 degrees (36.7 Celsius) set in 1999. Baltimore hit 100 for the third straight day and Newark, New Jersey, hit triple digits for the fourth straight day."

I realise we're talking weather here, but it seems that extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common, our televisions have recently been filled with film of severe flooding in Gisborne and June was the wettest June in Canterbury since records began. I also realised that these are not directly caused by climate change, but the conditions that lead to extreme weather events are more likely to occur as the planet warms up.

So what are we going to do about it? Ping the consumers an extra few dollars a week and wash our hands saying "we've done our bit"? Or should we recognise that the rules are changing and unless we're ready we'll be taken by surprise. The overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced of the reality of man made climate change and the few who aren't (like Roy Spencer) simply don't have a strong enough argument to convince anyone other than amateurs like us; so i am willing to listen to the experts who tell me that we have made a mess and it's about to bite us in the arse.

But what do we do about it? We bicker and argue about Al Gore's power bill, mistakes in the IPCC 4AR and whether Roy Spencer is influenced by Exxon Mobil. None of those are going to make one iota of difference in 5, 10 or 20 years time when we're struggling to adapt to a world that's changing faster than we can. In 10 years time we'll have bigger problems than paying an extra $5.00 a month in power and NZ will quite possibly be a third world country - unless we act now.

We're like the motorcycle shop owner who tried to do the TT2000 with only a tinted visor and ended up having to swallow his pride and pull over when night riding became too hard. We're not planning or preparing for the changes that are going to come. My guess is we'll all blame the government for not showing leadership, or the greens for not being persuasive enough or Al Gore for eating too many pies. We won't blame ourselves because that's not how we roll.

[mashman]

The Eastern US has been cooking, the UK has been cooking, what could the 2 have in common. A tenuous link would be the Gulf Stream...

http://www.univers-nature.com/images/actu/gulf-stream.jpg

[shrub]

It did indeed come from Drs own website. If you have evidence from an independent source then that would be interesting. He is still employed by NASA and I believe they have a policy of not allowing their employees to have secondary employment in similar or related fields. I suspect that the reference to Exxon-mobil comes from the implied relationship on Sourcewatch, which is also not an independent source.

I shall continue reading the papers you referenced in the morning when I'm not drinking a nice wine.

I admit that I was lazy and got that info from sourcewatch, which is a left leaning site (much as Dr. SPencer is right leaning), but the information on it is factual. I did a little more delving and found the following:

Dr. Spencer is a member of:

The Greening Earth Society, a project of the Western Fuels Association founded to promote the idea that global warming is beneficial to the planet.

The Heartland institute, which describes itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement" and well known for being funded by Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris.

The George C Marshall Institute, which was initially primarily focused on defence issues including advocating funding for Reagan’s Star Wars programme but has since branched out and become one of the leading conservative think tanks attempting to debunk climate change. Again funded by Exxon, but also Lockheed Martin, Haliburton and others

The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (now the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation) which is committed to bringing Biblical principles to environmental and resource stewardship and is partly funded by (you guess it) Exxon.

He is also a proponent of intelligent design, which seeks to redefine science to accept supernatural explanations and believes that the earth was created by God for man’s domination.

As I said before, I don't doubt his intellect and qualifications, but given his religious position and membership of bodies that are dependent on organisations like Exxon and Phillip Morris I believe his objectivity and creibility are sufficiently in doubt to mean we can't take his opinion at face value. I also find it hard to take anyone who believes that God created the earth for human beings all that seriousl either.

I'm a cynic and need to be convinced of most things and having a pile of letters after your name is not a guarantee of expertise or proof of correctness. Hell, in a few months I will have more letters after my name than in my name and I'm full of shit.

[Jantar]

Ah, I see you also rely on Exxonsecrets for much of your information. Greenpeace funded propaganda perhaps?

Lets not focus so much on who provides the information and instead look at whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. I believe Dr Roy Spencer to be a credible scientist, and so I link to him for information that isn't publicly available elsewhere. So what if he's a bible toting right winger. Religion and politics have nothing to do with science.

[Jantar]

Strange, in the conclusion to his article he says "The general lesson drawn from these records is that, as predicted by simple radiation balance models, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leads to warming of the planet. Human additions to greenhouse gases are very large compared to natural variations, therefore anthropogenically induced global climate change is a simple expectation as opposed to a surprise, and thus not a matter of serious debate."

