Last month our government, through the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Nick Smith, released a “Minister’s Position Paper” on New Zealand’s 2050 Emissions Target. It makes sickening reading. Here’s the beginning:
Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that climate change is happening, and humankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases are very likely the cause. Since the 1970s there is mounting scientific evidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities are raising temperatures and changing the Earth’s climate patterns.
These activities include burning fossil fuels like coal and oil, deforestation and farming. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, increased markedly over the 20th century.
“Climate change” is “happening”? It’s amazing that the government feels the need to point out to their subjects a fact known to Man since before the dawn of time: the climate changes. No, it’s ludicrous. Actually it’s stupid. Or it’s fatuous, or condescending, patronising, ignorant, dictatorial, racist, sexist and discriminatory. Also it’s witless.
Take a closer look at this brilliant opening gambit. Never mind the “multiple lines of scientific evidence,” because that’s just thrown in to make the peasants think this is important. Who cares about the evidence, when it’s just pointing out something we already knew? Who needs evidence for the obvious?
Climate change is happening.
Well, well. What else does climate do? Does it stay the same? Never noticed any weather different from today? Constant sunshine, was it, or ever-lasting rain? Anyone? Perhaps you’re accustomed to the rain falling only between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.? That would be convenient. Or is it always snowing on Christmas day? Is there always a strong wind at 4 o’clock in the afternoon of August 18th?
This is stupid! Any child over ten years old remembers different weather when they were young. Go ahead – ask one.
Climate always changes. Asking for scientific evidence of “climate change” is like asking a glazier to verify that glass is transparent. It’s like asking a teacher to confirm that children need to learn more. It’s like asking a policeman whether society would be safer if the criminals were all locked up. Like asking an astronomer to confirm that those bright points of light we can see are far-away stars. Like asking a meteorologist whether that strong wind over the weekend was because of a storm passing through. Like asking a pie-maker if his pies taste nice. (No, I’m not sure about the pies.)
We don’t need evidence like that! It’s obvious!
Nick Smith needs a stern mental examination if he seriously considers it necessary to tell the average Kiwi that the climate is changing. I mean to say: he’s nuts! Listen to what he’s saying, people! How sensible is it? Are you really surprised to hear the climate is changing?
He says it’s all caused (but only “very likely” caused) by our emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. Now, that’s seriously stupid, but this is all I can manage for now. I’ll write more later. The Royal Society has chipped in and made a ‘submission’ in response to the Minister’s statement and they’ve made royal idiots of themselves. Really and truly, I try to stay polite, but their nonsensical gabble is quite without scientific justification. Coming from a bunch of scientists, that’s a dereliction of duty.
My fellow Kiwis, I love you dearly, but you need to be stirred up a bit to take these non-thinkers down a peg or two! You deserve entirely better than stumblebums like them holding the reins of power!
Views: 76
I am eager to return home to NZ after almost a decade away from the place, with only a couple of quick trips back in that time. One of the really surprising findings from my general quick look at a big chunk of Europe is the wilful stupidity of politicians everywhere. Before I left on my big OE, I thought that stupidity was peculiar to Kiwi pollies, but brother, let me tell you, it aint – it’s a global phenomenon. The pronouncements from the UK’s resident Hunatic, the Minister for the environment, are far longer and sillier than anything Smithie has said. And the jokers that run the endless and incredible gravy train that is the EU are even worse; no auditors have ever signed off the EU’s annual books, there’s so much dodgy stuff going on. At least us Kiwis can console ourselves with the thought that we have a relatively graft-free society, but I have a suspicion that’s because generations of dopey pollies sold the farm,.the family jewells and the silver in return for a share of some bridge in New York.
Alexander, I honestly don’t know whether to rejoice or to mourn on hearing your comments!
But thanks for the wider perspective, mate!
I read Richard North’s blog, EURef, everyday.
The scale of the political corruption in the UK and Europe is stagerring
I’m shaken, not stirred
Ha ha! Good one, Richard.
