Anthropogenic Global Warming has claimed yet another victim; Stuff reports:
The worst big freeze in almost 20 years has left parts of the Shotover River frozen solid, metres across, keeping jetboat operators off the water for almost record periods.The river has been choked with ice, making it too dangerous for boats to operate because of the risk of large chunks of ice getting sucked into the jet units, causing power and steering to fail.Ngai Tahu Tourism southern region jetboating manager Clark Scott said until 2pm yesterday Shotover Jet was getting close to its 1994 record of 11 consecutive days not operating because of ice. The big red boats finally got back on the water for two hours after a frustrating eight-day hiatus.Last week was traditionally one of Queenstown's two busiest winter weeks, the first week of the school holiday. The company normally carries hundreds of passengers a day during that week, so the ice represented some big losses, but Scott would not say how much.However, the company was inundated yesterday afternoon with eager passengers the minute news got out that trips were operating again.Ice was 60mm to 100mm thick in places, and staff could walk well more than a metre out on to the river.Further upstream in the frozen Skippers Canyon, Skippers Canyon Jet managing director Ben Hohneck said it had lost more than $50,000 during the past eight days when its boats would normally carry 50 people a day.But there had been plenty of visitors lining up for the company's four-wheel-drive sightseeing trips to view the stunning icicle spectacles in the canyon.In some places the river had frozen about 30cm deep and 10m across. It was the longest period they had been off the water since 1992, when ice blocked their trips for two weeks, Hohneck said.
As can be seen in the photograph above, it is indeed a winter wonderland down in the Southern Lakes area at the moment. Given that the prophets of doom a few years ago predicted rising snow lines and the eventual demise of the ski industry in New Zealand as a consequence of AGW, we'd have top question the validity of those prophesies.
Yes; there is no doubt that the climate is changing. But that is nothing new; the climate changes constantly, as it has done for thousands of years. Call us a sceptic, but we are yet to be convinced that man's inhumanity to man is the sole or even the primary cause of these changes.
And Shotover Jet's misfortune has an upside for others; TVNZ reported last night that for just the fifth time in 17 years, curlers have been able to congregate at Idaburn Dam near Oturehua for a Bonspiel where there most definitely wasn't any Global Warming evident!
64 comments:
Oh dear, KS, 98% of scientists are deluded and Gareth Morgan's book on the subject is rubbish?
The main funders of the campaign to question the truth behind anthropogenic climate change are the very people and businesses that are causing it. The same organisations denied the reality of the causes of ozone depletion and health effects of tobacco smoking. Straterra is being funded in New Zealand to deny the potential damage of expanding our coal and lignite mining.
Jeanette Fitzsimons eloquently described our situation as driving directly towards a cliff and we are arguing if we should change down to 3rd or 2nd gear. I am truly concerned about the sort of world my children and grandchildren will have to experience because of our selfishness.
Who pays the 98% BSprout?
I'll see your Gareth Morgan bsprout, and raise you Ian Wishart!
But pardon me for not sharing your willingness to blame humankind for weather patterns being in a constant state of flux. When I last checked, having one's own opinion was still permissible in New Zealand (although I aceept that may not be the case in the Green Party), and whilst I respect your views, I do not subscribe to them, nor should any government compel me to.
Are you saying that they're all in on some massive conspiracy to tell lies for money Ciaron? How very odd. Odd also that the only ones telling the truth are people with no scientific qualifications like Monckton and Dellingpole.
There's a difference between climate and weather KS. You should look it up. The southern glaciers know the difference.
If bsprout claims that everyone in camp "b" is being paid by corporation "x", why can I not ask if everyone in camp "a" is being paid by corporation "y"
You can. The answer is no. Thank you for playing.
How quickly you seem to have forgotten Climategate Edward...
I'll rephrase...
Please show me evidence for:
1/ 98% of scientists attest to AGW as fact (names and qualifications please, to support this 98% claim)
2/ funders of the campaign to question the truth behind anthropogenic climate change are the very people and businesses that are causing it.
nice solid hard evidence. You two are making the claim, now you can back it up.