Now tell me how that supports your position?
He draws that conclusion, but there is nothing that shows a link between measured temperatures and the increase in CO2 due to anthropogenic causes. I would believe it more if he could show that the increase in CO2 between say june 2003 and june 2008 (378 - 388 ppm) was matched by a similar increase in temperature (0.122 C). But in fact the temperature fell by 0.17 C. I know you have downloaded the data, and yes I have cherry picked the years. But the actual result shows that the conclusion is invalid.

[shrub]

So what if he's a bible toting right winger. Rel;igion and politics have nothing to do with science.

Call me a little conservative, but I find it hard to take anyone who believes in a man upstairs who is driving things seriously, after all that is a very short distance from fairies at the bottom of the garden. He probably believes in Satan and that the green movement is innately satanic (a very common belief in right wing Christians). And climate change has everything to do with politics - the right have made sure of that.

it's also important to remember that a fundamental part of Christian doctrine is that the earth was given to man by God for his use and dominion. Christians also believe that there will come a day when Christ returns to take up Christians to be with the Father, and that in essence the earth will be disposed of because it has fulfilled its purpose; and that day will be sooner than later. In isolation that would seem to be a harmless and slightly odd belief, but if the earth is soon to be disposed of, what is the point in preserving it for the future at the cost of current gains? Have you ever wondered why so many of the anti-climate change groups are Christian and why so many key opinion leaders are Christians?

And yes, I used Exxonsecrets as one of my reference points, but everything I quoted about the sainted doctor can be independently verified, usually through the organisations own websites (something I did). It's like using Wikipaedia - not generaly acceptable as a source, but a good place to start from and find credible sources.

[Jantar]

Philadelphia hit 100 degrees for second straight day, breaking a record of 98 degrees (36.7 Celsius) set in 1999. Baltimore hit 100 for the third straight day and Newark, New Jersey, hit triple digits for the fourth straight day."


I'm not suprised. Look at where Baltimore's temperature is measured.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qhw08n8m8q21&scene=25232943&lvl=2&sty=b

Note that the Stevenson Screen where the temperature recordings are made are directly above asphalt. Right next to an electronics building with an air conditioner, and that the outlet from the airconditioner is pointed right at the Stevenson Screen. Note also the proximity to the runway. Now that is man made warming.

[shrub]

But the actual result shows that the conclusion is invalid.

No, it doesn't. Read the paper.

[Jantar]

....And yes, I used Exxonsecrets as one of my reference points, but everything I quoted about the sainted doctor can be independently verified, usually through the organisations own websites (something I did). It's like using Wikipaedia - not generaly acceptable as a source, but a good place to start from and find credible sources. OK, so lets take one that I am familar with; The Heartland Institute.

Here's what exxonsecrets says about Heartland

19 South LaSalle St., Suite 903 Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-377-4000
Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=HEA100

The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.

The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing. They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming.

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf

The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.

And Here's Heartland's reply:

Q: Can you reply to specific accusations made by ExxonSecrets?

A: Yes. ExxonSecrets is a project of Greenpeace, the radical environmental group that seeks to ban all or nearly all logging, mining, and cars and trucks in the U.S. Fueling alarmism about global warming by wildly exaggerating the human role and the likely consequences of warming is one way they seek to achieve these goals. Naturally, Greenpeace doesn’t like us.

The “Factsheet” on Heartland at ExxonSecrets (last viewed in September 2009) is loaded with errors, from the very first sentence (we were founded in 1984, not “the 1990s”) to the outdated lists of directors, to the false assertion that Walt Buchholtz, a former board member, “serves as Heartland’s Government Relations Advisor,” a deliberate misreading of a tax form filed several years ago. (Buchholtz was never a member of Heartland’s staff.)

The site presents a list of gifts from ExxonMobil to Heartland, apparently based on annual reports from ExxonMobil, but fails to mention that the gifts never exceeded 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budgets, makes no mention of Heartland’s policies that separate donors from our researchers and writers, and presents no evidence at all of an improper relationship. It should matter that Heartland gets 95 percent of its income from energy consumers and only 5 percent from energy producers, but this fact doesn’t appear on ExxonSecrets.

While the first gift to Heartland reported on the ExxonSecrets site appears to have been made in 1998, the site fails to report that Heartland was questioning the science behind the global warming scare since 1994. And although ExxonMobil hasn’t contributed to Heartland since 2006, Heartland greatly increased its concentration and publication output on global warming since then.


So maybe Exxonsecrets information isn't so good after all.

[shrub]

So maybe Exxonsecrets information isn't so good after all.

