Climate Change

Let’s invite a vitriolic torrent of abuse

Guest post

The Foundations of Green Policy

The polls have consistently shown the Green Party at about half the Labour party’s support.  It could then be concluded that the Greens would have a third of the Cabinet positions and a commensurate amount of influence in a Left wing government.

Given some incompetence of Labour on policy matters it could be an even greater bias.

It is important for the electorate to be able to assess what that means for the future of the country.

The Greens have two underlying philosophic positions that shape their policies.  One is old-fashioned and long since disproved and mostly abandoned socialism.  The other is climate change.

Socialism hardly needs any more discrediting.  It is a recipe for economic misery and failure. The higher taxes, picking winners, state ownership and control, heavier handed regulation, bloated bureaucracy slowly stifles growth and kills initiative. Ironically, socialist governed countries generally have the worst and most degraded environments.

However the climate change premise demands further scrutiny as a platform for policy and a basis for legislation changes.

Speaking out against climate change is a sure way to invite a vitriolic torrent of abuse, name calling and dismissal.  So I am not going to.

I humbly accept the notion of climate change. Climate change is settled science.  It’s up there in certainty terms with the earth being round not flat.

However ‘climate change’ is a deliberate misnomer because we all accept on-going change.  What is open to question is how much, what is causing it and what if anything should we do about it.   Read more »

Guest Post – Climate Change, ETS Policies and Cunliffe’s Conflict of Interest

Photo/ Stuff.co.nz

Photo/ Stuff.co.nz

This is a guest post from a long time reader. The writer states:

I have been looking at and thinking about this issue for a few weeks now and had expected some coverage on the issues in the media leading up to the election but there’s been nothing.

Your post last weekend leading up to Father’s Day and suggestion to send in a post to Pete got me thinking.  However my apologies that this is not a short 500-1000 word post.

I am not a public figure, a journalist, or blogger.  I am not a member of any political party either.  I am currently a stay at home mother who also does a bit of charity work for a national charity which has nothing to do with these issues.


I have a question. It is important and arises out of an issue that ought to have some light shed on it before we cast our vote in less than a week as we weigh up who we trust to run our country because there is a risk that decisions might be made following the election that none of us thought we voted for. By then it is too late. This issue has not featured during this entire election campaign and I suspect the media’s insatiable lust for the “dirty politics” saga has taken up so much of the oxygen that even the proponents of global warming and climate change have choked on all the hot air arising from the political storm that has ensued.

‘Climate change’ and in particular the mechanism for a “polluter-pays” regime has been high on the agenda and a significant issue for all of the political parties in the previous three election campaigns with plenty of debate. This time it has been buried under all the popular issues de jour such as child poverty, capital gains tax and the minimum wage.   It surprises me especially when I recall previous elections and the spectre of an increase in the cost of living arising out of taxes on carbon pollution.

Much like the ongoing debate as to whether climate change is a controllable impact on our environment, until recently there has been a lot of debate on all sides of the political and environmental spectrum as to the desirability, credibility and effectiveness of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) versus a simple carbon tax. I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of all the competing arguments. I am not an industry participant by any definition but an end-use consumer, a mother of three young children in her 40s, with a sizeable mortgage to pay on top of other increasing living costs.

The sustainability of our planet, protecting our environment and ensuring the generations that follow in our footsteps aren’t adversely affected by the excesses of our times is important to me and yet I remain concerned at the rising cost of living and the potential impact the introduction of new taxes or costs based on amorphous concepts such as climate change will have on our economy.

I also want to know the detail and what the deal is for each of the parties.   We didn’t need the “Dirty Politics” book to teach us that behind political parties’ policies lie individuals, lobby groups and industry sector groups with a vested interest in the success or otherwise of proposed laws that will affect them.

As a voter and an individual I am no different in that I want to know what I am up for and what will affect me in the pocket following this election. So I went looking for party policies on this issue and the future of the ETS in particular, because it doesn’t take a genius to note that as ‘polluters’ responsible for around 47% of New Zealand’s total emissions (based on 2010 figures[i]) if the agricultural sector is included in the ETS the high costs faced by farmers will inevitably be passed on to us as consumers of dairy and meat products.

What did I learn?    Read more »

Half a dozen protestors and it makes the front page of The Press?

Half a dozen people walk up a busy road in the freezing cold wind and rain all worried about non existent global warming and it’s front page news.

Protesters marched in Christchurch today to encourage people to think about climate change when they vote in next week’s election.

Several environmental groups have banded together and are trying to encourage people to consider climate a top priority when casting their vote.

Timed to encourage people to think about climate change when they vote in next week’s election, protestors marched in Christchurch today.   Read more »

Is global warming worth it?

The warmists would have us all believe that the planet is doomed and it all because of us.

They say we must tax ourselves and the green taliban want us to abandon our advances as a society to live the way they want to tell us.

But is global warming worth keeping for all the advances that have been made?

You bet it is.

[L]et’s concede for the purposes of this piece that climate change threatens society in serious ways right now. If you want to argue that Americans should alter the way they live and sacrifice some of their prosperity for security, you might be wrong, but please feel free to convince them. If you’re arguing that prosperity itself is corrupt and man’s greatest economic achievements were a historical mistake, then your obsession with “sustainability” has warped your sense of morality.

Now, my conception (read: European) of progress and a better standard of living would place many advances above composting, organic farming, or even urban chicken coops.