@bsprout
"The main funders of the campaign to question the truth behind anthropogenic climate change are the very people and businesses that are causing it. "
Your suggestion that an industry-funded campaign against the global warming hoax is more powerful than the pro side, is ridiculous. The pro scare side includes, whole governments, large political parties, universities that rely on government funding, large media organisations that refuse to debate the issue, and last but not least, the entire UN.
If I had a vested interest in the global warming industry, I would be politely asking people like you to stop commenting.
Oh dear, I see logic and science has no place in this discussion. Here is a link to an article in the Guardian that sums up the the campaign for deniers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/04/climate-change-sceptics-influence-science
I doubt it will change the views of those writing here but I do hope some of you bother to read it.
I tell you what bsprout; I'll read your link if you read mine!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300877/climategate-continues-andrew-montford
"You two are making the claim, now you can back it up."
No Cairon, it's you and someone calling itself "Moist" who are making the claim that the whole thing is a massive conspiracy (involving the laws of physics themselves). How about you put up?
A link to the Wikipedia article on climate gate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Or is wikipedia part of the same climate conspiracy?
The conspiracy knows no bounds sprout. They're everywhere!
Goodness; even death doesn't exempt you from paying Carbon Tax in Australia. Julia literally pursues you to the grave!!
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/07/even-the-dead-dont-escape-carbon-tax/
I read your link, KS, and provide you with another: http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/#more-1646
The science supporting climate change, as with the number of scientists involved, is huge and just finding the odd anomaly (which can often be explained) does not really affect the huge body of evidence that still remains.
I recommend that you read "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway or Hot Topic by New Zealand Scientist, James Renwick.
I just love the way that you and your fellow Lefties manage to dismiss a systematic plan to present misleading climate data as an "odd anomaly" bsprout!
See Ciaron, Inv and Moist, you just don't get it. You're the uninitiated. Luddites who don't worship at the alter of Gaia. You're not a no-growth, anti-human flat-earther, so you just don't look at it through the correct prism.
First, you're all talking about 98%. You're wrong. The number is 95%. The calculation is 35/37. That is, a survey was sent to hundreds of scientists. 37 responded. 35 said AGW/ACC is real and is caused by man. Ergo, 95% of the world's scientists agree.
I actually think you're all having the wrong discussion. The correct discussion is:
"If climate change is caused by man's activity, how does man adapt to the change?"
Given it isn't feasible to force the third world to remain living in pre-industrial conditions, and forcing the first world to abandon 200 years of progress, civilisation and industrialisation, rather than make everyone in the first world poorer our efforts would be much better spent concentrating on how to adapt.
Given that the temperature has increased 0.7 degrees in the past century, and not at all in the past 15 years, I'd suggest we not devote too much time and energy to the "adapting".
One thing's for sure, making people in the first world poorer by taxing the buggery out of them, or by making cheap, plentiful power sources ludicrously expensive, or by forcing them to use ecologically- and economically- murderous power sources such as wind and solar, will not have any effect whatever on the climate.
So, we're not going to stop the third world from developing (are you going to tell the chicoms or Indians they can't have electricity?) and it's pointless trying to send the first world back to the 1700s (although there are plenty of watermelons who want to), and (most importantly) it's arguable whether man's progress is having any (appreciable) effect on the climate, I'd suggest we shut down our carbon taxes and emissions trading scams, fire up our coal-powered electricity plants and all go have a beer.
KS, as I said, when you look at the huge body of evidence supporting man made climate change, that's what deniers evidence represent, the odd anomaly. It's the same with the science supporting evolution, creationists cling to the odd little gap as if it debunks the mass.
It is hard to take deniers seriously when one of the key spokesmen is Christopher Monckton, hugely entertaining, but only as a vaudeville scientist.
It is hard to take evangelists seriously when one of the key spokesmen is Al 'ManBearPig' Gore, hugely entertaining, but only as a vaudeville scientist.
It is hard to take evangelists seriously when one of the key spokesmen is Rajendra 'The Fat Controller' Pachauri, hugely entertaining, but only as a vaudeville scientist.
