Subscribe by Email RSS

39 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

• Nick Bryant, 11:04 Nov 3, 2006

  I'll probably stay round home, get some light exercise, eat healthily; perhaps some anti-oxidant laden red wine in the evening.

  Thanks to the irrational alarmism of the "global warming" movement I'm into personal longevity. I want to be around well after 2050, not to thumb my nose at the sheep-like masses when mean temperatures are in the same range then as they are today, and no coastal property has been subsumed by the oceans, but to see whether those who ran the line of "imminent economic and environmental collapse" can collectively learn from their foolishness.

  Probably not. Most of those who started this frenzy will probably be dead by then. Their followers might just feel duped.

  Then again, perhaps the laugh will be on me. But having looked as dispassionately as I'm at the science and commentary on both sides of the debate, I still think the odds are that there will be no significant environmental change by 2050, or 2100 for that matter.

  Now where are my car keys?

  Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12 posts Report

• Dawn Tuffery, 11:57 Nov 3, 2006

  In Hamilton, they're apparently having a 'Fuel-free Family Fun' day...a picnic with 'no-emissions games' (intriguing), organised by the Waikato Greens.

  I won't make it there myself but it looks like a jolly day out, complete with sack races, three-legged, egg-and-spoon and slow-bike races, petanque, badminton, croquet, kite-flying etc etc. Seedlings as prizes. According to the guff, it's all happening from 10 till noonish, at Claudelands Park on Heaphy Tce in Hamilton. 'IF THE CLIMATE CHANGES TO RAINY IT WILL BE CANCELLED.'

  Personally, I'll be spending all day at a medical centre having fake diseases for trainee doctors, but I will be biking there due to stinginess and mild goddam hippy tendencies.

  Hamilton • Since Nov 2006 • 5 posts Report

• cindy baxter, 17:07 Nov 3, 2006

  I'll be hanging in Auckland, heading down to the carnival, but also tuning in to HeatwaveFM

  This weekend Greenpeace has decided to become the media - yep that's right - they're running their own radio station!

  They'll be doing interviews with activists and those taking part in the Global Day of Action right around the world - from Nairobi itself to London to Bangladesh and, of course, Aotearoa.

  So if you're doing something let the guys at the Heatwave FM studio know about it - email them at studio@heatwavefm.net and they can set up an interview.

  They'll be going live first thing on Saturday morning and running 24 / 7 over the weekend to cover all the actions around the world.

  You can get a sneak preview right now at http://www.heatwaveFM.net

  At the moment it's mostly music but tomorrow (Sat) morning they'll be live to air.

  auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 102 posts Report

• Tan Copsey, 23:27 Nov 3, 2006

  I imagine things will be rather bigger here in London. We are expecting at least 50 000 (although I think it might be a few more) on the march from the US embassy. Its been an interesting week here - the Stern Report has been front page news all week, the Independent went as far as devoting a whole issue to it. I actually went to the press conference and Stern himself seemed an interesting bloke, although you can't help but feel that the estimates he made were deliberately conservative - and the foreign secretary glowered at him when it was suggested something might actually happen in Nairobi.

  Anyone interested should check out the blogs on openDemocracy (www.opendemocracy.net) over the coming weeks - i'll probably blog the march in London on Monday UK time. Whilst we have a man in Nairobi blogging later, inbetween waking the world up to contraction and convergence. Also check out www.chinadialogue.net for a bilingual perspective on things - including a bloody interesting interview with Deputy Director of SEPA (in China) Pan Yue on Socialist Ecological Civilisation.

  London • Since Nov 2006 • 1 posts Report

• Sebastian, 02:10 Nov 4, 2006

  I am not sure if Nick is serious. It might just be your regular odd NZ humor. If it´s not, I am quite amused by such ignorant opinion, especially by someone who lives in a country that will be especially hard hit by climate change and rising sea levels.
  However, over here in Berlin, I will go and try to climb over that coal wall, a local environmental group is going to block the Brandenburg Gate with. Just for the fun of it. I don´t really think it is very creative to always go and do some placative action at the Brandenburg Gate.

  For the OE´lers in Berlin - and others - here is a summary by Global Climate Campaign :

  "In Germany BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) and BUNDjugend (Bund Youth) are planning an action in front of the Brandenburg Gate on the 6th of November. The idea is to block the way through the gate by a coal-wall. People need to climb it in in order to continue their way. In this way and with the information given to them they will realize that fossil fuels are in the way of climate protection and sustainable development. (...)"

