"One of the driest spells ever recorded on the West Coast and Southern Alps is responsible for a 25 per cent decrease in hydro-generation on the Clutha River."
And the deniers continue to say climate change is BS ... how very convenient to hide yourself from the truth and find bogus science to back you up...in your lust for short term economic gain/greed.
If we send our lignite to China we are as culpable as China is in causing these "extreme dry spells in"in our neighbours land.
Who can argue against this scam when we are presented with such precise climate measurement and recording as. "One of the driest spells ever recorded" ! Wow!
"One of the driest spells ever recorded" means nothing to you, Anonymous? You can't get even a sense that there's something out of the ordinary happening here? Something that requires our attention? Something related to the climate? You're a pedant who can't see the wood for the trees. I know you won't 'get' that expression, Anonymous - I didn't quantify 'trees', nor did I define 'see', but the rest of us know where you are falling down.
It's yellow and shiny, and make men do strange things.
The tourist attraction of "shanty Town" near Greymouth has been bleeding money of late, the board has decided (Which includes the chairman of minerals West Coast) that the solution is.....wait for it......TO MINE IT!!.
They say tourists will like that sort of thing. I say they've got the fever bad and have the shotgun pointed at the foot........
Yep, he's also going to personally manage the diggings, to make sure it's done properly of course.
Meanwhile the auditor whatcha-ma-call-him has visited the regional council and told them that their in house agency probably shouldn't be writing and processing consents for farmers and miners and they are the only council in NZ to ever try it on.
The response from several councilors sounded something like F@#4 off you F@34@@g townie, (or so I assume) so I don't think they are going to listen.
Robert @ 1.01pm Name calling? I am feeling a bit sorry for the Anonymous that posted at 12.54pm being labelled in such a way. You might use terms like "pedant" but I credit this anonymous (and potential constituent) for taking the time to enter the debate. For me the balance of climate change science has tipped in favour for the climate change effect to be real. That is not to say that the effect should not still be debated, but I prefer to leave that up to the experts. I am simply stating an observation. I believe the true question is the cause. Human or a natural cycle? Therein lies the debate and one I obstain from sharing a view. There are too many variables for a mind like mine to balance and find a reasonable outcome. I prefer to leave such debates to the experts.
I'm no expert, Anonymous, nor does one need to be in order to choose the correct conclusion. There has been a great deal of opinion, much of it learned, expressed around the issue. I'm quite surprised that you have only gone to the point of accepting that the 'climate change effect is real'. I do congratulate you for that though. That said, I'm not sure how you can believe that the remainder of the 'puzzle' cannot be known by you, given that the only way you could have come to your conclusion is by the same processes that will lead you to deciding on the greater question. If you are able to accept advice that the climate change effect is real, there's nothing stopping you from continuing to the point where you accept that the climate change we are subject to now, is of our own making. Logically, that is. there's nothing preventing your full acceptance. As I described earlier, I'm not struggling with the issue any more. I'm convinced. Those people whose advice I respect on these matters and others of a similar scale, are solid in their view and I see no reason at all to discard their views. I read quite widely on the topic, talk with alot of people about this (primarily those who don't subscribe to the view) and think about it in my own time and way. Your view, btw, is the opposite that that held by some who comment here. Paranormal will never concede that there the 'climate change effect is real', nor would other Anonymii, I'm betting. Big ups to you!
Btw - "pedant" isn't a derogatory term, Anon. In this case it's an accurate descriptive.Anonymous was demanding, "precise climate measurement and recording" in a discussion on a blog! ha! Pedant indeed. Even if he were not, 'pedant' is hardly an insult and any constituent of mine would laugh at your assertion. Now if I'd called him something juicier...
Of course I don't, you pedant! It's a matter of amassing as much credible information as possible, applying good sense, checking ones conclusions against those of trusted friends and acquaintances then making a decision. I've done that. Now I stand by my decision.
Its the credible information bit i find missing in this debate , a few years ago when the whole global warming hysteria emerged,, i decided such an important and serious issue was worthy of a investigation, But the more i looked the more credible scientific data i found that did not support man made global warming ,. and as time has passed the holes in the theory have grown evermore obvious, im not a conspiracy theorist .. but i am struggling with the fact that literally billions of $$ are being syphoned off into what appears to be some great self perpetuating political smoke and mirrors act , where the substantive science is long gone .
There we are you, you believe one thing, I believe another. As I said earlier, c'est la vie. I've chosen not to prevaricate, instead to comment on reports that show the effects of climate change on the wold around me. See my latest post on the weather in the South Pacific.