Ah bsprout; when you start throwing around emotive labels like "deniers", you've lost the argument IMHO. Can those who believe that climate change is wholly man-made simply not accept that others do not share their view?
I'm probably as deeply rooted in my faith as you are in your adherence to a belief in AGW. But the difference is this; whilst I might disagree with you, I don't label you or ridicule you. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you want to. But on the other hand, so I am; without being sneered at or treated as some form of second-class citizen.
The snidely passive/aggressive comment from the Gantt Guy contains at least 12 false or misleading statements and at least that number of value judgements. It's simply self-serving sophistry purloined from tools like Bolt, Dellingpole and Monckton. You wouldn't want him thinking for himself I suppose.
Can those who believe that the earth is more than 4000 years old and not flat simply not accept that others do not share their view?
Keeping stock,
The thing about science is that it doesn't matter what you belive. All that matters is evidence, and a cold snap in the South Island is hardly evidence.
You're perfectly entitled to "believe" that global warming isn't the result of human impacts, but you can't demand respect for the belief, especially as it goes against a huge amount of evidence.
The whole AGW is a bloody fraud driven by Socialists who see it as a way to redistribute wealth. The sooner the masses see through this and rise up against it the better.
"Christopher Monckton, hugely entertaining, but only as a vaudeville scientist."
How typical of the left to ignore the message and go for the man. Very simple to parrot the caricature-sideshow-performer image put out by his detractors, but you add nothing to the debate.
"All that matters is evidence, and a cold snap in the South Island is hardly evidence."
Agreed.... Nor, for that matter, is a heat-wave in North America.
What I find interesting is the leftard Gaia-worshippers who vilify commentators like Bolt and Monckton, yet they ignore scientists like Vaclav Klaus and Sinclair Davidson and let liars like Gore and Phil Jones get away with murder.
Fact is, there is no "concensus". The science is not "settled" (science never is).
And the AGW/ACC industry is simply socialism on a global scale, seeking to redistribute wealth away from the first world, through the UN (surely the single-most corrupt organisation on the planet) to the third world. Without the third world having to go through any enlightenment and embrace capitalism, democracy and free markets the way the first world has.
Oh dear Gantt Guy. Those guys are, as you probably know, gonzo economists, not climatologists, physicists, chemists, or biologists, for instance. What gives you the idea economics is a science?
Phil Jones, however, is a scientist and a climatologist, who's been subject to appalling politically motivated smears from ignoramuses such as the excreble Dellingpole.
You're final paragraph just demonstrates just how out there your views actually are. Thanks for that.
@ Edward - when you say "gonzo eceonomist", do you mean like Gareth Morgan, whom bsprout quoted as a source was back in the very foirst comment on this thread?
What, you mean this Gareth Morgan?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/gareth-rips-greens.html
You like him.
That's the bloke; a bit odd to have a Green Party activist quoting Morgan as a fount of all knowledge, don'tcha think?
Goes to show that the issue is one that is so straightforward that rational, reasonable people can agree on it, even if they disagree on other matters. Don'tcha think?
For every discredited charlatan you can name, I can give you a commentator the lamestream media studiously ignore in its zeal to convert the world to Gaia-worship and the climate change cult. Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones? Michael "Hockey Stick" Man? Tim Flannery who's never been right about anything in his life? Jim Salinger, who was such an alarmist freak NIWA fired him?
If not Klaus or Davison (both highly-respected authors and scientists), how about Brian Sussman, one of the world's most respected meteoroligists?
I'd certainly take a Klaus or Davison over a self-hating leftard ("please, tax me some more") moron like Morgan any day!