Excellent rant! Loved it – especially “stumblebums”.
There’s much more in the Min’s statement and the RS response that’s rantable, so I’m not finished yet.
Stumblebums applies also to the army of sycophantic bureaucrats labouring to bring about our brave ETS and other loony measures to “fight” climate change. I don’t believe it’s possible for an intelligent person, in command of their mental faculties, to look soberly at us and intone “the climate is changing, and it’s our fault” and expect to be taken seriously!
So the more we laugh at them, the sooner they’ll stop.
I have almost finished reading “Climate: The Great Delusion” (A study of the climatic, economic and political realities) by Christian Gerondeau.
It is a fairly short book (< 140 pages), easy to read, and should be required reading for any of our ruling elite who are trying to impose climate policies on us.
A 50% reduction in emissions by 2050 is pure fantasy
The graph on the MFE page linked in the article shows the breakdown by sector of GHG emissions.
50% of emissions are from agriculture.
So here are some scenarios for 2050:
(1) Keep agriculture at 2010 levels, make the rest of industry 100% carbon neutral.
(2) Shut down the entire meat/dairy agriculture industry, keep the rest as BAU.
Both these scenarios would achieve 50% reductions in GHG emissions.
Are either likely or possible, or are there other more realistic scenarios?
The cuts are calculated on 1990 figures, so we don’t have to wreck any sector by as much as 50%. Still, is there any way to quantify the effects? What’s BAU? Got it — Business As Usual! What info is there on actual effects on our economy of cuts of this magnitude?
For a start, what percentage of today’s, say, agricultural production does 50% of 1990 production represent?
The terminology is designed to be deliberately misleading, of course.
If Smith were more accurate, he would state that “The climate is changing, at a level that we can measure above the natural variability, and we have proof that this is caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels”
Since he wouldn’t be able to provide proof of either statement, other than vague references to IPCC synthesis reports, he doesn’t say it.
However, i think the sceptic can gain more ground on this issue by turning the questions around.
Let us assume that you are correct, and we need to drastically cut GHG emissions. How are you going to achieve this?
All the ministry doc contains is a load of fluff about “clean green image”.
The fact that anyone can continue to rabbit on about AGWG after the last northern hemisphere’s winter (c.f. Northern Hemisphere Snow (Map) makes me wonder if the conspiracy theorists are correct. Is there a plot to use AGWG to further a new world order? I can see no other explanation for the continual denials by our politicians when the evidence
continues to accumulate that the world is currently cooling. Oh I forgot – we should expect cooling with global warming. As you say they will not listen to logic, satire may be the best weapon.
“Since the 1970s there is mounting scientific evidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities are raising temperatures.”
Come on Richard, this is no claim of proof. He doesn’t say it’s likely, or even possible. Just claims there is more scientific evidence now than there was 40 years ago.
And because this was drafted by the Environment Ministry, we know that this “evidence” is the output of a computer model. And outputs of computers tend to derive from inputs. So, it’s all circular, and nobody really knows.
Anyhow, we are only setting targets for our grandchildren – which is like science fiction, because nobody can know what technologies they will be using by 2050.
It’s worth noting that the Ministry are seeking views on their 2050 targets.
From the MFE page
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nz-2050-emissions-target/
Have your say
Your view on gazetting New Zealand’s 2050 emissions reduction target is important to the Government.
You can have your say on gazetting New Zealand’s 2050 emissions reduction target by:
* emailing your views to 2050target@mfe.govt.nz
or
* writing to the Ministry for the Environment at
2050 Emissions Reduction Target Consultation
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
Wellington 6143
Submissions close 28 February 2011.
I noted that the targets and how they are achieved are all stated in very woolly terms, and also are all uniformly positive. i.e they imply that there is no downside to these targets.
However, they also state that the primary tool for achieving the targets is the ETS. It would require a very high price per tonne for CO2 to make these even vaguely achievable, so I would suggest that there would be serious economic harm to NZ if these targets were adopted.