  Berlin, Germany • Since Nov 2006 • 12 posts Report

• Raymond A Francis, 08:54 Nov 4, 2006

  I am with Nick on this
  Ok the climate has changed but it always has, it is not and never has been a static thing
  Possibly human activity has caused this but the changes are with in the range of the last 1000 years and do not campare on the long view (millions of years)
  Any body for an ice age
  Nothing we can do in NZ will change anything so why put our selves at a trading disadvantage because that will have an effect on our childrens lives

  45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report

• cindy baxter, 11:39 Nov 4, 2006

  it's good to have climate scientists like Raymond and Nick here. You are climate scientists aren't you? Presumably, you have dedicated your lives studying the intricate detail of how clouds, oceans, forests, land use, methane and carbon dioxide work together...

  silly me for believing the 17 national academies of science, the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change and the thousands of climate scientists around the world who are watching all their models get confirmed, year after year.

  I'll defer, of course, to raymond and nick rather than the NASA's goddard space institute, the Hadley Centre on Climate Change, NIWA, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the British Antarctic Survey, etc.

  No doubt Raymond and Nick have found a single, isolated, piece of science which backs up their argument.

  I'm not a scientist so I won't get into that argument with Raymond about ice age stuff... but ask anyone who wants to look into these extremely complicated arguments to go to RealClimate or this section on Grist which has a rather good "how to talk to the climate sceptics" guide.

  or check out who's behind them at Exxon Secrets

  auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 102 posts Report

• cindy baxter, 11:41 Nov 4, 2006

  meanwhile... up in Whangarei this morning...

  Marsden B Scaled Again for Global Climate Rescue Radio Station

  Greenpeace activists today scaled the 60m Marsden B power station which is planned to convert to coal and are setting up a radio transmitter on the roof.

  Greenpeace is also beaming "climate rescue radio", Heatwave FM on the internet and have launched an open letter to the New Zealand Government demanding urgent action on climate change as part of a Global Day of Action.

  The Global Day of Action on climate change will see people from many groups all over the world demand that world leaders take the urgent action needed to prevent the catastrophic destabilisation of our global climate. It is timed to coincide with the United Nations Climate meeting on the Kyoto Protocol, in Nairobi from 6-17 November.

  Celebrity DJ 'Bomber' Bradbury and musician Steve Abel will be hosting Heatwave FM and broadcasting online to the world at www.heatwavefm.net They will be getting first hand accounts of Global Day of Action activities not only in New Zealand, but also from Bangladesh to Belgium and will cross live to the activists on the roof of Marsden B.

  Later today the Greenpeace activists will be beaming climate rescue radio on 88.3FM to the Whangarei area directly from the proposed power station's roof.

  "Last weekend, Helen Clark told the nation it was 'time to be bold on climate change'. She also said 'New Zealand [could] aim to be the first country in the world which is truly sustainable'", said climate campaigner Vanessa Atkinson.

  "Marsden B is obviously the first thing that the Prime Minister should be axing – and any other new coal-fired powers stations. Truly sustainable electricity generation comes from renewable energy: sun, wind and water. Not dirty old coal."

  If Marsden B goes ahead it would release over 2 million tonnes of climate polluting gases into the atmosphere every year.

  "You can't call that sustainable", concluded Ms Atkinson.

  Greenpeace has launched an open letter to the New Zealand Government and its representatives calling for action on climate change now (1). People can sign onto the open letter by texting 898 with their name and town or through the Heatwave FM website.

  Names can be added until 6pm on Monday 6 November after which a copy of the letter will be delivered to the New Zealand delegation at the meeting in Nairobi. The activists will come down from the roof on Tuesday morning.

  "At the United Nations talks on climate change in Nairobi we want the Government to take a leadership role and push for legally binding targets to lower greenhouse pollution and ways to encourage clean technology uptake," said Ms Atkinson.

  Greenpeace has made legal challenges to prevent Marsden B from becoming New Zealand's first major coal fired power station in over 25 years. Consent to operate was granted in 2005.

  Greenpeace will be hosting a climate rescue picnic outside the front gates of Marsden B on Sunday 12-3pm.

  auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 102 posts Report

• Russell Clarke, 12:34 Nov 4, 2006

  I might nip out and steal someone's car keys. That'll stop the buggers!

