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

**shrub** · 5th July 2010, 09:57

Originally Posted by doc

: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** · 5th July 2010, 10:13

Originally Posted by shrub

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** · 5th July 2010, 10:19

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** · 5th July 2010, 11:16

Originally Posted by shrub

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** · 5th July 2010, 11:32

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 5th July 2010, 11:42

Originally Posted by shrub

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** · 5th July 2010, 11:57

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 5th July 2010, 21:07

Originally Posted by shrub

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** · 5th July 2010, 21:11

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

**davereid** · 6th July 2010, 08:00

Originally Posted by Quasievil

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** · 6th July 2010, 08:27

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

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** · 6th July 2010, 08:37

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:Me** · 6th July 2010, 09:30

Originally Posted by davereid

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** · 6th July 2010, 09:55

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.