No sign of Zero Carbon Bill yet

A Zero Carbon act was supposed to be in force this month, but a draft bill hasn’t even been presented to Parliament yet.

This was the number one item in the Labour-Green confidence and supply agreement:

Sustainable Economy

  1. Adopt and make progress towards the goal of a Net Zero Emissions Economy by 2050,
    with a particular focus on policy development and initiatives in transport and urban form,
    energy and primary industries in accordance with milestones to be set by an independent
    Climate Commission and with a focus on establishing Just Transitions for exposed regions
    and industries.

a.   Introduce a Zero Carbon Act and establish an independent Climate Commission
b.   All new legislation will have a climate impact assessment analysis.
c.   A comprehensive set of environmental, social and economic sustainability indicators will be developed.
d.   A new cross-agency climate change board of public sector CEOs will be established.

So an April introduction of the bill is now ‘mid-2019’.

There has been speculation that the Zero Carbon Bill may be progressed as a quid pro quo for NZ First stopping any CGT. James Shaw has denied this – see James Shaw on “do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?” – but as Shaw seems to have been shut out of discussions over the CGT he may not know what Ardern and Peters may have agreed on.

 

Leave a comment

63 Comments

  1. Zedd

     /  22nd April 2019

    I welcomed this MMP Govt., at first (after 9 looong years) but as time goes on.. perhaps it looks less attractive; esp. for Greens ?? :/

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  22nd April 2019

      Thats because Greens are not part of the Coalition. Simple reality . They are just support partners along for the ride . ACT found out the same thing applied to them after 2008, at last a chance to come near the levers of power and all that stuff they believed in about small government. Fat chance of it happening and it broke the party in two as Key- English-Joyce became more Keynesian than Keynes.

      Zero Carbon is high faluting nonsense anyway which appeals to well off left leaning voters – a minority, mostly in occupations that dont make or sell stuff.
      Gareth Morgan or James Shaw are prime examples – financial services and ‘ecology services’ respectively.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  22nd April 2019

        Gareth Morgan’s idea of a contribution was to sell his huge petrol-drinking car and buy a smaller one, so someone else could have the guilt of driving the big one.

        Reply
      • Zedd

         /  22nd April 2019

        @Duker

        sounds like being a C&S partner to Lab-NZF coalition, has to be better than in opposition.. BUT without them, this MMP Govt. will collapse; something all three parties need to remember.

        Im guessing that even NZF dont really want to ‘go with Natl’ or be back in opposition either ? :/ 😀

        Reply
  2. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019

    Richard Attenborough’s video was shown on BBC Thursday night. May not last on youtube.

    Climate Change – The Facts

    also
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypaUH57MO4

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/climate_denier
    Definition of climate denier in English:
    A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring.

    Max Planck: Science advances one funeral at a time.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  22nd April 2019

      Definition of an idiot: someone impervious to facts and common sense.

      As has Dennis has been told many times, most climate sceptics are not deniers according to that definition. Like Blazer that basic information will make absolutely no difference to his future “thinking” and comments.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  22nd April 2019

        There is also the stupid assumption that people are denying that climate change happens; I have been accused of this here and abused for it, despite the fact that I have never said it or thought it. But to the pigheaded, this is a bagatelle.

        What many people think is that as climate change has happened many times before, there is a limit to what people can do to stop it. This doesn’t mean that those of us who think that don’t think that recycling and reducing waste and pollution are not good things in their own right.

        I do find it odd that Eugenie Sage sees a shopkeeper who gives out a plastic bag as a criminal who can be fined FIVE TIMES what a careless driver causing death can be fined.

        To me, killing someone is a worse crime than using a plastic bag, especially as the polyprop substitutes are also plastic.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  22nd April 2019

          The plastic bag ban is the ultimate posturing insanity you would hope but the Left are so stupid it probably isn’t.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  22nd April 2019

            I don’t use plastic bags with gay abandon; I use and reuse them and make them earn their keep. I use breadbags in the supermarket and so on. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t reuse plastic bags.

