Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[shrub]

So what's the many big bad events that climate change is behind?

Just a few off the top of my head:

• Change in rainfall patterns mean some areas get droughts and others too wet
• Warming meaning cold snaps required for setting of some fruit unlikely to occur
• Warming meaning pests that don't survive in some areas can, and will hit species hard
• Increasing extreme weather events raising insurance costs
• Increasing demand from trading partners and international buyers to account for carbon footprints - google food miles

I won't waste my time with any more because your response will be something like "but I don't want to pay any more tax" or "Al Gore is scamming us". I doubt you understand any of it anyway and are merely parrotting what your mate Bill at the pub said.

[carbonhed]

"There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy"

Just none that you can actually put your finger on sadly... but entirely predictably.

I've worked in Primary industries my whole life and you're just not grasping how flexible it is. The kiwifruit industry is what... 35 years old, wine in Marlborough similar, wine on the Gimblet Gravels... 15? Dairying in the South Island... explodes over the last decade. It is constantly evolving and adapting to prevailing conditions.

Changes in precipitation patterns... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Winter chilling requirements changing... the crop will move... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Pests and diseases changing... they change all the time... gut the economy?... don't be stupid.

Increasing extreme weather events raising insurance costs? They've already pulled that scam once at least on the basis of a flawed study that didn't allow for the fact that we're building expensive coastal properties as fast as we can and so whenever there's a big typhoon OF COURSE the bills are getting bigger. Gut the economy... don't be stupid.

More stupid carbon taxes? Possibly... but Kyoto's dead in the water... and the tide's long since turned against any hope of reviving it. Gut the economy... don't be stupid.

So once again we've got the climate hysteric waving his arms around... "the sky is falling WAH WAH WAH WAH"... and as soon as you look closer at the bullshit it... simply vanishes.

Do you work in local government? Because all the local councils are doing this climate change preparedness schtick... and you can only guess at the biblical levels of stupidity that we're paying for.

[Jantar]

....

Do you work in local government? Because all the local councils are doing this climate change preparedness schtick... and you can only guess at the biblical levels of stupidity that we're paying for.

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

[carbonhed]

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

So you can adapt. I can adapt... but stoopids doomed

[slowpoke]

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.

Occam's Razor: "The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. "

Considering the wildly varying guesstimates regarding climate change that we are prepared to base short term economic policy on such a vague long term threat defies commonsense. If any other industry ("climate change is an industry), gave such a disparity in conclusions we'd dismiss it out of hand.

But all this is merely semantics, as are most of the arguments put forward so far. When the government starts telling me how crippling the businesses and populace of a small insignificant country via an emissions trading scheme is going to change a bloody thing I'll start to pay attention to the issue rather than the revenue raising opportunity it presents.

[Ocean1]

...we'd dismiss it out of hand.

I'm way ahead of you.

[shrub]

Occam's Razor: "The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions. That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. "

Considering the wildly varying guesstimates regarding climate change that we are prepared to base short term economic policy on such a vague long term threat defies commonsense. If any other industry ("climate change is an industry), gave such a disparity in conclusions we'd dismiss it out of hand.

But all this is merely semantics, as are most of the arguments put forward so far. When the government starts telling me how crippling the businesses and populace of a small insignificant country via an emissions trading scheme is going to change a bloody thing I'll start to pay attention to the issue rather than the revenue raising opportunity it presents.

Well done for putting quote marks around your c&p from wikipaedia, very few people here bother. Human activity being the cause of climate change is the most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data.

Climate change is not a long term threat, it's an immediate threat and a current problem. The sea rising to drown Manhatten and polar bears becoming extinct are very definitely long term (I have major problems with Gore's film too), but the planet is warming and the environment is changing. A good mate of mine did his PhD in Alberta studying wolves and caribou, and he said that over the last couple of decades migration patterns have changed and sub arctic species are being hit with diseases that they have no immunity to because the carriers of said diseases used not to be able to survive in the sub arctic regions. In NZ there is a lot of concern that the Mediterranean and Oriental fruit fly species will be able to flourish which would decimate our fruit industry, and all it will take is a 0.8 degree rise in mean temperature.

But nothing in life is black and white, and arable crops will do better thanks to climate change. The increase in carbon will increase cropping of most grains and shorter winters and drier and warmer springs will mean soil can be prepared earlier. An expanded frost-free period will mean frost sensitive crops can be sown over a wider range of times and tropical crops like maize will become viable options in more southern latitudes. All of this means the grower will be able to choose from a wider range of crop types and crop growth duration, giving greater flexibility in their management.

So it's not all bad, if we stop, acknowledge that there is a problem and plan accordingly. Running around in a blind panic saying "it's the end of the world, polar bears are dying and Auckland is about to go underwater" is a silly and pointless as closing your eyes, blocking your ears and saying "it's an evil scam designed to increase taxes".

As for the the ETS, personally I don't particularly like it because it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by purchasing carbon credits, and it creates an industry. My preference is for there to be a carbon tax, that way people who dump their waste in the atmosphere have to pay in the same way i will have to pay when I dump all my broken TVs etc from the quake. it's called user pays. If we had a carbon tax and invested the proceeds in researching clean energy and methods of adapting to climate change, it would be much better for all of us.

