Are you prepared to pay more to save the planet?

Are you prepared to pay more to save the planet?The Government's environmental carbon emissions trading scheme will include help for people on low incomes to cope with the electricity price rises that will follow.
Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday said the trading scheme,…
[NZ Politics]

If Labour thinks it is onto a winner with it's new tax on living environment policy intiatives then the Herald opinion page is going to be teeth grinding reading.

Giving rebates to the so-called poor won't help them one little bit, in fact it will drive the middle more firmly into National's warm embrace. people will start to consider whether the poor are in fact pulling their own weight or weighing us all down.

I for one don't believe that paying a tax for "polluting" is going to solve anything other then enrich the government further. Please explain how higher electricity prices and petrol prices will "save the planet" and from what?

Scott Armstrong vs. Al Gore

Scott Armstrong is putting his money where his mouth is. He has bet Al Gore $10,000 that he is wrong about AGW. I pick the professor, he is after all the worlds foremost expert in forecasting. His best line in analysing climate change models is "We've been unable to find any scientific forecast, and what we have are forecasts by scientists,". Classic stuff, the understated slap in the face.

His open letter to Al Gore is below;

[quote]June 19, 2007

Honorable Albert Gore

2100 West End Avenue

Suite 620

Nashville, TN 37203?

Fax: 615-327-2227

Dear Mr. Gore,

A ?Global Warming Challenge ? is attached. I think the challenge serves our mutual interest in developing better public policy. The terms of the challenge can be easily changed upon mutual agreement.

The primary objective is to improve the application of scientific methods in forecasting climate change and, thus, to use better forecasting methods. In addition, it may provide funding for one of our charities.

The objectives are attainable no matter which of us would ?win? the challenge. The fact that we would be joining together in this challenge should draw the attention of scientists to the need for using the best forecasting methods and conducting proper validation tests.

Might you be able to respond by the time of my International Symposium on Forecasting talk on the morning of Wednesday June 27? This could be something as simple as ?accept,? ?decline,? or ?contemplating.? Or it could be a longer response. You, or one of your representatives would be welcome, of course, to be a guest at this conference.

I believe that you already know the chairperson, Kajal Lahiri, from his days in Arlington when your sons played on the same soccer team. If you can attend, Kajal will make provisions for you to respond to this challenge. The conference runs from Monday through mid-day Wednesday.

Would you be interested in receiving a copy of my Principles of Forecasting book? I will be happy to send you a copy if you tell me what address to use.


J. Scott Armstrong

Professor of Marketing

The Wharton School

University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 19104

armstrong at wharton dot upenn dot edu[/quote]


Kill the kids, save the planet

I have heard it all now!!

Apparently having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

[quote]John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."[/quote]?

Oh Pulllease, this is what comes from labelling CO2 as a pollutant when every human being emits it as we breathe.

These fricken greenies are getting dumber by the day.

Meanwhile Michael Cullen denys basic biology and utters in parliament complete inanities like this;

[quote]I was very interested to receive a report from television last night, indicating that Mr Key is determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from livestock. Given that livestock do not emit carbon dioxide, that may be one goal he will be able to achieve.[/quote]

Hulloooo Michael, anyone home, livestock do emit CO2, when they breathe, just like you, fool!!

Whoopsy, looks like the Kyoto figures are wrong again

It seems the Government has got no idea on the impact of stupid Kyoto Protocol.

Firstly New Zealand was to have a net gain, then it is was a net deficit of a billy and now after stealing the property rights of forest owners the deficit on Kyoto has exploded to $1.7 billion.

That $1.7 billion is Nick Smiths number, but the Greens think it may be even higher.

Time to pull the plug on this inept bunch of socialists and on Kyoto.?


Is Climatology a Science?

Robert Tracinski asks that exact question. His article is very well thought out and clearly poses some interesting questions. I would add another question, Is Climatology the new Religion?.

Anyway the article is well thought out and poses very intersting questions.

[quote]In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in the early years of the science of chemistry, many serious scientists accepted phlogiston theory. This was an attempt to explain the chemical processes of combustion, oxidation, and metabolism by inferring the existence of a substance call "phlogiston." This theory was wrong, but it was not a totally crazy invention; it simply came too early, before scientists had sufficient evidence to prove a theory of combustion. Phlogiston was only superseded when the great chemist Lavoisier identified oxygen as the substance that is actually responsible for combustion, a discovery that helped pave the way for the development of modern chemistry.?

But imagine: what would have happened if the government had come along and pumped the equivalent of billions of dollars into phlogiston research? What if phlogiston had become a social cause, promoted by political leaders, touted by famous actors, defended by the culture's best writers? What if those who raised objections to the theory were vilified as "phlogiston deniers" and had to worry about losing funding for their research??

Yet that is precisely how today's scientific, political, and cultural establishment is approaching the nascent science of climatology….?

….Before we take any theory from the field of climatology and make it — as Al Gore is telling us — the central organizing principle of our civilization, we had better ask a few big questions.?

Does climatology have a well-developed, thoroughly proven theoretical framework, derived from decades of observations and earlier discoveries? Does it have a proven set of laws to explain what factors drive the global climate on a scale of centuries? Does climatology have an established track record of being able to predict next week's weather, much less the next century's weather??

Or is Al Gore flogging the 21st-century equivalent of phlogiston?[/quote]

Sick of hearing about AGW

So is Garth George and his article the other day in the Herald is a pearler.