Or maybe the Heartland institute are a little sensitive. I liked this comment: "the radical environmental group that seeks to ban all or nearly all logging, mining, and cars and trucks in the U.S". Next thing they'll be accusing Greenpeace of fostering fornication and drug use while refusing to stand for the national anthem and general un-American behaviour. Now, where did I put the keys to the pickup truck...

(SFX banjoes playing)

[Jantar]

....Next thing they'll be accusing Greenpeace of fostering fornication and drug use while refusing to stand for the national anthem and general un-American behaviour. Now, where did I put the keys to the pickup truck...

(SFX banjoes playing)

Jeez, I'd better renew my membership. :D

[davereid]

No, it doesn't. Read the paper.

Its only a flesh wound.. come back and I'll bit ya knee caps...

[mashman]

I hope someone is counting the ETS credits that this little beauty is running up


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugbZjykPMx0&feature=related

[Swoop]

The following presentations are by Burt Rutan, aeronautical designer and a "smart cookie" who takes the raw data then places it in the context needed (compared with the lies bandied around by those who can make $$$'s from this con).
A fair bit to watch, but well worth it.
6 parts in all.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gm8vaH8LEV0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gm8vaH8LEV0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/640AIJR38Pc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/640AIJR38Pc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AJyAQmxIbJk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AJyAQmxIbJk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SRzw-52plg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SRzw-52plg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/naLfstuaBRE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/naLfstuaBRE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMeuHNgT0PA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tMeuHNgT0PA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[NighthawkNZ]

We are all doomed I say... DOOMED... DOOMED...

especially if you all keep believing the lies and deciet being spread by those in power, and they are trying every trick to keep that power...

And I am not talking about governments... governments haven't been controlling countries for years...

[mashman]

Interesting vids indeed. But there's money to be made so let's drop this sensible nonsense shall we :shit:

[shrub]

The following presentations are by Burt Rutan, aeronautical designer and a "smart cookie" who takes the raw data then places it in the context needed (compared with the lies bandied around by those who can make $$$'s from this con).
A fair bit to watch, but well worth it.
6 parts in all.

Well that was a waste of time. More inane twaddle by yet another enthusiastic (but patriotic) amateur jumping on the denialist bandwagon and preaching to a supportive and enthusiastic audience of poorly informed idiots.

Reminded me a lot of a church service.

[Swoop]

Reminded me a lot of a church service.
Yes, very similar, in fact. Money being extorted from those stupid enough to believe in "it" ... "Global warming" or "god".

[shrub]

Yes, very similar, in fact. Money being extorted from those stupid enough to believe in "it" ... "Global warming" or "god".

One key difference: there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

[Swoop]

One key difference: there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Likewise for "global warming". Just lots of heavily manipulated figures, displayed in a manner that alludes towards something that can be heavily taxed and make a few people very rich.

Religion only has to come up with some nice fairy tales and sell them in a way that attracts people. Basically an "opt-in" scenario.
Global Taxing is far worse, as this is forced upon a populace without their individual consents'.

[avgas]

Likewise for "global warming".
Actually there is evidence of global warming, as well as global cooling.
In fact there are records millions of years old in ice-shelf's.
However similar to the debate about god. Since global warming has NATURALLY occurred in the past - is it a bad thing?
or just something that happens?

[shrub]

Actually there is evidence of global warming, as well as global cooling.
In fact there are records millions of years old in ice-shelf's.
However similar to the debate about god. Since global warming has NATURALLY occurred in the past - is it a bad thing?
or just something that happens?

I hate the idea of man made climate change, and the impacts on my lifestyle are going to really suck - hell, they're already starting to surface, so I'm going to take a leaf out of your book and stop looking for ways to work around it and manage it and pretend it's either not happening or something I can't do anything about. I'm suddenly really grateful for the energy interests and religious right who have sponsored the blogs out there for showing me that the thousands of scientists are wrong, and that it's all part of a master plan by the evil greens (led by Al Gore and Nandor Tancoz) to crush the delicate flower of western capitalism.

Sometimes closing one's eyes and pretending there isn't a problem is the best solution because taking personal responsibility for one's actions and outcomes really sucks. :yes::yes:

[avgas]

Shrub don't get me wrong. I do think we are killing the planet.
I just think calling it "climate change" is like saying Micheal Jackson was bad because he was a Pedo.
Fact was that Micheal was ugly, he lived a fucked up life, and his music was getting worse.
Likewise, we are over-consuming, overpopulating, polluting and completely fucking up the planet. This will take probably a million years to been seen. Which isn't a bad figure - but when you consider the fact that we can kill in a million years what has existed for 100's million years....we have a bad track record.
We will run out of resources, we will remove the protective layers from the sky, we will pollute the air, we will make the water undrinkable, we will kill off all life......
All of this will happen without changing a single degree in temperature.

