Todd Muller supports a socialist wrecker — is that wise?
Some National Party strategists think Todd Muller can hardly say he supports the Zero Carbon Act then do nothing about it. Sooner or later you must accept that National has agreed to the Zero Carbon Bill as a matter of policy and therefore has to show some acceptance of its obligations.
But the implied condition of support for any proposal is that the assumptions behind it remain true. If it emerges that the basis of a policy is wrong, it then becomes the height of reason to withdraw your support. The new honourable path is to abandon it.
The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 is wrong, with numerous flaws, but just one fundamental defect invalidates the Act on its own—carbon dioxide does not dangerously warm the climate. The IPCC proves this by failing to produce evidence that carbon dioxide is dangerous.
James Shaw is a socialist wrecker, for sure
Last year I published a comprehensive series of essays by Barry Brill, OBE, that surgically dismantle the Zero Carbon Bill and leave no doubt about its many defects. With the IPCC’s failure to produce evidence, there’s no chance that carbon dioxide causes significant warming.
Being right is better than being wrong, so to withdraw approval of anything erroneous is reasonable, though it does require that you eat humble pie. Todd Muller and the National Party are wrong on an issue that not only commands deep popular passion, but also has terrifying connotations for the public purse for the next 30 years or more—it’ll cost us an eye-watering $300 billion, or $20,000 per household, in direct costs and economic losses.
To the extent that I can ascertain, government COVID-19 spending to date totals about $64.4 billion, which seems a lot, but the Zero Carbon folly, at $300 billion, towers over it. Our entire GDP in 2019 was only $250 billion.
Todd could do worse than adopt a statesman’s approach, observe that errors in the ZCB have emerged recently, and decide that changing his mind was the right thing for the country. Choosing to wreck our nation’s agricultural, industrial and transport foundations to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, while the IPCC refuses to produce evidence that carbon dioxide dangerously warms the climate, is perilous and pricey.
Climate Minister Shaw claims there are so-called ‘green’ industries and initiatives that can replace our traditional enterprises, but so far refuses to say what they might be. To make up the shortfall in exports of meat, wool and wine would require heroic numbers of solar panels and windmills, and they couldn’t replace our vehicles, steel or aluminium smelters or electricity generation. It’s hard to believe that our traditional industries will survive without relying on plentiful, productive and inexpensive fossil fuels.
He also claims our sacrifice is necessary to improve the weather, though our weather has nothing to do with our emissions, which are only 0.1% of the global figure. The weather won’t change, whatever we do.
Embarking on this course without visible, credible proof of any need for it is breathtaking in its anti-science audacity, and in the sheer breadth of destruction required, implementing the Zero Carbon illusion is akin to waging war against your own country, and the law still calls that treason. National might pause for thought on that, for it’s a precarious pedestal for appealing to the nation.
Support by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition for the perfidious Zero Carbon Amendment Act gives treasonous succour to a socialist, anti-industrial cabal of traitors.
Will history congratulate National for their wisdom or condemn their treachery?
Views: 3
The IPCC reports are written by experts, who judge the evidence.
The IPCC report we are fast reaching a tipping point, beyond which we will not be able to keep the climate that suits us.
That is why National has grudgingly accepted the science. Todd Muller doesn’t want to look like a dinosaur.
Here are sequentially the 5 IPCC Reports
• The IPCC First report started out by saying “We don’t know what else could be causing warming”
• Second report admitted that there was much it didn’t know.
• The Third IPCC report featured the “hockey stick” temperature graph. A few years later that graph was shown to be a sham because similar graphs could be produced using random data, so that “evidence” wasn’t mentioned in subsequent reports.
• The Fourth report asserted that global average temperatures were in agreement with climate models, trying to imply that the models accurately described what was happening.
• That was undone by the Fifth report which showed that almost all models were flawed because their retrospective predictions of warming for the previous 15 years showed greater warming than temperature observations indicated.
If IPCC models have predicted temperatures around 3 times warmer than actual data one should
question.
Hi Deborah. Thanks for dropping in.
Oh, interesting. I haven’t read that in the AR5. Where do they say “we are fast reaching a tipping point”?
I don’t know why you keep referring to AR5 which was published back in 2014. There has been a lot more research done since then.
Read Impacts of 1.5ºC global warming on natural and human systems, there is a whole section on tipping points: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/.
Also read the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/.
Also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change which is a good summary of current understanding.
Simon, In the last title it says “could be triggered by climate change.” That isn’t an “understanding,” as you claim. That is still summation and guess work at best. Not something that you would base any govt. policy on!
The problem humanity faces is political.
Governments, with the exception of the gibbering Trump administration, accept the science. Mostly they’re hamstrung by Homo sapien’s evolutionary flaws.
Cambridgedon,
Sorry, you didn’t answer my question. You made an assertion and I asked: “Where do they say ‘we are fast reaching a tipping point’?”
You also stated, “The IPCC reports are written by experts, who judge the evidence.”