  • Higher incomes that allow people to make livings that afford them more than merely survival or avoiding starvation.
  • A low poverty rate.
  • High quality and diversity of employment opportunities. Rather than the choice of being a farmer or being a blacksmith, the average citizen should have an  array of careers to choose from, and the ability to be industrious and take risks for profit.
  • The availability of housing. On an average night in the United States, a country with a population of somewhere around 350 million, fewer than one million people are homeless.
  • Consistent GDP growth.
  • Access to quality health care.
  • The availability of quality education. (I suppose we could quibble over the word “quality,” but certainly there is widespread free education availability.)
  • High life expectancy. Worldwide life expectancy has more than doubled from 1750 to 2007.
  • Low frequency of deadly disease.
  • Affordable goods and services.
  • Infrastructure that bolsters economic growth.
  • Political stability.
  • Air conditioning.
  • Freedom from slavery, torture and discrimination.
  • Freedom of movement, religion and thought.
  • The presumption of innocence under the law.
  • Equality under the law regardless of gender or race.
  • The right to have a family – as large as one can support. Maybe even larger.
  • The right to enjoy the fruits of labor without government – or anyone else – stealing it.   Read more »

Where has all the warming gone?

People are starting to wake up to the fraud that is global warming.

A massive fraud perpetrated by vested scientific interests and busy body global politicians.

But it is a fraud nonetheless.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. Areport from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Read more »

Where did that global warming go to?

RSS satellite dataset

RSS satellite dataset

Global warming has failed to materialise in line with the flawed models.

The scientists explain this as a “pause”.

But the pause keeps on extending. Now it is out to 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the troposphere according to a new paper.

The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so. Measuring the duration of the hiatus has implications for determining if the underlying trend has changed, and for evaluating climate models. Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints.

For the specific case of global average temperatures I also add the requirement of spatial consistency between hemispheres. The method makes use of the Vogelsang-Franses (2005) HAC-robust trend variance estimator which is valid as long as the underlying series is trend stationary, which is the case for the data used herein. Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable.

Read more »

How’s that global warming and ice free Arctic going?

We were told by “scientists” that by 2012 the Arctic Ocean would be ice free due to global warming.

So now we are two years past that prediction how is it actually going?

It is nearing the end of the northern hemisphere summer, and Arctic sea ice isn’t anywhere near melting clean away as the likes of Al Gore once claimed.

ssmi1_ice_area_small Read more »

A reader emails about Climate Change

I received this polite email about climate change yesterday.

Hi Cameron,

I have been a regular reader of your blog for a number of years, and while your attitude can be at times combative, I appreciate the straight-up, “no bullshit” approach you take to both your content and your readers, and your emphasis on facts over rhetoric is refreshing, particularly in an environment where many of your peers in the information industry cannot be relied on to get things right. Unfortunately, there’s one subject on which I feel you have failed to meet your own high standards. That subject is climate change.

I have no doubt that your position on climate change was based on what you believed to be legitimate information at the time you formed your current views, but I do think that it’s an area you have neglected to look at again after making up your mind, and continuing to promote this position without ensuring that it can be reconciled with the actual state of the planet is doing both yourself and your readers a disservice. Every time you publish a post along the lines of “colder than average / coldest event ever, therefore global warming is a con”, you’re ignoring the fact that climate change / global warming on a planetary scale doesn’t mean that every part of the planet is warmer 100% of the time, nor that the warming of Earth’s climate as a whole can actually cause cooling in some areas. You’re also ignoring a very large body of evidence that the planet is in fact warming considerably.

I would like to respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue, openly, and from a neutral perspective. If you still feel that the evidence supports your position after genuinely researching the topic, I will be very much surprised.

I am fully aware you are more than capable of doing your own research, and finding your own sources which you believe to be trustworthy. Noting how busy you are though, I would like to point you in the direction of one resource I feel you may find useful if you’re pressed for research time – Ramez Naam’s book “The Infinite Resource – The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet” (I am happy to purchase an ebook copy for you if that would be useful). If you do nothing else, please at least read chapter five of this book – it’ll point out more than a few holes in your current position. All conclusions drawn or facts provided are fully cited, with an extensive bibliography of sources should you wish to follow up further. I should also point out that the book’s style alternates positive / negative perspectives, so if you do not read any part of the book other than chapter five, you’re only seeing a part of what the author’s trying to get across.

I have every faith that you will act with integrity and have the courage to change your currently held beliefs on climate change once you are in possession of the relevant facts – I only ask that you are open enough to take another look.

Read more »

New study shows believers in global warming use more energy than others

 

Al Gore's California house

Al Gore’s California house

As is becoming usual these days a new study shows up the sanctimony and hypocrisy of those who say they care very much about climate change.

People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity than those who do not, a Government study has found.

Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is “too far into the future to worry about,” the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change found.

That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming.

However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a “weak trend” to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use.

The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. The report, by experts from Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, was commissioned and published by DECC.  Read more »

Global Warming just continues to take its toll

Grass Lawn 06 frost ice

Global warming hasn’t been happening, so they’ve had to call it Climate Change.  Because climates changes all the time, and that way there is no need to argue.

But that doesn’t stop the media from reporting global warming related news stories.

Brisbane has hit its coldest temperatures in more than 100 years – with temperatures plummeting across Queensland.

The Australian city woke up to a brisk 2.6 degrees today, the lowest since July 1911. Read more »