  -36.76, 174.61 or thereab… • Since Nov 2006 • 164 posts Report

• Raymond A Francis, 15:29 Nov 4, 2006

  Dear Cindy,
  I don't believe I claimed to be a weather scientist and in answer to your queston I am not

  On the other hand I have spent the last 30+ years closely studing the local weather and the extended patterns of the last millenium
  Because my livelyhood depends directly on the weather as of course does everybody in NZ but in my case it is make or break

  Just because a slew of scientists say something is true does not make it true or niether does not mean it untrue

  What I do stand by is my last statement, we might as well follow Russell Clarke's advice for all the good following greenpeace's advice will do for changing the climate

  45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report

• Paul Rooney, 16:00 Nov 4, 2006

  This climate change stuff is getting tedious already.

  I am presuming that all those people being really intense in Berlin and other places were the same people that rushed to buy up all the Tami Flu(sic) tablets when we were all going to die of bird flu last year.

  And whoa is me ,I have read today that the last fish will be caught on my 90th birthday in 54 years times. Therefore I am expecting a rush on Omega 3 tablets some time next week .

  Since 1850 man has put approx 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere . Nature puts - through volcanoes and plant decay etc - 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every YEAR.

  Might I suggest we relax abit without being stupid about things and some of our younger people enjoy being 20 years old, remember we only get one crack at this life. There are chicks ,drugs and alcohol (all in moderation of course ) to enjoy before you become school teachers and start telling me how to run my life.

  Since Nov 2006 • 3 posts Report

• Russell Brown, 17:51 Nov 4, 2006

  Just a note to thank you folks for being able to vigorously discuss an inevitably fractious subject without getting nasty. Nice.

  Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

• Clarke, 19:19 Nov 4, 2006

  Hi Raymond

  As the climate scientists point out, the weather is not the climate. Studying your local conditions is obviously important if your livelihood depends on it, but this is like saying that I study the speed of my ADSL link, and this makes me an expert in the intricacies of bandwidth utilization across the entire Internet. I'm very interested in the speed of my local link (as I am in my local weather), but that's about where my expertise ends.

  Climate science is obviously about models, and the models can only express degrees of certainty rather than absolutes. It's just that the models are tending to converge to the same conclusions - that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing climate change.

  To use another analogy, doctors aren't always absolutely certain that patients have cancer, because with some cancers the only certain diagnosis is at the autopsy. But that doesn't stop us treating the cancer we only suspect is there, and saving lives as a result.

  We don't need to be 100% certain about climate change before we start treating the problem - but it would be prudent if we want to prevent the patient dying.

  Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 85 posts Report

• Tze Ming Mok, 19:41 Nov 4, 2006

  Asking a question like "good god, did you see Garth George's column the other day?" would be a dead end on a site like this (so far at least), but someone did bring this little doozy to my attention yesterday:

  I know that [climate change/polar caps melting] is codswallop, and every time I see a rainbow I have it confirmed for me. It tells me that God is keeping the promise he made to Noah after the world-drowning flood thousands of years ago recorded in Genesis.

  "I establish my covenant with you," God told Noah. "Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the Earth ..."

  So I'll keep on pumping gas into my four-litre Ford, the home fires will keep on burning, newspapers, magazines and books will remain my reading of choice ... and the doom merchants can prognosticate until the cows stop farting while I laugh in their faces.

  Woah.

  SarfBank, Lunnin' • Since Nov 2006 • 154 posts Report

• Vaughn Davis, 20:50 Nov 4, 2006

  Mike Hosking made a good point on the wireless this morning. He'd been talking to Judith Tizzard earlier in the week and she told him that having seen An Inconvenient Truth she was "convinced" that climate change was a happening thing. Like Mike, I don't want to enter into a debate as to whether or not she and Al are right. But also like Mike, it concerns me that a 90 minute film / Powerpoint presentation can be sufficient to "convince" a Minister of the Crown of anything. Who needs researchers when we've got Video Ezy?

  Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 21 posts Report

• Terence Wood, 09:47 Nov 5, 2006

  Oh grief,

  The one thing you could say for Garth George is that he makes the other climate change deniers look relatively intelligent. Or something.

  Raymond:

  Ok the climate has changed but it always has, it is not and never has been a static thing[.] Possibly human activity has caused this but the changes are with in the range of the last 1000 years and do not campare on the long view (millions of years)

  Um, no. The current variations are not within the range of anything within the last 1000 years, they have now well exceeded even the medieval warm period. See here.

  True, the climate has always changed and true their have been climate variations in the past that exceed what has thus far occurred. But these events were, well, you know significant. Crocodiles swimming at the poles anyone? A mile thick Ice Sheet over New York. We may not be looking at anything that dramatic at present, but on a planet with 6 billion plus people don't kid yourself that even much more minor temperature changes wont have catastrophic impacts.

