What each of us can do to tackle climate change

We all have to deal with the weather – we enjoy it when it is good, and cope with it when it is bad. With climate change there may be more good weather to enjoy, but also more bad weather to cope with.

Unusual weather events will inevitable be linked to climate change, even though individual extremes have happened throughout human history.

News.com.au: Sweltering heatwave set to scorch large parts of Australia until the new year

Australians are facing unprecedented heat, with some areas set for maximum temperatures above 40C for four days straight for the first time in 90 years.

Extreme record-breaking heatwave conditions are forecast to sweep across four states over coming days, sparking health and fire warnings.

A broad area stretching across much of southern Australia is set to experience the hot weather, with temperatures generally 10C to 14C higher than usual for this time of year, the Bureau of Meteorology said.

There’s plenty more of yesterday’s sweltering Christmas weather to come, as an oppressive and sustained heatwave is set to linger into the new year.

Going by the forecast here in New Zealand it doesn’t look like we will be getting much of that heat coming our way. But some areas (up north) have experienced flooding earlier this week.

Whether or not the weather is a result of climate change Victoria University climate scientist James Renwick suggests One simple thing you can do to tackle climate change

Transforming how the world produces energy and consumes resources to create a zero-carbon future is going to require innovation and investment on an industrial scale, creating myriad new jobs and making a better, more sustainable, life for everyone.

Climate change is a huge threat. Already, floods and droughts, heatwaves and fires have intensified around the world, and even another degree of warming will kill off the coral reefs, damage global food production, and lock in metres of sea level rise. The potential for mayhem and misery seems almost limitless.

The way I react to climate change is to keep both viewpoints in mind. If we do nothing, or if we do something but not fast enough, the future looks pretty dire. And I don’t mean in centuries from now, I mean in one working lifetime, another 20, 30, 40 years. To me, that’s a huge motivation to do what I can to advance the transformation we need.

Feeling like you’re a part of the solution, that you’re making a positive difference, is so much more empowering than feeling helpless or despairing, or apathetic. It is now understood that stress and anxiety caused by seeing fires, floods and other extremes affect communities, and worries about the future of our own families, are major mental health risks.

The empowerment will only be sustained if we feel we have actually made a positive difference. If we keep getting weather extremes, or if we see other countries continue to get weather extremes, we may think our efforts are a waste of time. It could be difficult keeping up enthusiasm for being ‘a part of the solution’.

Each of us can take small actions that collectively add up to big reductions in emissions.

Anything that lowers your personal carbon “footprint” is a good idea: using public transport when we can, engaging in active transport – cycling and/or walking, flying less (and offsetting when we do fly), eating less or no red meat, making sure our homes are well-insulated, buying an electric vehicle (if we’re looking for a new car), and so on.

Using public transport more, walking and cycling more and driving and flying less may cost us less, while insulating homes and buying electric vehicles cost more up front, something many household budgets will struggle with.

But the most important thing we can do is talk. Talk about climate change. Make it as much a part of the daily conversation as the cricket or the rugby. Talk about the magnitude and the urgency of climate change with family/whānau, with neighbours and local community, with workmates, and most importantly with our elected representatives in local and central government.

Here we are then.

Talk.

Government policy sets the tone for how society operates, and signals to the business sector where to invest in our future. If all of us sent a single email to our electorate MP demanding climate action, the volume of mail would be bound to get a response!

Political activism by school students going on “climate strike” shows what’s possible in terms of gaining attention and shifting the conversation.

Is it appropriate for an academic, a climate scientist, to be encouraging political activism?

It now seems clear that the people, the general public, will need to speak out before there is meaningful political change.

New Zealand as a country should see climate change as an opportunity, to lead the world and to help other countries. If any country can become 100 per cent fossil-free, it has to be New Zealand, with our abundance of water, wind and sunshine. Being at the forefront of green technology is bound to be good for business, for investment and for the economy.

I would like to see something far more substantive than “being at the forefront of green technology is bound to be good for business” – academics should be showing how it will be good for business, not just seemingly wishing and hoping as this looks like.