[shrub]

At the Hydrology Society conference last year, one of the main foccii was climate change and its effects. Emiritus Professor Blair Fitzharris gave a keynote address on the effects of rising sea levels on Dunedin City. Although he and I have differing views on the matter, I was impressed by his ideas of mitigation that would cost the city almost nothing.

He gave the example of Portsmouth Drive, a seaside road. If the sea levels do rise at the rate forecast by the IPCC (3 mm/yr) then over a 30 period the sea woul rise less than 100 mm. That road will need resurfacing at least once, and maybe three times over that period. His solution: Each time the road needs resurfacing just build up the base by 100 mm. Problem solved

Houses are consented with a 50 year minimum design life, and must have freeboard (300 mm from memory) above the surrounding contour. His solution: Do nothing. By the time sea levels have risen enough to matter a house built today is ready for replacement anyway. Just ensure that housing permits are not granted on flood prone land unless extra mitigation is taken at the time of building.

So not all mitigation need be expensive and certainly none of it is urgent.

And Professor Fitzharris has said that “over the long run, adaptation alone can’t deal with all the projected effects of climate change, even in the richest nations. Eventually adaptation will be insufficient to reduce vulnerability.” (http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...7/2007-04-07-1)

[oneofsix]

And Professor Fitzharris has said that “over the long run, adaptation alone can’t deal with all the projected effects of climate change, even in the richest nations. Eventually adaptation will be insufficient to reduce vulnerability.” (http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...7/2007-04-07-1)

so we can't do anything about it therefore and be merry.

[shrub]

so we can't do anything about it therefore and be merry.

I'm doing that anyway, but also setting myself up so i can continue to do so. Preperation is always a good idea.

[Spearfish]

So new Zealanders, enjoy the fact you can be smugg about paying tax just in case anthropogenic global warming is real.
NZ is disgusting at #72 of the top 100 of co2 emitters with an astounding 0.11%. Australia even goes into whole numbers at 1.28% and #16 on the list, the bastards.....

The countries in the top 100 don't even get into the tens until #3 on the list and even that's the whole EU at 14%. India is #4 with just 5.5% so who are the top three we are paying our tax for?
China at 22.3% .......................and growing
United States at 19.91%
European union at 14%

We know from events like this in our history that if you burn enough women with black cats surly you will have burned at least one witch.

Far canal we are POINT one one percent!

Even the Swiss are higher than us at a whopping 0.13% and #68

[Scuba_Steve]

Human activity being the cause of climate change is the most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data.

Evolutionists will not like this at all as God is the "most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data." whereas everything can be written off to "God did it"

Climate change is not a long term threat, it's an immediate threat and a current problem.

... no wait your right the scam is an immediate problem they're trying to tax us for a religion I for 1 do not believe in!

Auckland is about to go underwater

You say it likes its a bad thing???

it's a "scam designed to increase taxes".

Tax is end result, it's a scam to increase big companies profit. There is a reason BP, shell, rockefeller, rothchilds etc invest in this scam

As for the the ETS, personally I don't particularly like it because it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by purchasing carbon credits, and it creates an industry. My preference is for there to be a carbon tax

where "it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by" paying tax & then passing on that cost + some more profit for themselves, onto the customer... yea I see how thats better

[shrub]

Evolutionists will not like this at all as God is the "most likely and most rational explanation because every other explanation depends on all kinds of complicated and convulated arguments and/or spurious data." whereas everything can be written off to "God did it":

What the fuck is rational about an imaginary being creating everything? I suggest you look up rational in a dictionary.

tax.... Tax... scam.... scam

yes, quite.

where "it allows polluters to avoid doing anything by" paying tax & then passing on that cost + some more profit for themselves, onto the customer... yea I see how thats better

Let me introduce a radical concept to you - it's called the free market. Company A makes beer and is a big polluter and is taxed accordingly, and then passes on that tax in the form of higher prices to the end consumer. Company B also makes beer, but invests in clean technology and so doesn't pollute and doesn't get taxed, therefore doesn't need to have higher prices.

Both beers taste the same, so which beer will you buy? The expensive beer or the cheap beer? Which company will succeed and which will fail?

[Scuba_Steve]

What the fuck is rational about an imaginary being creating everything? I suggest you look up rational in a dictionary.

No-one said imaginary

Let me introduce a radical concept to you - it's called the free market. Company A makes beer and is a big polluter and is taxed accordingly, and then passes on that tax in the form of higher prices to the end consumer. Company B also makes beer, but invests in clean technology and so doesn't pollute and doesn't get taxed, therefore doesn't need to have higher prices.

Umm company B has higher setup or re-setup costs so has to charge more because of that & even if we pretend they didn't since company A sells at a higher price (because they have to) company B will also sell at a similar price to maximize profits end result, nothing changes, consumers pay more

... And people actually pay you to tell them about business???

[oneofsix]

No-one said imaginary


Umm company B has higher setup or re-setup costs so has to charge more because of that & even if we pretend they didn't since company A sells at a higher price (because they have to) company B will also sell at a similar price to maximize profits end result, nothing changes, consumers pay more

... And people actually pay you to tell them about business???

Reckon he sings a different tune when talking business. Whatever pays