But, putting aside the scientific debate for a second (and despite what you say, the debate is still "live", and the science is not "settled"), please answer a few questions (related to my wealth redistribution post earlier):
(1) what effect will it have on the climate for New Zealanders and Australians to be taxed to death for "emissions"? (here's a clue: absolutely none)
(2) how is hiking the price on cheap, efficient coal-fired power in order to make environment-raping*, inefficient, expensive sources like wind and solar less unattractive? (*environment-raping as in rural China, which is being completely denuded to extract the rare earths required to make the solar panels and the giant magnets which turn the bird-eviscerating windmills you watermelons so love)
(3) given that China, America and most of the developing world are laughing in the West's face on this issue, and are continuing to develop at an ever-increasing pace, and given that nothing NZ or Australia does is going to have any impact whatever, surely it's better to adapt to the change rather than try and stop it? And surely, since (as I said earlier) there's been a warming of 0.7 degrees over the past century, and none at all for the past 15 years, is it really worth the effort?
The fact is, you watermelons are more religion than science. If you ever get anywhere near the levers of power you would destroy the economy before you could say "Let's kill all the cows"! Just look at what the watermelons have done to Australia since the ALP got into bed with them. The economy is tanking, they're waging open class-warfare and they're looking to destroy the only segment of the economy keeping the country afloat!
You haven't explained how being a gonzo economist qualifies you to make determinations on climatology. The rest of your rant is just borrowed sophistry. You don't think for yourself, because you can't, but at least choose people you can think to do your thinking for you.
Edward, you use the language of the zealot. You've likely never heard of, much less read, Sussman, because his reasoning and logic (completely missing from your commentary) don't fit with your religious world-view.
But while we're on the subject of playing the man and not the ball, how does a railway engineer get to become the head of the UN body charged with this raping of first-world economies? Is railway engineering somehow a better qualifier for destroying economies than, say, economics?
And you still haven't answered my main question, which is: why? Why would Australia and New Zealand take action for precisely zero benefit (even assuming one agrees with the pseudo-science that gives rise to the situation) when the rest of the world is doing precisely nothing?
I called Monckton a vaudeville scientist because he is not a true scientist. He has written opinion pieces in a few magazines and is very skillful at using scientific language and spouting numbers that have no substance as proven by a number of respected "actual" scientists.
I don't agree with everything Gareth Morgan says, but I respect him for his genuine interest in looking at the climate change issue with an open mind and weighing up the evidence.
Perhaps "denier" is a harsh term, perhaps "rejector" is better because I am one of those who accept that the weight of evidence supports anthropogenic climate change and many commenting here reject the validity of that evidence.
I also accept that many of the organisations and individuals who do not accept the weight of evidence have issues with credibility. The Heartland Institute is the largest organisation supporting denial and it has lost huge credibility, even though it has a genuine gripe at underhand dealings by one scientist. It's last conference had no recognized scientists speaking and the numbers of attendees had dropped considerably. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/22/heartland-beating-climate-conference
Lord Monckton is the most widely recognized speaker supporting denial and although he refers to actual scientists and their research in his presentations, a number claim he has misrepresented their work and others have been discredited. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-scientists-respond-to-Moncktons-misinformation.html
The most worrying aspect of all of this is that scientists are generally conservative in their predictions and at the moment the amount of change is well ahead of predictions. 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere is widely accepted as the level where the climate can be kept relatively stable, we have now reached 392 and still climbing...
Sprout, you are free to accept or not that there is a valid, credible alternative view to your own. Most religious zealots do not accept an alternative view. But you're missing the big picture. If one accepts the so-called science (you do, I and many others do not), one must also accept the New Zealand's contribution to the problem is minuscule to the point of effectively being no contribution at all. What is the point of destroying the New Zealand economy via a ludicrous emissions trading scam, or raming the price of electricity and all other economic activity, when the rest of the world is doing precisely nothing. Most importantly, china and the US are not moving. Until they do, why would anybody else? Until they move, any gesture by any other nation is at best symbolic. At worst, it's economic treason. Look at what the watermelons are doing to the Australian economy. $23/ton carbon tax on the very organizations propping up the entire economy! Absolutely crazy.
Lol. Greenies getting owned.
Considering the scientific evidence for AGW makes you a religious zealot now? Does that apply across the board with respect to science now Gantt Guy, or just the bits that come up with answers you don't like?
Sussman is an ex-weatherman turned far right talkshow host. Next you'll be calling Rush Limbaugh and eminent climate change expert.