I would love to see us achieve 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2025, and see government raise the price of carbon via changes to the ETS or via a carbon tax, as that will push the business sector in the right direction. Money raised could be used to incentivise purchase of electric vehicles, to improve public transport, and to support lower-income New Zealanders disadvantaged by carbon charging or by the direct effects of climate change.

The sooner we start down this path, as a country, with all sectors on board, the sooner we’ll achieve the changes we need as a country, and as a global community. Some of our nearest neighbours in the Pacific are some of the most at-risk communities and it’s my feeling that we have a moral obligation to them to do all we can.

It’s my feeling that academics like climate scientists have a professional obligation to show us whether our efforts will make any difference significant and sustainable difference to other countries (and our own).

Showing other countries how it’s done and then helping others tread the same path is a vital role this country can play, now and in the future.

How vital?

What if the green business dream doesn’t add up? What if climate change changes set back the New Zealand economy?

What if we manage to become a bit more ‘sustainable’ as a country but other countries take little or no notice?

Climate science shows that, probably, we have significant problems looming unless we can change change things significantly.

But I don’t see climate scientists doing anywhere enough to convince me that their proposed solutions are going to work, and that their proposed solutions don’t pose more risks than the problems they are trying to overcome.

Things like reducing energy use, especially fossil fuel energy use, and reducing waste and pollution, are worthy things we should all be considering and doing regardless.

But if we are to launch into major changes to our way of life I’d like to see far better plans and predictions for how this might pan out, including possible risks and down sides.

Political activism will only work successfully if well reasoned cases are made.

Climate scientists may have made a fairly good case for the likelihood humans are stuffing things up and need to reduce and repair the damage we have caused and are causing.

But I haven’t yet seen decent cases made for some of the changes that climate activists are suggesting. Until that is done I doubt whether the general population will get on board the change train.

What each of us do to tackle climate change will depend on feasible cases being made for the changes being asked for by activists.

Leave a comment

74 Comments

  1. adamsmith1922

     /  December 27, 2018

    To achieve carbon zero the inane target of James Shaw could based on the government’s own estimates reduce the size of the NZ economy by some 25%, leading to, in my view,severe hardship for many. And for what ‘moral’ leadership, which is a concept that depends on your particular viewpoint. However,you cannot eat it,wear it or use it for shelter.
    Furthermore, nowhere have I seen any proper estimate of the economic consequences and requirements in terms of infrastructure that the proposed move away from fossil fuel requires. Similarly no one seems to have given any thought as to what industries will provide future employment,growth and taxes in the so called Green Economy. Frankly it’s a flight of fancy with little basis in reality.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 27, 2018

      Correction: it has no basis on reality.

      Reply
    • Griff.

       /  December 27, 2018

      nowhere have I seen any proper estimate of the economic consequences and requirements in terms of infrastructure that the proposed move away from fossil fuel requires.

      Most probably because you have not tried looking for it instead have your head placed too far up your own dark and rather smelly orifice .
      Low-emissions economy NZ productivity commission
      https://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/3254?stage=4
      Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy for New Zealand, takes an in-depth look into climate change mitigation options for New Zealand Royal Society of New Zealand.
      https://royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/our-expert-advice/all-expert-advice-papers/climate-change-mitigation-options-for-new-zealand/
      Westpack Climate Change Impact Report
      Climate change implications facing the NZ economy.
      https://www.westpac.co.nz/who-we-are/sustainability-and-community/looking-after-our-environment/climate-change/climate-change-impact-report/

      That is a start.
      I also suggest reading the IPCC reports and keeping up with current research.
      Else your opinion is just the usual ranting right wing fuckwittery.

      Reply
      • adamsmith1922

         /  December 27, 2018

        No need for gratuitous abuse.

        I am grateful for the links.

        And in the spirit of your comments go and crawl back under your pathetic little rock – until hell freezes over

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  December 27, 2018

          Oh look .
          Makes up shit .
          gets pawned.
          goes all snowflake.
          How adult of you .
          If you dont post absolute dribble from your rather fevered imagination I would have no need to point out you are full of shite .

