If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

FP, that's the nature of science. They put up a null hypothesis and try to shoot it down with data, if for example the data supports the idea that anthropological climate change is likely happening, it's then a matter of how strong is that data, what is the significance of it. It's becoming increasingly strong, we'd probably never be able to say it's certain. But should that stop us doing anything about it?


Regarding GST: what you're saying might be true for some special items. What about labour for services, what about fuel, both big costs each week? There was no special tax on the former, and the old taxes stayed in place on the latter, it just went up by 10% for endusers, the public. Not for businesses of course, they claimed it back.

There's plenty of reason for not polluting the show apart from the possible effects on climate. That does not mean we should have unproven AGW theories rammed down our throats.
Ass far as tax goes, any consumption tax is part of a businesses cost - not their profit. With GST that means an input claim. Surely you don't see anything wrong with that - or would you prefer it to be cumulative for the end user? As far as fuel, services etc go, I made no comment. My point was simply that you were spouting through a hole in your head about retailers handling 10% more cash, or whatever it was you stated.

[elZorro]

BP, here is just one article that puts some numbers behind the data. It's the extremely rapid rate of change of CO2 levels that is alarming, and of course you have to remember the scientists heading out to look at the methane flares off our coast. Most likely their work will show the methane reaching the atmosphere, this is just some of the long-stored methane hydrates melting back out of warming oceans. Antarctica and the Greenland Ice shelves have melted before, the sea level rise from such an event would see a lot of people on the move worldwide.

http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/19/ri...ated-high-co2/

[winner69]

EZ, you'll love this. The flow chart of how John Key brain works is really good

Can Labour capitalise on knowing this?

https://manoferrors.wordpress.com/20...y-before-i-go/

[BlackPeter]

BP, here is just one article that puts some numbers behind the data. It's the extremely rapid rate of change of CO2 levels that is alarming, and of course you have to remember the scientists heading out to look at the methane flares off our coast. Most likely their work will show the methane reaching the atmosphere, this is just some of the long-stored methane hydrates melting back out of warming oceans. Antarctica and the Greenland Ice shelves have melted before, the sea level rise from such an event would see a lot of people on the move worldwide.

http://www.ecology.com/2012/03/19/ri...ated-high-co2/

Sure - while I am not sure whether the article provides the best set of data to prove man made global warming (the graph appears to show quite regular CO2 peaks all 110,000 years or so). Yes, looks like CO2 is currently peaking again and this is likely (or I give you certain) aggravated by human activity. Funny thing is - all these previous peaks have been reached rather fast - and than CO2 levels dropped again.

Just wondering - wouldn't it be more constructive to try to understand why the CO2 levels always dropped again after reaching the previous peaks? I put to you that the system is just much more complex than any climate scientist so far is able to comprehend.

Humans tend to think in linear extrapolation. If a share was worth $1 last year and $1,50 today, than for sure it must be $2 next year this time ... right? Well, obviously both of us know that this is nonsense, but unfortunately even senior people tend often to default to this thinking ... and yes, the trend is your friend - until it is not.

What I am saying is - the system is more complicated. There are as well scientists (actually the NASA sitting in that regard on the fence) who say that the increased water in the atmosphere will (in form of clouds) reflect more sunlight (that's what clouds do). This is a fact - and no scientist so far can tell you which of the effects will be stronger. It is however likely that this is a closed feedback curve (higher temperature - more clouds - lower temperatures - less clouds - higher temperatures ...).

Again - I am not saying, that there is no problem. I just don't know when the effects of this feedback will set in (I am sure, they will) and put to you that all the believers don't know either. Otherwise they wouldn't be believers. As well - there are hundreds of other feedback cycles impacting on the climate none of us yet fully understands.

Same as on the stock market - nobody knows whether a particular share will go up or down, and so I'd prefer if we would not put our limited resources into the "we believe in global warming" bucket and on top of that pretending that we understand the system, which we don't, but better prepare in a sensible way for all eventualities.