He starts off;

[quote]If you believe all the garbage you've been reading, seeing and hearing lately about global warming, then you probably still believe the Earth is flat.

And if you believe that the cause is human-produced CO2 emissions and that you personally are somehow responsible – your car is too big and your seaside bach is likely to be inundated any old day – then you probably still believe those ancient charts in which large areas are marked "Here be dragons."

This scaremongering, doom-saying global warming industry is shaping up to be the biggest rort of the decade and, if it goes on much longer, of the 21st century.

Because, as Richard S. Lindzen wrote lately in the Washington Post, the long-range predictions issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been made "using inherently untrustworthy climate models similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now".

"The current alarm," writes the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Newsweek, "rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week."[/quote]

Ex-fucking-actly….he continues in much the same fashion. Garth George take a bow.

Brian Rudman, go to the back of the class. The Herald decided that Brian should post an opposing article the next day. Brian of course is a cloth-cap socialist and couldn't resist dismissing everything Garth George had to say by abusing him for being a Christian, he even used the "F" word. Apparently by being a Christian you are not entitled to an opinion in our blighted isles anymore.

Here is one Drupal module I will NOT be installing

I saw this new module at Drupal and thought immediately what a complete waste of time.

Then I had another thought, why don't I implement it and then have a competition to see who can get the largest Carbon Footprint ….Al Gore is exempt.


This island won't have to worry about AGW

There is an island in the Solomons that won't have to worry about the so-called affects of AGW at least until the alleged rises in sea-level reach over 3 metres.

That is because the recent earthquale has lifted the island right out of the water.?

The pristine underwater reefs of Ranongga Island, in the western Solomons, used to attract divers from all over the world. But the quake has permanently changed the island's geography, according to an Agence France-Presse (AFP) reporter, who said the shoreline now extends out to sea by another 70m in places.?

Go figure only a Frenchman could report that something that wasn't there before and is now is? a permanent change.?

Call for NIWA to be disbanded

Augie Auer from the Climate Science Coalition has called for the disbanding of NIWA after they continue to issue silly statements about the climate.

[quote]"So simplistic, it's silly" is how Dr Auer describes the statement by NIWA climate scientist Dr Jim Salinger that "As climate warming occurs, the atmosphere can hold more moisture and therefore more rain falls and therefore what we have thought of under past climate data as one-in-100 or more reduces".

As an explanation of the cause and consequences of last week's Northland rains, Dr Salinger's statement above is as unscientific as it is incorrect. If warming of the air encourages more moisture in the atmosphere, how come there's no rain over the deserts? And the mere presence of moisture in the atmosphere will not produce rain unless there is an associated atmospheric and meteorological process, which last week was the great volume of warm saturated tropical air that funnelled down on to New Zealand.

"But it gets worse. Dr Salinger uses the words ?as climate warming occurs?, when his own agency's latest seasonal summary statistics for December-February just released show New Zealand at 15.7 degrees C, 0.9 degrees lower than normal. In fact, his agency's own figures show that New Zealand has been cooling since the El Nino of 1998. To put it simply, NIWA is claiming that warming is occurring when its own records show otherwise. Why wont they admit this?[/quote]

Precisely. Increasingly the science is being proven….AGW is a hoax.

What does Al Gore want?

What does he want?

Well according to Robert Tracinski , Al Gore has diagnosed modern man's desire for material prosperity as a dangerous neurosis and Global warming is just the scientific excuse for this quasi-religious agenda. Essentially Gore's solution to the "problem" is to curtail industrial civilization and get back to our pre-industrial "roots."?

[quote]So what does this mean? Listen to what Gore claims are the factors that require us to change our relationship with nature. From his House testimony:

We quadrupled human population in less than one century, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.5 billion today?. Having multiplied by four the number of people on this planet?, that in itself causes a big change in the relationship between humanity and the planet.

So Gore's global warming hysteria is really just a rehash of the old "population explosion" scare. In the 1970s, environmentalists predicted that an expanding global population would lead, by the end of the century, to mass starvation and shortages of oil and other natural resources. This claim was famously proven wrong?so as a fallback, the environmentalists have to claim that "overpopulation" is leading to a warmer climate, a proposition that is slightly harder to disprove.

But it's not just the size of the human population Gore is worried about. He goes on to name a second factor that requires us to alter our relationship with the earth:

Our technologies are thousands of times more powerful than any our grandparents had at their disposal. And so even though we're more skillful and more effective in doing the things we've always done, exploiting the earth for sustenance, providing for our families, and going about productive lives, the side-effects of what we're doing sometimes now outstrip the development of extra wisdom to make sure that we handle these new powers in a way that doesn't do unintended harm.

So that very fact that we are "much more skillful and more effective" at "exploiting the earth" to live "productive lives"?in short, the fact of our enormous, unprecedented prosperity?is the reason we have to fear that we are doing "unintended harm."

This, then, is the essence of Gore's complaint: there are too many humans and they are too well off.[/quote]

His comments on Alarmists shutting down debate is accurate, so eerily accurate.

[quote]That's why folks like Al Gore have to keep claiming that there is an iron-clad "consensus" on global warming and that the debate is "over"?because the moment the debate on the scientific merits of global warming is actually allowed to begin, the alarmists start to lose.

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don't share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don't find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade?and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against "pollution" but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization?his campaign will collapse.[/quote]

Al Gore is a two bit charlatan peddling? a snake oil solution to a non-problem.