          Furthermore, nowhere have I seen any proper estimate of the economic consequences and requirements in terms of infrastructure that the proposed move away from fossil fuel requires. Similarly no one seems to have given any thought as to what industries will provide future employment,growth and taxes in the so called Green Economy. Frankly it’s a flight of fancy with little basis in reality.

          That was a few links from the first page google returned for the basic question you asked . The search was for” low carbon economy nz.”.
          You did not know because you are to thick to look on google?
          Or you are a ranting right wing nutter who just makes up shite to cover for total ignorance on a subject?
          Your choice

          Reply
          • adamsmith1922

             /  December 27, 2018

            Just because I had the temerity to respond in the same way as you,you doubled down and insulted me again. Even though I had thanked you for the links.
            Clearly,you are a rather disturbed person. Have you seen a psychiatrist? It might be advisable, there are drugs available to treat your disorder.

            Reply
          • Trevors_Elbow

             /  December 27, 2018

            Griff – you are acting like a child. People don’t listen to you because of the abuse…. take a chill pill man.

            Reply
          • Griff.

             /  December 27, 2018

            I have been dealing with the same nonsense often from the same sources for over a decade.
            If I treat the baseless rants of illogical nutbars with respect it makes no difference at all.
            They still post their inane crap totally undeterred.
            At lest this way I get to have a good laugh at their expense.

            inane target of James Shaw

            The zero carbon by 2050 target is set by the dully elected goverment of this country. Technically James being in the Green party is not even a member of the goverment .

            And for what ‘moral’ leadership, which is a concept that depends on your particular viewpoint.

            An imperative supported by the largest scientific inquiry ever undertaken by man and overwhelmingly endorsed by the worlds scientific community is not open to uninformed viewpoints such as yours

            Furthermore, nowhere have I seen any proper estimate of the economic consequences and requirements

            Because you have never made the effort to even look as typing a few words into google, hitting search and skimming the first few links on the first page returned confirmed .

            Frankly it’s a flight of fancy with little basis in reality.

            Your entire rant has proven demonstrable so .

            Yet this crap gets 17 up ticks
            And you tell me its my fault they dont listen.
            I think I just shite myself with laughter .

            You lot are backing an already dead horse.
            The issue of climate change is not going away.
            Atmospheric physics says the imperative to act will only mount as the effects of our emissions increases.

            The negative from a reality based perspective is the future costs and death toll of political inaction mounts by the day.
            Thank fuck I will not be here to experience what our generations inaction will result in.

            Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 27, 2018

        “At a glance” the Productivity Commission’s report provides exactly zero economic analysis of the costs of its recommendations.

        Reply
      • Pink David

         /  December 27, 2018

        “I also suggest reading the IPCC reports and keeping up with current research.”

        I don’t think anyone reads this. It clearly states that the world is on track to a future were climate change is not a problem, yet no one ever seems to mention this bit.

        Reply
          • Griff.

             /  December 27, 2018

            Probably because you are talking yet more right wing dribble.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  December 27, 2018

              Insightful. It’s there, you just seem incalculable of comprehending it.

              I guess you are too busy ‘winning’ at the internet…

            • Griff.

               /  December 27, 2018

              ROFL

              It clearly states that the world is on track to a future were climate change is not a problem,

              It has a range of outcomes
              It does not say any one of them is the future .
              As you are arguing for little effort to reduce emissions you are arguing for the most extreme out come.
              https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_pathways.php

              Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence) (Topic 2 and Figure 3.1a). Estimates of warming in 2100 without additional climate mitigation efforts are from 3.7°C to 4.8°C compared with pre-industrial levels (median climate response); the range is 2.5°C to 7.8°C when using the 5th to 95th percentile range of the median climate response (Figure 3.1). The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, consequential constraints on common human activities, increased likelihood of triggering tipping points (critical thresholds) and limited potential for adaptation in some cases (high confidence).

              In other words @ 4C it is highly likely human civilization will collapse.

              Wining the internet against you guys is easy .
              Because few, if any of you, are capable of rational debate.
              Instead its make shite up ,gibber illogical crap and if all else fails resort to conspiracy idolization.