28th is the week after next guys. I’d get writing in if I were you. If they only receive emails from advocacy organisations then we only have ourselves to blame.
A resposible cost/benefit analysis would include rigourous consideration of alternative climate driver hypotheses.
# Has the Office of Climate Change done this?
# Have they assenbled, read and catalogued all the scientific literature spanning the alternatives including the most up to date papers that are continually being published.
# Have they analysed the validity of AGW predictions by comparing the predictions to the observed condition on an on-going basis?
# Have they got the foggiest clue?
I agree that you could ask the ministry about alternative climate drivers, but at this stage I think this is pushing the proverbial uphill.
I think what the government are looking for is some feedback on their climate policies assuming that the IPCC projections are correct
In this respect, I think that there are a lot of intelligent things that we can present. As I said, in a previous comment, I have just finished reading Gerondeau’s “The Climate Delusion”, and am about to start on Pielke Jnr’s “The Climate Fix”. (Last week’s read was Carter’s Climate – the Counter Consensus”, Amazon.com must love me)
A common thread in my reading is that most policy analysts think it is very unlikely that we will not reach 600ppm CO2 by the end of the century
In fact, there seems to be a common theme that we will ultimately burn all the fossil fuels available on the planet. This will likely lead us to 600ppm plus CO2e by the end of the century, maybe eventually 1000 ppm.
We need to phrase NZ’s policy response to “climate change” in this context.
If we are going to drop our emissions by 50%, this represents an unmeasurable amount in global terms. Terms that the Chinese especially will ever buy into. We are proposing to commit economic suicide purely on ideological grounds (and from a supposed conservative government. God help us if we get a labour/green coalition)
Oh, and if you lot ever decide to comment on “Hot Topic”, be aware that Prof Keith Hunter is prepared to donate twenty bucks to keep you quiet
http://hot-topic.co.nz/montana-and-a-singular-madness-wishin-and-hopin/#comment-24453
Has it occurred to them that the system may not be being “gamed”?
Thomas says they need to stop “the illusion of a dialogue with sceptics”. The only way they can do that is to block every IP forever more that votes in opposition to their world view. That should keep Gareth tied up for some time into the future.
Basically, they can’t cope with dissenting but reasoned opinion – a trait of certain ideologies.
They don’t get the jokes do they?
Tim McGee – from Wikipedia
McGee has a passion for computers and enjoys playing games relating to tactical warfare and covert infiltration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McGee
Maybe I am reading too much into this.
You’re asking a lot Andy. Your approach for me means I have to adopt a false notion in order to make a presentation, something i would have difficulty doing.
The last thing I want to do is assume “that the IPCC projections are correct”. I want the Office to prove that the IPCC IS correct, because I have multiple lines of evidence (Ha!) that indicates it isn’t.
I was trying to suggest that you can take a proposition A as given and then make deductions from that. You don’t have to agree with proposition A.
Breaking: House Defunds UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/19/breaking-house-votes-defund-un-intergovernmental-panel-climate-change#ixzz1ER8iPWPa
From the article:-
Hip hip hooray!
Of course, as this was mostly along Party lines, it seems quite doubtful this would pass in the Senate and even more unlikely it would survive an almost certain presidential veto even if it did.
This is a related document to the one discussed in the article, and deals specifically with the 2020 targets.
These are of a more immediate concern, of course than the 2050 targets.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/emissions-target-2020/cab-paper-2020.html
Point number 63 is interesting:
Fifty-nine submitters (19% of total submissions) were sceptical of climate change. Their submissions tended to focus on the validity of the science of anthropogenic global warming, and many provided arguments against the science used in the 2020 target brochure. The majority of sceptics did not specify a preferred target. Those who did tended to support a business as usual approach.
19% of total submissions are sceptics. That is quite a high number.
Remember to get your submissions in for the 2050 targets by 28th Feb, email address provided above.
thanks for the heads up, will just have to try and keep calm while writing something!
Even the first sentence of the position paper seems to beg a lot of questions:
The Government is committed to implementing an “economically sound” and “environmentally effective” climate change policy….