Robert @ 10.55pm Against better judgement I am going to wade in here because I feel there are some silly assertions being made. I have made the statement that I believe the balance of scientific information has tipped towards climate change being a real affect. But I dont believe that we can identify one off weather extremes as climate change affects with any level of certainty. Sure it is possible that climate change has exaggerated a weather event but I believe it is also possible that they are natural cycles of climate. If I was to make a statement that I believe to be fair, I would say "We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change". Using one off events rather than trends as indications of climate change is in my opinion sensationalism. The type of techniques used by political groups to muster political support. I don't subscribe to such hype.
Accepting climate change as a real affect does not lead me to accepting humans as the causal agent. The scientific data behind cause and affect are very different. We dont measure degrees carbon dioxide.
In my opinion the scientific debate rages in regard to the causal agent of climate change. I prefer to let the debate occur rather than wade in with an unscientific opinion. I reckon political and community hype/histeria can lead to poor science being delivered. So I prefer to leave them to it.
I disagree with you about your use of "pedant". It is a word that often has negative connotations to it and in my opinion you have used it to convey those connotations. Not polite bevaiour in my opinion and I am now feeling bad for BS Buster too. Still, who needs productive relationships with the community? Go for it. Sticking up for BS Buster I have to say I prefer to see people that seek all the facts to determine the truth, rather than those that portray omniscience.
"But I dont believe that we can identify one off weather extremes as climate change affects with any level of certainty."
You are mistaken, Anonymous. If you can say, "We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change", then the likelihood of any particular event, such as the drought in America, being attributable to climate change, is greater. It's logical. I'm interested to hear how you don't believe that to be the case.
Robert @ 10.03am It is impossible to say that a one off weather event is a result of climate change or a natural cycle. We don't have specific scientific understanding or measurment to determine that. We can measure trends and make determinations about those, and the longer the term of the trend the more accuracy can be conveyed. eg. Southland has had two cold springs in a row. OH NO... Global cooling!!!! Start using up more carbon folks, we are in for a cold one. Even better, this morning was the coldest in 2 days!!! Argh! Run for the equator, or you might freeze!!!
I can see you like to make links to events that support your theories but sometimes it is sensible to be a realist. I guess it depends on how you want to be perceived.
I have to say, Anonymous, that your argument around climate change is very similar to that of the tobacco industry when they argued that they needn't make changes because there was no irrefutable evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. It was patently obvious to those calling for the industry to change, but the tobacco men were able to defer any action for years by using the ploy. The same is happening now with human-induced climate change. Same argument, same delaying-for-profit technique and I fear you are in the 'tobacco' camp.
Anonymous - you are fooling yourself with words. You talked earlier of 'likelihood' in a statistical sense. It is likely that these events are the result of climate change, you said. Now you are arguing that it's impossible to prove. With all due respect, you need to get your thinking sorted out.
Robert @ 10.27am It is you who is confused. And this is proven by your misquoting. I said "We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change". I didn't say that "these events". Climate science works on trends. The longer the trend the more accuracy we can use in our conclusions. I am happy to concede we are likely to see more climate extremes. But I certainly won't pick on any one event as proof.
Anonymous - you've put up a strawman to pummel - no one has said any particular event is proof. You'll win your own argument, sure, but no one will care.
You said "no one has said any particular event is proof"
Yesterday at 1.01pm you called Anonymous a pedant after he/she appeared to question "One of the driest spells ever recorded" as evidence.
You're making no sense, Anonymous. I maintain that no single event can be 100% sheeted to AGW and that I'm not holding up any one event as proof that AGM is occurring. The pedantic Anonymous is questioning whether "one of the driest spells ever recorded" was precise-enough a climate measurement and recording" to be able to be "argued against." I replied by asking if that meant nothing to him, and whether he couldn't get even a sense that there's something out of the ordinary happening here, something that requires our attention, something related to the climate.
How you can regard that as back-peddling defies understanding.
Ha, You are making no sense Robert. I asked you 'how fast you can back peddle'. How you can regard that as an accusation of back peddling defies understanding.
Two can play childish games. Even if it is tinged with sadness.
30 comments:
Whoo hoo!!
That's where I live.
Not a cloud in the sky today either.
Nice! No clouds in the sky across America's Corn belt either, Whoo hoo!
Today's weather in Riverton - sunny, calm, springy.
And the deniers continue to say climate change is BS ... how very convenient to hide yourself from the truth and find bogus science to back you up...in your lust for short term economic gain/greed.
If we send our lignite to China we are as culpable as China is in causing these "extreme dry spells in"in our neighbours land.
paulinem, would you like to give me an example of this " bogus science " please ?
.
Who can argue against this scam when we are presented with such precise climate measurement and recording as. "One of the driest spells ever recorded" ! Wow!