  2. Gezza

     /  December 27, 2018

    Well, here’s one idea …

    Save the environment by moving to a low-carbon bank
    “Westpac and ASB report their New Zealand carbon footprints. ANZ and BNZ do not, throwing an immediate hurdle in front of Kiwi bank customers wishing to compare bank’s carbon credentials.

    Their parent banks in Australia report their carbon footprints. But those reports do not split out the New Zealand operations.

    Kiwibank also doesn’t publish its carbon footprint, but plans to start publishing sustainability reports next year.
    ASB’s carbon footprint in 2017 was 6346 tonnes.
    Westpac’s was 6333 tonnes in the year to the end of June.

    Kiwibank’s carbon footprint for the year to the end of June was 2390 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent.

    Banks’ emissions dwarf the 20.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent the average household is responsible for each year.”
    More…
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/109301697/comparing-the-carbon-commitments-of-the-big-five-kiwi-banks

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 27, 2018

      You think that corporate “carbon footprint” accounting has any basis in reality????

      Check out their tax returns.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  December 27, 2018

      “ASB’s carbon footprint in 2017 was 6346 tonnes.”

      That’s the ‘carbon footprint’ of less than 1,000 average NZ’ers.
      ASB employees 5,000 people.

      The climate change industry produces more bullshit than any other.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 27, 2018

        In 1870, it was so cold that a UK clergyman wrote in his diary that when he sat down in the bath, it was frozen over and he went through quite a thick sheet of ice. The room was so cold that he piled the pieces of ice on a chair. His sponge was frozen solid. I bet that he’d love the idea of global warming/

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  December 27, 2018

          The meanspirited PDTs are out in force, I see, targeting certain people regardless of what those people say. Some people never leave the fourth form.

          Reply
  3. Gerrit

     /  December 27, 2018

    Problem is sensationalism and the current heat wave in Australia is an example.

    Australia has had heatwaves since recorded history began over there.

    1896 — https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/64889112

    2009 — https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/4414203/Southern-Australia-endures-worst-heatwave-for-150-years.html

    This one is no worse than previous ones. The 1896 one recorded temperatures to 126F (52C).

    We are now locked into reporting by “news outlets” as the “worse ever” each year, when this is blatantly false.

    Even early this year January 2018 we had extreme temperatures and if you look at the map in the news article it looks remarkably similar to this Decembers one.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=126+f+tpo+c&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=

    Is there an actual increase in temperatures or frequency?

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  December 27, 2018

      Jim Hansen used this ‘it’s hot, therefor climate change!) trick way back in 1988 at the Senate testimony. This was given on a record hot day in Washington, in a room the air con was, strangely, off.

      Reply
    • Griff.

       /  December 27, 2018

      I see this logically challenged piece of drivel gets up ticked .
      A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.
      The temperature in one for one day in some small outback town vrs the temperature right around the Australia for weeks is not the same thing.
      As I know were this crap comes from it shows the poster is a few cans short of a six pack to read such a mind numbingly stupid source and repeat its content here.
      .

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  December 27, 2018

        Am sure that the good citizens of Adelaide and South Australia will be pleased to know they “live in some small outback town”.

        Can you demonstrate reason and facts or all you have is condescension to argue with?

        Are heatwaves getting worse in Australia or not?

        No.

        –“Maximum, minimum and mean temperatures for Australia nationally were all above average. The national mean temperature was 0.73 °C above average. Maximum temperatures were 0.53 °C above average and minimum temperatures were 0.93 °C above average.”–

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml

        Maybe you are a few cans short of a six pack?

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  December 27, 2018

          Your comment latest comment is filed in the round basket under the heading Not Even Wrong.
          AKA illogical gibbering
          If you want a respectful reply you need to construct an argument not an illogical rant chucking unconnected facts together.
          The gist of your gibber seems to be a non sequitur as the conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.
          The present heat wave in late December is not extreme because November was only so much over average .
          If you can not see the problem with this I suggest primary school level refresher on how days and months progress.
          A heat wave is high temperatures over a period of time .
          We will not know how extreme this one was until it ends some time in the future.