[elZorro]

EZ, you'll love this. The flow chart of how John Key brain works is really good

Can Labour capitalise on knowing this?

https://manoferrors.wordpress.com/20...y-before-i-go/

Yes, that's interesting W69, scarily for John, there aren't too many decision boxes at all, and nowhere does it mention research, or swotting up on any facts. It's true he's put on the spot in front of cameras all the time, he has the sound bites down pat.

It would be good to lure JK into comments from the RHS of his decision-making "Say what you think", and then hang him out to dry for a bit. He's done that once or twice.

[craic]

Yes, that's interesting W69, scarily for John, there aren't too many decision boxes at all, and nowhere does it mention research, or swotting up on any facts. It's true he's put on the spot in front of cameras all the time, he has the sound bites down pat.

It would be good to lure JK into comments from the RHS of his decision-making "Say what you think", and then hang him out to dry for a bit. He's done that once or twice.

In the not too distant future there will be a poll, and this poll, will show little change in John Key's popularity, and all those who whoop and holler over the hair pulling incident and any other scrap of rubbish that they can find might want to look in the mirror and see if they can see the steam rising off their imagination.

[Daytr]

BP, if enough people don't believe in man's activity is not creating climate change then nothing will be done to try & prevent or mitigate against it.
Air pollution is only one very visible aspect, most of the other very key aspects are not so visible or promoted.
You mention a tree will die anyway & emit carbon if it is felled by Man or naturally.
There is a fundamental difference. That tree may have lived for 50 - 500 years & if it died naturally is likely to replaced by another tree that will do the same filtering the atmosphere for decades or centuries to come. The decomposing tree emitting carbon will decompose over time, again years. If it is felled by man, then quite often it is burnt to clear the land releasing the carbon in an instant & that tree is unlikely to be replaced. Now multiply that around the world where deforestation is happening in the big tracts of forest in Asia & South America. NZ itself for the first time in a very long time has started felling more trees than it is replacing. Its no coincidence that this new trend started in 2009 shortly after Key's National was elected.

Amongst your emitters you miss the US which is one of the largest in the world & has done very little to date to reduce even the rate of rising rate of emissions. Developing countries are obviously a problem in this regard, however they have a far more valid excuse as they are just that developing. China is making huge strides in this area putting the US to shame, by planting massive numbers of trees & switching more & more to alternative energy & not buying brown coal etc & converting to gas, nuclear & green energy sources.

In regards the Ocean, you failed to recognize the demise of the largest living organisms/living systems on the planet, the coral reefs. I'm not expert in this area, but plankton I understand also makes a huge contribution to oxygenating or decarbonizing the sea. Salination of the oceans is also a problem being caused by one of the very ways you describe as a mitigant. Irrigation takes fresh water that would not only fill water tables & natural aquifers, but also fresh water that needs to flow down stream & eventually into the ocean. Fresh water into the ocean may seem like a waste to some, but its a very important part of the cycle.

One obvious area NZ has contributed & increased its emissions is with the intensification of dairy. And it not only impacted our emission levels but also the quality of our water & put a strain on water resources. This is one area NZ could take action among others including better protection of our forests.

Mitigation will obviously be required, however there are some very obvious things that can be done to reduce the impact man's activity without creating economic destruction. I would suggest there is a very strong push from some big corporates to protect the current way of doing things, as its profitable for them & change isn't. However, that change such as solar as an example, can be profitable for someone else, or even them if they were wiling to adapt & change.

Here is an article from Nat Geo in regards oxygenation levels of the ocean & how they are rapidly depleting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...n-oxygen-fish/

EZ, also raises a good point in regards methane & the plumes that are popping up on a far more regular basis. Billions & billions of tons of methane is trapped under the perma frost in the Northern Hemisphere & if that ice melts it will be rapidly be released. It has already begun with numerous methane plumes being reported in the likes of Siberia.