  Since Nov 2006 • 148 posts Report

• Raymond A Francis, 11:16 Nov 5, 2006

  Thanks for the heads up on the graphs Terence
  Fascinating and I will admit thet they do show a greater warming
  Mind you statistics and dam lies etc etc
  But that was not my real point, I did say the climate is warmer and the winters have definitly got warmer in my life time
  My point is that nothing we can do here in NZ will change the climate and it may/will lead to a much poorer economic outlook for our children

  45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report

• Terence Wood, 12:15 Nov 5, 2006

  Hello Raymond,

  Thanks for your thanks; and glad to hear the graphs were of some use to you.

  With regards to the 'New Zealand can't do nothing' argument, your point is an interesting one and highlight's one of the dilemmas of living in a globalising world. All of a sudden we are faced with challenges (disease, terrorism, climate change etc.) which are truly international in scope, yet all we have to deal with them is the puny ol' nation-state. An entity which can, typically, only legitimately and successfully engage in meaningful action within its own borders. Now there are a number of ways of dealing with this dilemma, including those already in place such as the World Trade Organisation and elements of the UN. None of them work perfectly, but they point to ways which we can manage future problems (economist Joseph Stiglitz, for example, suggests that the EU take action via the WTO against the US because it's refusal to sign Kyoto is, in effect, an unfair trading practice.)

  This is all long term stuff - in the short term, however, despite the fact that our own carbon emissions are trivial in the global scale of things, it does still matter what we do in New Zealand.

  This is because, in almost every nation on earth, there are people - like you - claiming that "we can't do anything anyhow", and every time a country pays head to them, it undermines the causes of those folk in the rest of the world who do want to take action. On the other hand - if New Zealand were to take a bold stand, it would strengthen the claims of our fellow activists everywhere. Including the places it matters like Europe, the US and China.

  That's why it’s important what we do.

  cheers

  Terence (p.s. also, I wouldn't worry about lies, damn lies, and statistics: those graphs are the result of peer reviewed articles with transparent methodologies, which can - and indeed do - get attacked if they are in error. In other words: they're pretty damn reliable).

  Since Nov 2006 • 148 posts Report

• Michael Hogan, 12:41 Nov 5, 2006

  Climate Change Action Day needs to be Every Day. Whilst AL Gore et al jet around the globe depositing tons more carbon in the process and convincing Ministers with Power Point presentations, we all go about our "business as usual". I am glad he has the profile to get this message out to others, but what he does NOT address is so much larger than what he does, simply by virtue of the fact that he has long championed and supported the economic system that created this crisis. The Carbon Trading Market, whilst part of an overall programme, is essentially another tax that the wealthy can pay to continue to justify their lifestyle, just like they will pay $5 or $10/litre for petrol. Changing our lifestyles in addition to funding alternative energy sources is essential with this challenge. It is not just about supply. It is really about demand as well.

  Take a walk. Take the bus. Slow down. Slow down my demand, my consumption, and my desires. That is my action.

  Waiheke Island • Since Nov 2006 • 31 posts Report

• Matt McGowan, 14:02 Nov 7, 2006

  Kinda late, but have any of you read James Lovelock's the Revenge of Gaia? What are your thoughts on his views regarding climate catastrophe, Kyoto our Munich, nuclear power et cetera.

  In a BBC panel of boffins, they largely agreed with Lovelocks data, but disagreed with his assertion that nuclear was the only short term option. Though the panel noted that politicians would likely only act when it was too late. They also unanimously agreed that climate change is real, dangerous and significant in our own lifetimes.
  BBC Source

  Regardless of your views his book is a very interesting read in my opinion, with some challenging assertions.

  
  I think given the need to dramatically cut back on CO2 emissions, nuclear power deserves a reevaluation.

  Lovelock argues nuclear power is much better for the planet, a point we often miss. Our views of nuclear power are wrapped up, he argues, in the Wests paranoia surrounding cancer and the nuclear bomb.

  He equates nuclear power as a short-term remedial measure, analogous to putting pressure on a wound, or giving oxygen to a patient on the way to hospital. Not a full-blown solution but something to buy us time on the path to finding a lasting solution. Lovelock suggests that fusion is in fact that lasting solution.

  Lovelock says sustainability is a red hearing, major improvements in energy use only come through improved design, this all takes time we down have, and that technological shifts take on average 40 years to reach the mainstream.

  I also found his little scenario surrounding a book of science to replace the Bible fascinating. Furthermore, his views on the power of religion and how it could be co-opted, to instill values that led to consideration of Gaia above our own societal or individual wants, equally intriguing. Particularly given the current climate of resurgent anti-science christain evangelism in the US. Equally Lovelock seems to be questioning the absolutism of the likes of Dawkins on the issue of religion.

  Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3 posts Report

• Andre Alessi, 14:38 Nov 7, 2006

  Lovelock's always worth reading, even if you don't agree with him.

  I agree with the idea that nuclear power is going to become increasingly important (and environmentally friendly) but my main objection to it is economic and practical: a country like ours with no preexisting nuclear infrastructure is going to face massive overheads getting nuclear power set up. There's simply no way around that fact, so if something else pops up that's cheaper, we should consider it. We also don't have the expertise needed to set up a functioning nuclear power infrastructure easily, and gaining enough skilled workers might not be possible in the next few years given the current global political climate.

  I personally thought the reference to a religious framework was not entirely serious, but in any event it creeped me out a little. The idea of rational people, even with the best intentions, using religious forms to convince people who wouldn't otherwise be swayed by reasoned debate is to my mind highly unethical. Lovelock's always worked from that viewpoint, though, and I don't think he's crossed the line yet.

  It's also self-defeating: we want people to think critically about these things, about science and the world around them. That is the ultimate goal of any scientist.

  Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report

• Russell Brown, 14:57 Nov 7, 2006

  The climate change denial culture, ironically, reminds me of the anti-GE movement online, in that you see the same tropes go around and around, even after the majority of scientists have done with them and moved on.

  Example: Christopher Monckton's piece for the Telegraph. The right-wing blogosphere has been all over it, and you'd think Monckton was a scientist himself. He's actually a journalist and former Thatcher spin doctor. He depicts the study that attacked the Mann et al "hockey stick" theory (McIntyre et al) as the last word on the matter, but it only takes a few minutes to discover that it's not. The major NAS study earlier this year basically endorsed Mann, but Mockton doesn't even mention it.

  Ironically, it seems there are some valid scientific criticisms of the Stern report - but the one that's getting all the airtime isn't among them.

  Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

• Andre Alessi, 15:20 Nov 7, 2006

  The climate change denial culture, ironically, reminds me of the anti-GE movement online, in that you see the same tropes go around and around, even after the majority of scientists have done with them and moved on.

  There's a scary symmetry between Chris de Freitas (global warming skeptic) and Peter Wills (anti-GE campainger) in that regard.

  Both are based at UoA, of course (and I've had both as lecturers-Chris is easy-going, Peter is demanding) and both, while regularly being pushed to the front of their corresponding movements as examples of "scientists who agree with us!" write opinions that, while quite clear, are miles distant from what their supporters often put forward. They hold to their positions based on well-thought out scientific positions that are nevertheless viewed as idiosyncratic within their own fields.

  Wills, for example, doesn't consider GE inherently unethical, and many of his arguments revolve around complicated views of how microevolution works (or at least it did a few years ago-I've never quite been able to get my head around his position, to be honest.) de Freitas started out disputing global warming was happening at all (pointing out discrepancies between surface based and space based temperature monitoring) but now seems to accept it, although he still states it's A) inevitable and B) not completely historically unprecedented (i.e. humans aren't really causing it, or not so much anyway.)

  The fact that these two are often used as the "scientific face" of their respective movements illustrates more than anything, I think, how fundamentally divorced most of the debate around these issues is from the hard science that made them issues in the first place. If these were genuine debates focused on science, we'd never have to put up with some of the more ridiculous assertions entering the public discourse in the first place. ("Eating GE tomatoes will give you frog genes!", "'Global warming' isn't real, we've just got better thermometers now!")

  Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report

• Hadyn Green, 15:33 Nov 7, 2006

  If global warming ISN'T happening but we take action to try and stop it anyway what will happen?

  Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report

• Che Tibby, 15:50 Nov 7, 2006

  hadyn, sanctimonious hippies. legions of them.

  but on the subject of lovelock, i read the first gaia book back in 1990 and it fundamentally changed my perspective on consumption and its impact on humanity. i kind of get that he's moved from trying to make people aware of climate change to providing solutions, and to be honest agree that nuclear power isn't the bugbear people make it out to be. after all, and if someone with actual hard science experience could back me up on this one (or slap me down), isn't radiation only profoundly dangerous to species like large multicellular animals? i.e. mammals?

  lets not forget the apocryphal story of roaches living through a nuclear winter. isn't lovelock saying that if we don't halt carbon emissions we'll be doing far, far more damage to earth than a little radioactive waste? like boiling off the atmosphere a la Mars?

  and isn't the green movement already quasi-religious? i know neo-conservatism appears to be.

  the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last