            Try keeping things dry in a paper or polyprop bag. I had one of the new polyprop bags; it was so badly made that the seams fell apart immediately because the maker hadn’t finished them off by sewing back at the ends. Another one split for no obvious reason. They were flimsier than plastic bags !!!

            It annoys me that Ms Sage seems not to worry too much about the massive amount of disposable plastic that is still for sale, things like plates made from plastic that can’t be recycled. Who has ever seen these go anywhere but into a rubbish bag?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd April 2019

              Yep, pack of idiots I curse daily. The bags only go in the rubbish when they are dirty or broken.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  22nd April 2019

              I use one in the kitchen bin and keep taking it out to the big bin with a black sack in it and emptying it into it. When there were the soft plastic recycling bins, I’d wash the bin bag when it split and put it in one of those.

              But even if they eventually go into landfill, they squash down into a tiny space. Unlike other plastic things like the tat that’s sold for St Patrick’s Day and other occasions. Or the various other tat that is still sold unchecked.

      • Griff.

         /  22nd April 2019

        Alan,
        Your hero Dr Roy Spencer PhD is a member of the 3% on the fringe of climate science .
        That makes him either a crank or a denier .
        Or in his case both, .
        Your pleading that the fringe are not deniers is merely you trying to convince your self your views more mainstream rather than the flat earth level of loony they really are.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  22nd April 2019

          No, I’m simply pointing out the stupidity of most of Dennis’s comments.

          And likewise your and his ad hominems.

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  22nd April 2019

          Saying that someone is a denier is meaningless unless you tell what they are denying.. Or, in the case of climate change, what sort of climate change or aspect of it is meant.

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  22nd April 2019

          Science isn’t a democracy. The majority doesn’t win by numbers alone
          Having computer software that uses probability and turns it into prophecy isn’t science either.
          Nor is referring to discrete weather events as climate.

          Reply
      • Dennis Horne

         /  22nd April 2019

        A PhD chemist who believes he knows more science than the American Chemical Society, and for that matter the American Physical Society, National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society etc etc etc, all of which endorse the science and the consensus, is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        Human activity accounts for ALL the present warming.

        We now face a climate crisis. Business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels will cause the collapse of Western Civilisation. Our descendants will not be able to adjust to an increase of 3-6C by 2100.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  22nd April 2019

          You’ll be dead by then, Dennis, and science will have advanced.

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  22nd April 2019

          What caused it before, Dennis ? What caused the ice ages and the ends of these ice ages ?

          Reply
          • Dennis Horne

             /  22nd April 2019

            Informed scientists will tell you it’s Milankovitch cycles, and Earth should be (and was) cooling before human activity caused it to warm rapidly — by increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In particular CO2 has increased 45%, from 280 to 412ppm.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  23rd April 2019

              Why was there such arctic weather in the c.19 with the Thames freezing over ?

  3. Kitty Catkin

     /  22nd April 2019

    I wonder if Labour are getting cold feet on this after the CGT bellyflop.

    Reply
  4. alloytoo

     /  22nd April 2019

    If we want to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale we should start building nuclear power stations.

    It’s the only sensible course of action and as as added bonus works in a potential ice age.

    Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  22nd April 2019

      Same applies to utilising GE to solve the food and medical issues arising from climate change. Including an ice age.

      But at the moment, almost as much as nuclear power, that is off the table for NZ. On account of ideological dogma.

      Reply
    • Dennis Horne

       /  22nd April 2019

      Abundant wind and solar available right now using current technology — so long before a nuclear (fission) power station ever came off the drawing board. Also much cheaper leaving no residual radioactive waste. Note nuclear is not considered renewable and fission is always 25 years away..

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  22nd April 2019

        Not abundant solar…once the sun goes down.
        Wind energy has the problem that only 25% of capacity is usable output over a year.
        That’s not abundant.
        By comparison a baseload coal fired power station has over 80% useable output over a year
        I dread to think how low solar power is

        Reply
    • Griff.