Actually, the IPCC reports are written by the delegates to the IPCC conferences and seminars, who are all bureaucrats and politicians, appointed by their governments. They wouldn’t know evidence if it bit them. They write what the UN wants them to say, because that’s also what they want to say. The process has nothing to do with finding the science, but finding ways to make socialist goals sound scientific.
To those who read the founding documents of the UN, the WMO, the UNEP and the IPCC this has been clear for decades. It took me about 10 years to agree with those talking about it when I took up the study — but it is a conspiracy, cunningly conducted in plain sight. The goals of Agenda 21 are being ticked off one by one. The United Nations stands for One Nation, the United Nation.
However, it’s possible to stand against them. My proven results in getting refusals to produce evidence of dangerous human warming, standing as they do atop all the scientific rebuttals of important pieces of climate science, and beside the innumerable papers refuting the IPCC narrative, are most encouraging.
It’s quite an eye-opener to see letters proving the IPCC Secretariat refuses to provide evidence. Also the Royal Society, the RSNZ, the MfE, James Shaw, James Renwick and many others. But don’t let this tirade make you forget to answer my questions.
Cambridgedon,
So they say. But I’ve asked them what it is and they always reply, “Read the IPCC reports.” Now I have, those governments don’t know what they’re saying. They quite obviously haven’t read the reports themselves. I guess it’s slightly likely you may have flicked through one of them. What’s the science say? I mean, what’s the actual link between our emissions and the alleged warming? You have to quantify this at some point, please.
I might be a bit late with this comment but I have been busy farming and today it is raining .
Tod Muller has to realize that the Zero Carbon Bill is a crock.
I spoke before the select committee and put before them facts that no one can argue against .
The bill is based on ideology and these politicians and their supporters think that they are saving the world.when the facts show that the main result of their actions will make every New Zealander a lot poorer.
The billion trees will result in millions of dollars flowing out of New Zealand in carbon credits to foreign investors .
Will those investors pay back the money when these forests in perpetuity go up in flames or are blown down in storms at some time in the future ?
Look at the facts ,land supporting farming produces foreign exchange for New Zealand every year but forests that will never be harvested will be a drain on every New Zealander.
Now to enteric methane from farmed livestock which is a cycle and as I told the select committee over any time frame not one atom of carbon or molecule containing carbon ie CO2 and CH4 is added to the atmosphere .
All forage that livestock consume has absorbed CO2 and the small amount of CH4 emitted during digestion breaks down in the upper atmosphere into CO2 and water vapour in around 8 to 10 years and the cycle continues .
With our tourism industry struggling ,New Zealand needs every dollar that can be earned to pay for our imports and planting good farmland with trees that will never be harvested is crass stupidity.
New Zealands population of 5 million is smaller than a lot of cities around the world and our farmers produce food to feed 45 million people in other countries all around the world .
How much food is grown in side large city limits ?
Most of our electricity is from hydro and if the sums are properly calculated New Zealand our food exports have the lowest carbon foot print even after shipping to the other side of the world .
That is a fact so we should be maximizing our food exports as that will lower CO2 emissions globally Instead we are playing silly games paying investors carbon credits to cripple our regions in the vain hope that we will save the world from a tipping point .
Michael Shellenberger is a founder of the Breakthrough Institute and “Environmental Progress”, Time Magazine’s “environmental hero”, and a guy who has devoted 20 years of his life to promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.
But he has become alarmed. The extremes of climate change alarmism and exaggeration have gone too far. He worries that 1 in 5 British schoolchildren suffer nightmares about the future possible impacts of climate and the political histrionics which claim that “we have 12 years to live”.
He says we must come back to peer-reviewed science and to evidence-based projections of future temperatures. Scenarios must satisy sanity checks, and the reported nuances/uncertainties in IPCC reports must be respected.
On behalf of all claimate activists everywhere, he apologises for the extent to which the media narrative has got completely out of control.
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
Yes, it is great to get more support. The Ideal Gas Laws, Maxwell’s Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, plus Einstein’s derived Quantum Paper of 1917, show the impossibility of Scientific backing for AGW. Prof Robert Wood debunked Arhennius in about 1904.
I only warned Pollies of Legal Perils, while you folk have commenced on these. Thank You All.
But you are right, a Parliamentary Majority is needed in the end. I note that Nat Northland MP Matt King, a BSc, has admitted to me, his Scientific agreement with us. Small Beginnings?
Also, Niwa having measured NZ as a NET CARBON SINK, should sink the whole caboodle. If any warmista were honest.
RT, you seem to have history with Niwa. Please have a little chat with them. Or do they never answer you as with me.
Southern coal users are paying carbon penallties now. The Killing commences. Farming families, next year……
It starts to hang on political influence. Changing one Parliamentary mind at a time is one method. Some electorates will be more hurt that others at the early stage, so one on one communications according to well-researched lists is how one might proceed. After this election. BK