"One of the driest spells ever recorded" means nothing to you, Anonymous? You can't get even a sense that there's something out of the ordinary happening here? Something that requires our attention? Something related to the climate?
You're a pedant who can't see the wood for the trees. I know you won't 'get' that expression, Anonymous - I didn't quantify 'trees', nor did I define 'see', but the rest of us know where you are falling down.
Who was Pauline addressing?, she seems very angry and upset about her religion not being respected.
The good news (for her) is that coal prices have halved and solid energy is reviewing the future of several West Coast mines.
Sounds like the boom is over.
The mayor is not happy.
The mayor is not happy?
Isn't there some other resource that could be untimely ripped from the womb of Mother earth?
Unfortunately, yes.
It's yellow and shiny, and make men do strange things.
The tourist attraction of "shanty Town" near Greymouth has been bleeding money of late, the board has decided (Which includes the chairman of minerals West Coast) that the solution is.....wait for it......TO MINE IT!!.
They say tourists will like that sort of thing.
I say they've got the fever bad and have the shotgun pointed at the foot........
Mine! Mine! All mine!
Yep, he's also going to personally manage the diggings, to make sure it's done properly of course.
Meanwhile the auditor whatcha-ma-call-him has visited the regional council and told them that their in house agency probably shouldn't be writing and processing consents for farmers and miners and they are the only council in NZ to ever try it on.
The response from several councilors sounded something like F@#4 off you F@34@@g townie, (or so I assume) so I don't think they are going to listen.
That sounds corrupt, Shunda.
Robert @ 1.01pm
Name calling? I am feeling a bit sorry for the Anonymous that posted at 12.54pm being labelled in such a way. You might use terms like "pedant" but I credit this anonymous (and potential constituent) for taking the time to enter the debate.
For me the balance of climate change science has tipped in favour for the climate change effect to be real. That is not to say that the effect should not still be debated, but I prefer to leave that up to the experts. I am simply stating an observation. I believe the true question is the cause. Human or a natural cycle? Therein lies the debate and one I obstain from sharing a view. There are too many variables for a mind like mine to balance and find a reasonable outcome. I prefer to leave such debates to the experts.
I'm no expert, Anonymous, nor does one need to be in order to choose the correct conclusion. There has been a great deal of opinion, much of it learned, expressed around the issue. I'm quite surprised that you have only gone to the point of accepting that the 'climate change effect is real'. I do congratulate you for that though. That said, I'm not sure how you can believe that the remainder of the 'puzzle' cannot be known by you, given that the only way you could have come to your conclusion is by the same processes that will lead you to deciding on the greater question. If you are able to accept advice that the climate change effect is real, there's nothing stopping you from continuing to the point where you accept that the climate change we are subject to now, is of our own making. Logically, that is. there's nothing preventing your full acceptance. As I described earlier, I'm not struggling with the issue any more. I'm convinced. Those people whose advice I respect on these matters and others of a similar scale, are solid in their view and I see no reason at all to discard their views. I read quite widely on the topic, talk with alot of people about this (primarily those who don't subscribe to the view) and think about it in my own time and way. Your view, btw, is the opposite that that held by some who comment here. Paranormal will never concede that there the 'climate change effect is real', nor would other Anonymii, I'm betting. Big ups to you!
Btw - "pedant" isn't a derogatory term, Anon. In this case it's an accurate descriptive.Anonymous was demanding, "precise climate measurement and recording" in a discussion on a blog! ha! Pedant indeed. Even if he were not, 'pedant' is hardly an insult and any constituent of mine would laugh at your assertion. Now if I'd called him something juicier...
let me translate what Robert just said .
i have no irrefutable facts to support my belief man is causing climate change ,,
Of course I don't, you pedant!
It's a matter of amassing as much credible information as possible, applying good sense, checking ones conclusions against those of trusted friends and acquaintances then making a decision.
I've done that. Now I stand by my decision.
Its the credible information bit i find missing in this debate ,
a few years ago when the whole global warming hysteria emerged,, i decided such an important and serious issue was worthy of a investigation,
But the more i looked the more credible scientific data i found that did not support man made global warming ,.
and as time has passed the holes in the theory have grown evermore obvious,
im not a conspiracy theorist .. but i am struggling with the fact that literally billions of $$ are being syphoned off into what appears to be some great self perpetuating political smoke and mirrors act , where the substantive science is long gone .
There we are you, you believe one thing, I believe another. As I said earlier, c'est la vie. I've chosen not to prevaricate, instead to comment on reports that show the effects of climate change on the wold around me. See my latest post on the weather in the South Pacific.