We, being man, are part of an ecosystem & we are the dominant species & in the last 300 or so years have increased our range & efficiency of activity. Whereas before there were whole continents largely unaffected by deforestation, over fishing & the like. This has only increased in speed & spread in the last 100 years. We are part of nature so to exclude what we do as not natural as a lot seem to do, is illogical.
If we keep taking from one, i.e. the filters & the lungs of the planet & keep adding to the pollution, we have to expect a reaction.
I love nature & the fine balance of life on this planet as I'm sure many do & I would not just want to accept the inevitable & mitigate but to actively try & protect & prevent.

Its take around 3 billion years for Earth to develop to a level of sustainable & finely balanced life which is beautiful & in a blink of an eye man could destroy that. Perhaps it recovers naturally over the next thousands or millions of years. I would like to see our very special way of life continue for much longer & for other generations to enjoy.

[fungus pudding]

In the not too distant future there will be a poll, and this poll, will show little change in John Key's popularity, and all those who whoop and holler over the hair pulling incident and any other scrap of rubbish that they can find might want to look in the mirror and see if they can see the steam rising off their imagination.

You could always start a poll on whether his popularity will rise by 2% or fall by 2% or stay within 40 to 44%. (currently 42%) . I'd go with 40 to 44%

[Sgt Pepper]

You could always start a poll on whether his popularity will rise by 2% or fall by 2% or stay within 40 to 44%. (currently 42%) . I'd go with 40 to 44%

FP

This event may cause John Key to reflect on whether the public /media scrutiny involved as Prime Minister is worth it. All these things can take a toll. He is very close, for instance, to David Cameron, and at current polling it seems highly unlikely the Conservatives will be able to retain power in the UK. Paula Bennett, Michael Woodhouse and Judith Collins,with an eye on their personal political ambitions, will be privately delighted with the difficulties John Key has encountered . Interesting times.
, .

[elZorro]

Sure - while I am not sure whether the article provides the best set of data to prove man made global warming (the graph appears to show quite regular CO2 peaks all 110,000 years or so). Yes, looks like CO2 is currently peaking again and this is likely (or I give you certain) aggravated by human activity. Funny thing is - all these previous peaks have been reached rather fast - and than CO2 levels dropped again.

Just wondering - wouldn't it be more constructive to try to understand why the CO2 levels always dropped again after reaching the previous peaks? I put to you that the system is just much more complex than any climate scientist so far is able to comprehend.

Humans tend to think in linear extrapolation. If a share was worth $1 last year and $1,50 today, than for sure it must be $2 next year this time ... right? Well, obviously both of us know that this is nonsense, but unfortunately even senior people tend often to default to this thinking ... and yes, the trend is your friend - until it is not.

What I am saying is - the system is more complicated. There are as well scientists (actually the NASA sitting in that regard on the fence) who say that the increased water in the atmosphere will (in form of clouds) reflect more sunlight (that's what clouds do). This is a fact - and no scientist so far can tell you which of the effects will be stronger. It is however likely that this is a closed feedback curve (higher temperature - more clouds - lower temperatures - less clouds - higher temperatures ...).

Again - I am not saying, that there is no problem. I just don't know when the effects of this feedback will set in (I am sure, they will) and put to you that all the believers don't know either. Otherwise they wouldn't be believers. As well - there are hundreds of other feedback cycles impacting on the climate none of us yet fully understands.

Same as on the stock market - nobody knows whether a particular share will go up or down, and so I'd prefer if we would not put our limited resources into the "we believe in global warming" bucket and on top of that pretending that we understand the system, which we don't, but better prepare in a sensible way for all eventualities.

BP, I think the models are starting to fit the records quite well, not sure how far back they go. Looks to me like the story is that when CO2 levels go high, the planet warms, ice melts and the sea floods large areas that were generating CO2, then it all cools off and settles back over millions of years. But we have been tampering with the system, bringing on the next big meltdown more quickly, if we're not careful.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...cientists-warn