On to your weak substantive point, NZ's contribution to the problem on a per capita basis is substantial, and Australia's is even bigger. Therefore we have a duty to contribute to the solution. Why should those living in small countries be exempt?
LOL, tory wanker getting owned.
Not exempt, Edward, but it is ridiculous that NZ and Aus should be leading the world on this when our combined overall contribution is so small. In fact, NZ and Aus are the only nations doing anything on this issue, and the rest of the world is not only not following, it is backing away at a million miles an hour! We're destroying our economies not only on a false premise, but also for absolutely no reason. Canada and many of the African nations are laughing their arses off at Australia right now. Why? Because they are also mineral-rich and they know that once the watermelons and Liarbore get done killing the mining industry in Aus, the mining companies will be lining up to move into their countries (in fact, they already are).
NZ and Aus are pursuing the gold at the end if the rainbow, and they're being laughed at by every other country in the world. And that's if you believe what the so-called scientists say. If you dnt, it's even worse.
What makes you think New Zealand and Australia are either destroying their economies or the only countries doing anything? Both claims are laughably untrue. Has Gina Rinehart been telling you bedtime stories?
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
Cue rant about European communism...
I don't need to rant about European communism. Communism all-but destroyed Europe once, and it will do so again.
What I will say is the European emissions trading scam is very small, it excludes major sectors of the economy (e.g. Electricity generation), it is rife with corruption and the ticket price is close to $0.
Contrast that with NZ and Aus, where the scam is levied against, in one case, the vast majority of the economy and in the other against the only sector of the economy keeping the nation from crashing into a depression!
Whatever way you look at it, any action without China and America is laughable tokenism. And I can only hope those two countries continue to take absolutely no action on this non-issue.
Right, so we're not the only countries in the world doing anything. Thanks for clearing that one up. Our one also excludes the major emitting sector, so's pretty timid, and not world leading. You're fanatical alarmism is misplaced.
Gantt-It has been estimated that 75% of our businesses are dependent on our clean green image, so not to be a leader in this area is damaging our brand and marketing potential. As for your claim that most countries are doing less than New Zealand isn't true. While the US government is dragging the chain, state by state big changes are happening and California has been a leader in this for some time: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/
New Zealand has one of the highest levels of carbon emissions per capita in the OECD (and growing), our vehicle emissions are amongst the worst and our use of public transport is poor. We are lucky to have a high level of hydro power and a small population, otherwise our general performance is abysmal.
The New Zealand Institute's report card for New Zealand is worth reading as we score worst for our care of the environment. http://www.nzinstitute.org/index.php/nzahead/
You may also have read that "green" businesses are far more profitable others: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1206/S01050/first-ever-green-50-list-shows-booming-green-sector.htm
The real face of Planet Saving.
It's not the carbon tax that is a concern it is the lack of investment in other jobs and green technology so that those involved in coal mining etc can get jobs elsewhere.
The realities if we don't act:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/08/heat-us-deaths.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/45-die-russia-floods
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/world/7253847/US-drought-rising-food-prices
http://www.rttnews.com/1919843/arctic-warming-at-high-rate-due-to-melting-sea-ice-global-warming.aspx?
type=ts&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap
bsprout and the other alarmists. Rather than quote newspaper articles, please quote actual data and nothing from modellers. If you can't manage that, how about reading blogs like:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/ or http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
These are people that actually know what they are talking about
Thanks Chris. I did read John Nielsen-Gammon's writing and he does have credibility, however he isn't a climate change skeptic, he just questions some aspects of the science, like the flawed Himalayan data. He predicts that the average temperature in Texas will increase up to 4 degrees by 2050 and cause widespread continuous drought. http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/six-questions-for-state-climatologist-john-nielsen-gammon
The latest "state of the climate" report involving 400 scientists from the American Meteorological Society: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10818824
Congratulations Bsprout. I am pleased to see that you do read outside the Green view. As you recognise John's work, you also know he has written "A: That’s right. And I think I still disagree with Dr. Hansen, both on his interpretation and some of his analysis. But that’s a discussion to work out on a technical level."