          Reply
  4. adamsmith1922

     /  December 27, 2018

    I see that Climate Change caused the recent tsunami in Indonesia. Ms Ardern said that. I find that statement to be very weird and very worrisome for what it says about our PM’s level of knowledge.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  December 27, 2018

      She may have crashed a tractor, but I find that difficult to believe. Do you got a link?

      Reply
      • adamsmith1922

         /  December 27, 2018

        Source seems to have disappeared. So please disregard comment until I can locate it again

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  December 27, 2018

          Frustrating, I know. For years I’ve tried to find out if anyone has a pic of that damned tractor.

          Reply
  5. Pink David

     /  December 27, 2018

    “Is it appropriate for an academic, a climate scientist, to be encouraging political activism?”

    That makes him a political activist, not a scientist.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 27, 2018

      Unfortunately the current fashion is for political activists to take up science as a career and for the correct activism to be an employment prerequisite. Apolitical rational science is obsolete. Massey University is merely the latest and greatest exhibition of this.

      Reply
    • Griff.

       /  December 27, 2018

      That makes him a political activist, not a scientist.
      And you have an actual reason why he can not be both ?
      opps thats right Griff logic and right wing are not found together .

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  December 27, 2018

        Difficult because science requires objectivity and, as Feynman famously and rightly pointed out, being the first to challenge your own assumptions and conclusions.

        A scientist questions them but an activist trumpets them.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  December 27, 2018

          Yess Alan
          Who uses the output of one Dr Roy Spencer self admitted political activist* and paid shrill for the fossil fuel industry as his go to climate scientist.
          Projection my friend .
          You guys are so blinded by your Psychological projection to get most of your illogical arguments stem from your own failings to act objectivity.
          As to the veiled conspiracy nonsense.
          More fuckwittery based on an inability to come to terms with what climate science says.

          *Roy Spencer quote
          “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.
          If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.”

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 27, 2018

            B.s. I don’t cite Spencer’s opinions, merely his facts. All you do is make personal attacks on him.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  December 27, 2018

              Like using his temperature series that is a lone outlier among the many available from many different methods ?
              That is not “fact” Alan its cherry picking outlying data to support a preconceived idea.
              https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/

              Or posting on here his rant on increasing damage from tropical cyclones not being linked to global warming?
              Argument from authority another logic fail.
              Dr Roy Spencer Phd is not in any way an expert on tropical cyclones.
              What Roy has to say about tropical cyclones is as meaningful as what I might have to say .

              Less so because I at lest try to base my opinions on what I know of atmospheric physics and the published output of known experts in the field not on what I am paid to say, my political ideology or my belief in god.

              Dr Roy Spencer Phd on tropical cyclones as posted by Alan .
              https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/14/hurricane-florence-climate-change-global-warming-weather-greenhouse-flood-column/1289272002/

              More informed view from Kerry Emanuel one of the worlds leading tropical cyclone experts.
              http://news.mit.edu/2017/kerry-emanuel-hurricanes-are-taste-future-0921

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 27, 2018

              If you actually bother to read Spencer and Emmanuel you will find the latter is all about models and predictions while Spencer is about data which Emmanuel admits is inadequate before 1943 and therefore too short to show trends.

            • Griff.

               /  December 27, 2018

              https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Z6eI_ZYAAAAJ&hl=en
              Kerry Emanuel
              Massachusetts Institute of Technology
              Tropical Meteorology,Hurricanes,Tropical Cyclones,Climate
              Citations 39172
              demonstrable One of worlds leading experts on tropical cyclones.
              First page of many.

              Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years
              K Emanuel
              Nature 436 (7051), 686
              Cites 3386 date 2005
              Tropical cyclones and climate change
              TR Knutson, JL McBride, J Chan, K Emanuel, G Holland, C Landsea, …
              Nature geoscience 3 (3), 157
              1887 2010
              An air-sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part I: Steady-state maintenance
              KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 43 (6), 585-605
              1692 1986
              Atmospheric convection
              KA Emanuel
              Oxford University Press on Demand
              1642 1994
              The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate
              KA Emanuel
              Nature 326 (6112), 483-485
              1012 1987
              A scheme for representing cumulus convection in large-scale models
              KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 48 (21), 2313-2329
              973 1991
              An air–sea interaction theory for tropical cyclones. Part II: Evolutionary study using a nonhydrostatic axisymmetric numerical model
              R Rotunno, KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 44 (3), 542-561
              733 1987
              Potential vorticity diagnostics of cyclogenesis
              CA Davis, KA Emanuel
              Monthly weather review 119 (8), 1929-1953
              704 1991
              On large‐scale circulations in convecting atmospheres
              KA Emanuel, JD Neelin, CS Bretherton
              Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 120 (519), 1111-1143
              698 1994
              Development and evaluation of a convection scheme for use in climate models
              KA Emanuel, M Živković-Rothman
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 56 (11), 1766-1782
              686 1999
              Sensitivity of tropical cyclones to surface exchange coefficients and a revised steady-state model incorporating eye dynamics
              KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 52 (22), 3969-3976
              681 1995
              Hurricanes and global warming: Results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations
              K Emanuel, R Sundararajan, J Williams
              Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89 (3), 347-368
              669 2008
              The maximum intensity of hurricanes
              KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 45 (7), 1143-1155
              669 1988
              Optimal sites for supplementary weather observations: Simulation with a small model
              EN Lorenz, KA Emanuel
              Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 55 (3), 399-414
              632 1998
              An air-sea interaction model of intraseasonal oscillations in the tropics
              KA Emanuel
              Journal of the atmospheric sciences 44 (16), 2324-2340
              612 1987
              Atlantic hurricane trends linked to climate change
              ME Mann, KA Emanuel
              Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 87 (24), 233-241
              602 2006
              Dissipative heating and hurricane intensity
              M Bister, KA Emanuel
              Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 65 (3-4), 233-240
              542 1998
              Thermodynamic control of hurricane intensity
              KA Emanuel
              Nature 401 (6754), 665
              539 1999
              Tropical cyclones and global climate change: A post-IPCC assessment
              A Henderson-Sellers, H Zhang, G Berz, K Emanuel, W Gray, C Landsea, …
              Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (1), 19-38
              520 1998
              Use of a genesis potential index to diagnose ENSO effects on tropical cyclone genesis
              SJ Camargo, KA Emanuel, AH Sobel
              Journal of Climate 20 (19), 4819-4834

              The amount of water vapor that can be carried by air is dependent on what Alan?
              Temperature.
              Warmer air carry’s more moisture so more rainfall .

              Tropical cyclones get their energy from where Alan?
              The top few hundred feet of ocean water .
              Physics warmer water makes a storm stronger because it has more energy available to drive it .

              These are both based on what we call models Alan as with nearly all physical sciences theory.

              This is totally uncontroversial yet you crank mate fails to address such basic science.
              In fact he has denied such basic physics in his other rants on tropical cyclones I have read. .

              Of interest is this graph of cost of natural disasters over time.

              Note how there is no change for the cost of geological based ones yet weather related disasters are increasing in cost.
              If the costs of weather based disasters increasing was due to increasing assets exposed you would see exactly the same rise for geological disasters.
              Instead a rational conclusion based on available facts would be .
              Better engineering standards are offsetting geological disasters so they show no change over time due to increasing assets exposed and weathers costs are increasing despite better engineering because of AGW.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 28, 2018

              Tldr;

      • Pink David

         /  December 27, 2018

        “And you have an actual reason why he can not be both ?”

        Because they are contradictory pursuits. This is self evident, even for you.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  December 27, 2018

          Argument by assertion.
          More illogical rubbish .
          Its like dealing with six year olds.

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  December 28, 2018

            Yet, here you still are.

            Reply
          • Griff.

             /  December 28, 2018

            ROFL
            My dear incoherent friend.
            I spend 10 years at university studying a subject.
            The following thirty researching it to the best of my ability.
            My published scientific research is considered to be outstanding by my peers.
            Early in my career I find a problem implicate in this study that must be addressed. After years of debate among the other experts in the field my finding of future jeopardy is now considered to be overwhelmingly supported by the worlds scientific community. Despite this uncontroversial evidence the political world fails to exhibit any will to resolve the issue at hand.

            I can not become a political activist for a resolution because?