To call all problems of mankind "climate change" or "Emission issues" is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.
Fact of the matter is we will fuck everything else up well before we realize that we were concentrating on the wrong thing.

[shrub]

Shrub don't get me wrong. I do think we are killing the planet.
I just think calling it "climate change" is like saying Micheal Jackson was bad because he was a Pedo.
Fact was that Micheal was ugly, he lived a fucked up life, and his music was getting worse.
Likewise, we are over-consuming, overpopulating, polluting and completely fucking up the planet. This will take probably a million years to been seen. Which isn't a bad figure - but when you consider the fact that we can kill in a million years what has existed for 100's million years....we have a bad track record.
We will run out of resources, we will remove the protective layers from the sky, we will pollute the air, we will make the water undrinkable, we will kill off all life......
All of this will happen without changing a single degree in temperature.

To call all problems of mankind "climate change" or "Emission issues" is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.
Fact of the matter is we will fuck everything else up well before we realize that we were concentrating on the wrong thing.

Unfortunately it won't take a million years. Studies I have read show that we're currently using the resources the planet has at a rate of between 120% and 160% pa - in other words we're using them faster than they can regenerate, and those resources include the ability of the atmosphere to act as a sink. The population has doubled in my lifetime, and will double again before I shuffle off this mortal coil and even the most conservative of commentators reckon we'll see massive problems as a result of this within 30 years.

The big problem is energy. For the last 150 years or so we have been using stored energy as fast as we possibly can. That energy is essentially the sunlight of millions of years stored in oil and carbon, and is as cheap as chips. We run our cars, bikes, factories, farms and houses on it. We use it to make our clothes, our fertilisers and even our food, and we're dumping waste into the environment as fast as we possibly can.

There are a lot of people that have come to depend on that continued and growing use of energy for an opulent lifestyle, and when people say "we can't carry on like this, we need to pull our heads in and think of the future" it worries them because they aren't fussed about a future they won't see - when you're in your 50s and 60s the state of the world in 30 years is irrelevant. What is relevant is your share prices and your executive bonus, and these bloody interfering scientists with their bad news are not good for those lovely things, so they have engaged in one of the most effective and well funded PR campaigns in history to debunk climate change. Despite having little or no scientific evidence to support their position they have managed to cast major doubts on the life work of thousands of highly skilled and expert men and women by using classic PR strategies.

As a PR and marketing person it's been fascinating to watch, but as someone who loves his world it's bloody scary.

[avgas]

when you're in your 50s and 60s the state of the world in 30 years is irrelevant. What is relevant is your share prices and your executive bonus, and these bloody interfering scientists with their bad news are not good for those lovely things, so they have engaged in one of the most effective and well funded PR campaigns in history to debunk climate change. Despite having little or no scientific evidence to support their position they have managed to cast major doubts on the life work of thousands of highly skilled and expert men and women by using classic PR strategies.

As a PR and marketing person it's been fascinating to watch, but as someone who loves his world it's bloody scary.
No offense, but can't the same be applied for a scientist, in their 50's or 60's - trying to publish their final white papers.
The ones they have been working on for the last 20 years.
I mean changing figures won't affect anyone. And if the paper is published your famous.
Both sides have to save face regardless of the outcome. As you said this is Marketing 101

[shrub]

No offense, but can't the same be applied for a scientist, in their 50's or 60's - trying to publish their final white papers.
The ones they have been working on for the last 20 years.
I mean changing figures won't affect anyone. And if the paper is published your famous.
Both sides have to save face regardless of the outcome. As you said this is Marketing 101

Not quite. There are a number of factors at play here, and most scientists are more interested in being proved correct than almost anything in the universe, and being proven wrong is about as bad as you can get. I guess for a scientist discovering new knowledge is like making a brazillian dollars, and being proven wrong is like going bankrupt.

And you're right, getting published is the goal, especially in an A list journal, but having your work rejected is to be avoided at all costs, and work gets rejected when the claims being made lack validity and reliability, which means if there is ANY doubt in your claims you don't make them because you're guaranteed some smart bastard will slam you at the peer review stage.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of scientific research is being conducted by bright young things making a name for themselves, so while a lot of scientists are older, even more are younger.

I know quite a few scientists, including a few who work in the climate change field, and every one of them would crawl over broken glass and sell their soul to the devil to be the one who makes the discovery that the current climate change isn't predominantly man made. It would be a discovery on a par with splitting the atom because it would completely rewrite the rule book.