That doesn't sound like the science is settled or is John one of the 5%?
Oh and by the way don't quote wikipedia on climate matters. Everyone who reads knows about the editting by Stoat.
Chris,
Have you even read that quote in context? It's pretty clear he's a science is settled kind of a guy, isn't it?
The science isn't settled in the way that science is never settled. Perhaps those who think that this means AGW is a hoax should try sky-diving without the parachute, as the science around the laws of gravity isn't settled either, and Newton was obviously a communist.
@ Edward - your admission that the science of climate change isn't settled is precisely the reason why New Zealand and Australia should proceed with caution in taxing the productive, rather than trying to lead the world as was the UN-bound former Prime Minister's desire..
KS, we can't not do anything if we want New Zealand to shift to a position of economic strength in the future. Holding grimly onto to old carbon based technology is not sustainable and even China is making huge strides in shifting to renewables. It is crazy when a business owner i spoke to recently said it was cheaper to power his business on coal than electricity. We have to provide incentives for businesses to shift to sustainable technology. Green technology is the future and the sooner we move in that direction the better.
"your admission that the science of climate change isn't settled is precisely the reason why New Zealand and Australia should proceed with caution in taxing the productive, rather than trying to lead the world"
We're not leading the world. We're being very very timid. And the science will never be settled, as it's not settled on anything. Your comment is completely illogical and would result on no one doing anything ever about anything. It's settled enough.
The hypocrisy of warming alarmists is hilarious! I suggest the studies and writings of Sussman, who the warmenisers dismiss as "just a weatherman" (he's one of the US's most respected meteorologists), yet when it suits their cause they link to a newspaper article about a paper published by the American Meteorologial Society. And they won't even see the hypocrisy.
It's a fact that the cap & trade scams being promulgated by various leftist governments around the world are simply wealth redistribution on a massive scale. They are just one more attack on the free market and an attempt by politicians to buy the votes of the weak, the stupid and the duped.
Interestingly, a recent study has shown the world has been COOLING for the past 2,000 years (were the alarmists right 40 years ago when they were shrieking about a "new ice age"?). What's the bet this get no airplay in the media in the Democratic People's Socialist Republic of the Long White Crowd?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
"he's one of the US's most respected meteorologists..."
Can you point me to the latest respect rankings for weathermen? Not sure I believe you.
That study is localised, so not able to be applied to the earth as a whole and it shows significant warming over the last century, thus supporting the hypothesis that human activity is warming the earth. It obviously changes nothing.
@ Edward - my actual quote ended as below, not as you have paraphrased it:
...rather than trying to lead the world as was the UN-bound former Prime Minister's desire.
Why do you think that Labour rushed its ETS through under urgency before to 2008 election? Sheesh; they were so keen to pass it and have it stand as Helen's Legacy that they negotiated NZ First's support by not voting to censure Winston Peters for wilfully misleading his colleagues with a dodgy pecuniary interests return.
Whether you believe me or not matters not one jot. I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
And as for localized results, you mean like the rings from 9 trees in Russia that Michael Mann managed to manipulate to produce his ridiculous hockey stick?
The ability of warmenisers to spin spin spin knows no bounds.
Speaking of hypocrisy, if Mann's such a crook, why are you doing precisely what you accuse him of?
Chris, a direct quote from your mate, John:
"I think that we need to have cheap, affordable alternative energy supplies that don’t produce as much carbon dioxide. And unfortunately those aren’t here at present, so we need to be making a big investment in technological development as a society. Where the money comes from – I’d like it to be a very small carbon tax..."
Not that far from my own thinking.
bsprout
Remember John is talking from a US perspective where there renewable energy generation is about 5%, unless you count all the nukes. I am certain he is not talking about Iceland for example. In general terms, I don't disagree at all with his comments, though I don't think a carbon tax is the best mechanism. The tax and benefit scheme is why there is massive distortion going on with wind and solar farms which are just designed to harvest subsidies. And as John would be the first to admit,his expertise is in weather systems not energy.
Post a Comment