            Actually such persons as James Hansen,Mike Mann,Kerry Emanuel,Gavin Schmidt are advocates for political change because they actually understand the fuckin subject far better than anyone else alive.

            Instead for climate change we get a steady stream of cranks, non experts and shrills trotted out by right wing lobbyist organizations in an industry funded effort to stall any change.

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  December 28, 2018

              “I can not become a political activist for a resolution because?”

              You most certainly can become a political activist. That means, by definition, you are no longer a scientist.

            • Griff.

               /  December 28, 2018

              Still making the same logic errors is see.

              Definitions.
              Political activist.
              people who get involved in the political process for the sake of promoting, impeding or raising awareness about a certain issue or set of issues.
              Scientist
              A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

              Nope…. There is no reason in the definitions why you can not be a political activist and still be a productive effective scientist.
              Particularly if the issue you rising awareness for as a Political activists is also your area of expertise as a Scientist.

              They are not mutually exclusive pastimes except in your fevered imagination.

              But hay its my yearly be nice to illogical nutbars hour.
              So whatever you like boy even it makes no sense at all.

            • Pink David

               /  December 28, 2018

              “But hay its my yearly be nice to illogical nutbars hour.”

              I don’t think you know what ‘nice’ is anymore than you understand the difference between activism and science. Any attempt at it, you will likely fail badly.

  6. Patzcuaro

     /  December 27, 2018

    Fact or fiction?

    Reply
  7. Dennis N Horne

     /  December 28, 2018

    Eunice Foote showed in 1856 that CO2 “trapped heat”. Tyndall again in 1859.

    So climate deniers have had plenty of time to show human activity, that has increased the CO2 in the atmosphere 45% (from 280 to 405ppm) has not caused Earth to retain more energy, warming the oceans and land surface measurably, and more greenhouses gases will not cause more warming.

    Consensus is not part of doing science; it is a consequence of doing it right. No rational person ignores the expert judgement and consensus of perhaps 70,000 scientists publishing climate science.

    NZ should be reducing GHG emissions. The UK and US emissions have been going down while ours have been going up.

    What we should do and what will do are two different things, but saying we don’t need to is insane.

    (Hello Griff. Good to see you still battling invincible ignorance. Unfortunately the young might just have to wait until the nutters die off.)

    Reply
  8. Mary McDonnell

     /  December 28, 2018

    Restrict the number of your children to two. No more air travel, ever. Use video conferencing instead. The rest is toying around the edges for the sake of appearances.

    And yes, I follow my own advice.

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  December 28, 2018

      “Restrict the number of your children to two.”

      The average reproduction rate in western countries is now less than replacement, well under 2.

      I also note your desire to impose restrictions on others that do not impact you.

      Reply
  9. Dennis N Horne

     /  December 28, 2018

    @Alan Wilkinson. Your suspicions are right: nobody could teach you anything about chemistry. You already know more than the American Chemical Society!

    Not to mention the Royal Society…

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  December 28, 2018

      Al has a PhD in Chemistry. Can’t be helped. Makes him insufferable at times. Not all the time though.

      Reply
      • Dennis N Horne

         /  December 28, 2018

        I know Wilkinson has a PhD in physical chemistry. So has Peter Carson, who also knows more than the global community of scientists. Australian, comments on theconversation.com

        Just shows you, eh. The difference between knowing stuff and thinking straight.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 28, 2018

      I note only one of the six parts of your link’s toolkit actually involves chemistry and of that I have probably spent more time analyzing infrared spectroscopy than most so your claims are as specious as ever, Dennis. Go try annoy someone else.

      Reply
      • Dennis N Horne

         /  December 28, 2018

        Oh look there’s a squirrel… What is the conclusion of the ACS?

        The science is wrong? We can ignore the warnings?

        Or is the ACS aligned with the NAS, AAAS, APS and every other scientific institution and learned society on the planet?

        But you know know better?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 28, 2018

          What is the conclusion of the ACS, Dennis? Chemistry has only a small uncontroversial part to play in the global warming issue so their professional expertise is limited and their pronouncements should be similarly circumspect.

          Reply
  10. Dennis N Horne

     /  December 28, 2018

    @Pink David. Tell me, what will be the cost of business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels? Where do you think the sea level might be in 2100?