Robert @ 10.55pm
Against better judgement I am going to wade in here because I feel there are some silly assertions being made.
I have made the statement that I believe the balance of scientific information has tipped towards climate change being a real affect.
But I dont believe that we can identify one off weather extremes as climate change affects with any level of certainty. Sure it is possible that climate change has exaggerated a weather event but I believe it is also possible that they are natural cycles of climate.
If I was to make a statement that I believe to be fair, I would say "We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change".
Using one off events rather than trends as indications of climate change is in my opinion sensationalism. The type of techniques used by political groups to muster political support. I don't subscribe to such hype.
Accepting climate change as a real affect does not lead me to accepting humans as the causal agent. The scientific data behind cause and affect are very different. We dont measure degrees carbon dioxide.
In my opinion the scientific debate rages in regard to the causal agent of climate change. I prefer to let the debate occur rather than wade in with an unscientific opinion. I reckon political and community hype/histeria can lead to poor science being delivered. So I prefer to leave them to it.
I disagree with you about your use of "pedant". It is a word that often has negative connotations to it and in my opinion you have used it to convey those connotations. Not polite bevaiour in my opinion and I am now feeling bad for BS Buster too. Still, who needs productive relationships with the community? Go for it. Sticking up for BS Buster I have to say I prefer to see people that seek all the facts to determine the truth, rather than those that portray omniscience.
"But I dont believe that we can identify one off weather extremes as climate change affects with any level of certainty."
You are mistaken, Anonymous. If you can say,
"We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change", then the likelihood of any particular event, such as the drought in America, being attributable to climate change, is greater. It's logical.
I'm interested to hear how you don't believe that to be the case.
Robert @ 10.03am
It is impossible to say that a one off weather event is a result of climate change or a natural cycle. We don't have specific scientific understanding or measurment to determine that. We can measure trends and make determinations about those, and the longer the term of the trend the more accuracy can be conveyed.
eg. Southland has had two cold springs in a row. OH NO... Global cooling!!!! Start using up more carbon folks, we are in for a cold one.
Even better, this morning was the coldest in 2 days!!! Argh! Run for the equator, or you might freeze!!!
I can see you like to make links to events that support your theories but sometimes it is sensible to be a realist. I guess it depends on how you want to be perceived.
I have to say, Anonymous, that your argument around climate change is very similar to that of the tobacco industry when they argued that they needn't make changes because there was no irrefutable evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. It was patently obvious to those calling for the industry to change, but the tobacco men were able to defer any action for years by using the ploy. The same is happening now with human-induced climate change. Same argument, same delaying-for-profit technique and I fear you are in the 'tobacco' camp.
Anonymous - you are fooling yourself with words. You talked earlier of 'likelihood' in a statistical sense. It is likely that these events are the result of climate change, you said. Now you are arguing that it's impossible to prove. With all due respect, you need to get your thinking sorted out.
Robert @ 10.27am
It is you who is confused. And this is proven by your misquoting. I said "We are getting more frequent global extremes in climate that are likely to be an expression of climate change". I didn't say that "these events". Climate science works on trends. The longer the trend the more accuracy we can use in our conclusions. I am happy to concede we are likely to see more climate extremes. But I certainly won't pick on any one event as proof.
Anonymous - you've put up a strawman to pummel - no one has said any particular event is proof. You'll win your own argument, sure, but no one will care.
Robert @ 12:59pm
You said "no one has said any particular event is proof"
Yesterday at 1.01pm you called Anonymous a pedant after he/she appeared to question "One of the driest spells ever recorded" as evidence.
How fast can you back peddle? Very fast?
Anonymous said...
Robert @ 12:59pm
You said "no one has said any particular event is proof"
Yesterday at 1.01pm you called Anonymous a pedant after he/she appeared to question "One of the driest spells ever recorded" as evidence.
You're making no sense, Anonymous. I maintain that no single event can be 100% sheeted to AGW and that I'm not holding up any one event as proof that AGM is occurring. The pedantic Anonymous is questioning whether "one of the driest spells ever recorded" was precise-enough a climate measurement and recording" to be able to be "argued against."
I replied by asking if that meant nothing to him, and whether he couldn't get even a sense that there's something out of the ordinary happening here, something that requires our attention, something related to the climate.
How you can regard that as back-peddling defies understanding.
Ha,
You are making no sense Robert. I asked you 'how fast you can back peddle'. How you can regard that as an accusation of back peddling defies understanding.
Two can play childish games. Even if it is tinged with sadness.
Too silly for me. If you've got a serious question, ask it clearly, Anonymous. I'd be happy to have a go at answering it.
Post a Comment