Strewth! I just hopped over to Hot Gossip, using the link on Andy’s comment – what a bunch and how dare anyone have opinions counter to theirs! Kiwis tend to like authoritarian group leaders such as the late Rob Muldoon, who was a scary little bugger in the flesh but incredibly popular in some circles, but the blokes commenting on HG are somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun, so I suppose the extreme drongos who congregate there is unsurprising.
And I thought the faithful who tend to cluster to attack dissidents on George Monbiot’s blogs in the London Guardian are bad.
Hot Gossip – now we are talking. Top of the Pops in the seventies.
Check this Kenny Everett video:
Hot Gossip-Small pants and wellingtons-I Lost My Spade to a Greenhouse Reaper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFxR6S0qRc
I hope Gareth has a sense of humour.
Looks like tricky “Nick” PhD twice removed (or should because there a braincell or 2 missing)
is trying to throw NZ back to the dark ages, maybe with some help from Ms Gillard ,over here, Im sure there was allot of “wink wink” on “climate change” matters going on behind the scenes when she was over there.
Yes comment on the EU, yes corruption heaven..or hell depending on which side you are on! (just read SPPI)
Smith is an Engineer by trade, so he should know better.
His Wikipedia entry on Climate Change sums it all up:
In 2005, Smith made the following comments on Labour’s policy of carbon taxes in his Nelson-Marlborough farming column:
* “The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain.”
* “Labour Ministers may take pride in being toasted at International Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue.”
* “New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions made up only 0.4% of the global total and on a per capita basis our emissions are half those of countries like Australia and the United States. We are the only Southern Hemisphere country with binding legal obligations under Kyoto and giants like China and India have got off scot free.”[6]
From January 2008, Smith was giving speeches as National’s Climate Change Spokesman. In one speech, he stating there was no question that the destabilising of the earth’s climate, caused by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, was the “number one environmental issue”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Smith_%28politician%29
Heres a great quote from Piers Corbyn.. Here Nick mate READ THIS!
“CO2 warmism can predict nothing and is disproved by observations irrespective of other ideas. However the
Authorities & politicians refuse to listen to our scientific solar-driven forecasts or apply our predictions because that
entails admitting that CO2 drives nothing and their con & plunder CO2 warmism would be exposed as a self-interested
desperate cult ideology with no purpose other than to propagate itself. It is build on tricks and fraud and will not go
quietly. It has become the ‘Mubarak regime’ of science and must be destroyed.
I love Piers correlation of AGW to Mubarak!!
I dont quite get where Smith comes from hes follows ‘ecconazi green extremist’ views yet hes supposedly a true blue Nat.
Yes he certainly should know better. His statements prove that the NZ govt is either blind naive or just part of the world criminal agenda of climate change.
Piers Corbyn has it about right. As the financial and real estate cons pushed by the international banksters toppled, as they inevitably had to, the Green taxes foisted on the world have become a new avenue for politicians to rip money off the Revenue. The Great and the Good here in Outer Pongolia are all into it like pigs in warm mud – the English PM’s Dad-in-law and his titled friends are busy putting up wind farms and solar farms on their estates, all to hook into the National Grid and thus suckle on the public teat of huge and insupportable subsidies. The mad Prince Chuckles, who would hold Nuremburg-style trials to burn the unbelievers of man-made climate change at the stake if he could, has engineered a lovely deal for the Royal Estate, who own the seabed around the UK and are now collecting enormous and growing rentals from the off-shore windfarms. Interestingly, I recently discovered the scientific reason as to why the mad prince of doom’s habit of chatting to his flowers actually works – its the CO2 he exhales on his flowers that accelerates their growth, not that they listen to him and appreciate his little homilies, as he thinks!
The English are lovely people, but they are their own worst enemis – they will put up with anything in return for a good cuppa tea and glimpse of a passing Royal.
They are busy working themselves into a tizz right now over the forthcoming Royal Wedding..