    NZ can aim to
    1. Make electricity generation 100% renewable.
    2. Dramatically improve public transport; electrified, subsidised.
    3. Stop import internal combustion-engined vehicles: subsidise electric/hydrogen vehicles.
    4. Reduce emissions from farming. Difficult. Environmental issues will force reduction in sheep and cattle numbers.

    China is going to be very badly affected by global warming. Anyone who thinks NZ can do whatever it likes is not going to be fondly remembered by future generations.

    Personally I’m more than happy to carry on as usual, I don’t have any grandchildren.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 28, 2018

      Personally I can understand why you don’t have any grandchildren, Dennis.

      Reply
      • Dennis N Horne

         /  December 28, 2018

        Really? What part does a grandfather play in a daughter having children? In your case?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 28, 2018

          I have four lovely grandchildren and no fears whatever for their future and ability to deal with it.

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  December 28, 2018

          Did your daughter inherit your obsession with worrying about things you don’t understand?

          Reply
          • Dennis N Horne

             /  December 28, 2018

            Leaving aside my daughter-in-law is a theoretical physicist… What is the basis for your dismissal of the recent special report from the IPCC and the Fourth National Assessment (USA)?

            I know. Utter wankmongering cockwomblery.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 28, 2018

              If you can link to the dismissal you mention I may be able to help you.

            • Griff.

               /  December 29, 2018

              Alans denial is based on his libertarian ideology ruling his thinking not an actual understanding or in depth knowledge of science.
              Anyone aware of Dr Roy Spencer Phd’s history and past deceptions rights him off as a crank.
              Alan thinks Dr Roy is the go to guy on climate change science.
              Hence Alans ideas are heavily screwed by his bias and faith in a god addled paid fossil fuel shrill.
              I have come to think of it as Rightwing disease.
              Suckers who get taken in by blatant propaganda so badly they can not discern they are acting like illogical nutbars.

    • Pink David

       /  December 28, 2018

      “1. Make electricity generation 100% renewable.
      2. Dramatically improve public transport; electrified, subsidised.
      3. Stop import internal combustion-engined vehicles: subsidise electric/hydrogen vehicles.
      4. Reduce emissions from farming. Difficult. Environmental issues will force reduction in sheep and cattle numbers.”

      So, your plan is to create a massive increase in the electrical demand, while restricting any increase in supply to those technologies that produce very little relative to their investment costs, and require huge investment in the grid distribution.

      At the same time, you will severally restrict the ability of NZ to produce wealth from farming.

      Your idea is to impose massive costs (hundreds of billions), at the same time as reducing GDP. And you’re the one claiming the intellectual high ground?

      Given your plan, it’s clear your intent is to harm people.

      Reply
      • Griff.

         /  December 28, 2018

        So, your plan is to create a massive increase in the electrical demand, while restricting any increase in supply to those technologies that produce very little relative to their investment costs, and require huge investment in the grid distribution.

        hours UP

        Cost of renewable energy is cheaper than any alternate electricity source .
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
        There is more than sufficient wind energy already consented to replace transport with electricity in NZ
        Distributed energy does not require the massive increase in gird costs you suggest .
        As NZ is long and fine the main distribution lines run down the spine no place would be more than fifty odd km from a main feed,. We have one of the best wind resources in the world
        Look up roaring forty for the reason why. As we already have plenty of hydro that acts as energy storage we have no need to worry about the internment factor of adding wind energy .
        Is there any other rubbish you gonna pull from your stinky orifice boy?.

        Reply
        • Pink David

           /  December 28, 2018

          “Cost of renewable energy is cheaper than any alternate electricity source .”

          If this is true, then there is no need for any more action. Renewables will be were all the investment is and the world is saved, as we are indeed on the A1T track.

          There is also no need for your posts on this topic either, yet here you are?

          “There is more than sufficient wind energy already consented to replace transport with electricity in NZ”

          No there isn’t.

          “Distributed energy does not require the massive increase in gird costs you suggest ”

          Yes it does.

          Reply
  1. What each of us can do to tackle climate change — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s