       /  22nd April 2019

      Nuclear ?
      Beside the fact we live in one the the most Tectonically Active places in the world…..

      https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  22nd April 2019

        What does that even mean? Levelised cost? What are solar people going to use when they get home after dark ….in winter when daylight is shorter and sun is low in sky by 3:30

        Reply
    • Dennis Horne

       /  22nd April 2019

      WRONG. Abundant wind and solar available right now using current technology — so long before a nuclear (fission) power station ever came off the drawing board. Also much cheaper leaving no residual radioactive waste. Note nuclear is not considered renewable and fission is always 25 years away.

      Combined with pumped hydro with some batteries and a smart grid we could do it.

      Reply
  5. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019


    Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016)
    Jerry Kroth. Published on Nov 17, 2015 (revised 2016)
    Prof. Jerry Kroth outlines the huge level of denial about global warming that exists in American culture. Corporate media propaganda, from Glenn Beck to Michael Savage, has so savaged American public consciousness that close to 30 percent of Americans now believe global warming to be a hoax or a liberal conspiracy. (Only 2 % of Canadians shares these beliefs). There is still hope and still time that we could mitigate what is coming, but the remedies are far more radical than anything we have supposed, and success is not likely in view of the present level of propaganda wafting across our airways.

    Reply
  6. Corky

     /  22nd April 2019

    Thorium nuclear power is always an option. Wind and solar will never be able to supply our energy needs. Cold Fusion and Zero point energy are the future of mankind’s energy needs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416932-700-science-where-does-the-zero-point-energy-came-from/

    Reply
    • Dennis Horne

       /  22nd April 2019

      Wind and solar could easily supply all our needs; nuclear generation is simply not necessary, desirable or cost-effective. Hinkley Point C in the UK is financially a flop and behind schedule; neither of other stations are not proceeding.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  22nd April 2019

        If you are paying I don’t mind. If I am paying I do mind. Solar and wind are like public transport..they need to be heavily subsidised. Similar to electric cars at the moment.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  22nd April 2019

          ”Yes, wind is free. But the process of turning sunlight and wind into usable energy on a mass scale is far from free. In fact, compared to the other sources of energy — fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectric power, solar and wind power are very expensive”

          Reply
    • Griff.

       /  22nd April 2019

      Thorium reactors?.
      As yet only a few trial reactors have been run at lest thirty years away from commercial production if ever. Still has issues with waste disposal, cost, weapon proliferation and safety.

      Cold fission and zero point energy = not based on any known technology or even theoretically possible with what we now know aka Corky lick lick.

      Wind and solar alone…why rule out technology we already have ?
      Geothermal and Hydro along with Wind and Solar plus storage can already supply our needs with technology available today and at a similar cost to the present grid.

      Its not that you are an idiot thats a given.
      It is that you are not alone others uptick your blatant idiocy.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  22nd April 2019

        Is it true you stay up all night over Easter trying to get a glimpse of the Easter Bunny, Griff?
        You are a genuine moron..one who pushes the barrow of others without understanding the subject in hand. A sucker for Climate Disaster hucksters.🙄✔

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  22nd April 2019

          Reply
        • Griff.

           /  22nd April 2019

          ROFL
          And you get upticks for that dribbling .

          Stupidity has company.

          List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

          The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

          Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
          Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
          Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
          Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
          Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
          Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
          Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
          Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
          Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
          Académie des Sciences, France
          Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
          Academy of Athens
          Academy of Science of Mozambique
          Academy of Science of South Africa
          Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
          Academy of Sciences Malaysia
          Academy of Sciences of Moldova
          Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
          Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
          Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
          Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
          Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
          Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
          African Academy of Sciences
          Albanian Academy of Sciences
          Amazon Environmental Research Institute
          American Academy of Pediatrics
          American Anthropological Association
          American Association for the Advancement of Science
          American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
          American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
          American Astronomical Society
          American Chemical Society
          American College of Preventive Medicine
          American Fisheries Society
          American Geophysical Union
          American Institute of Biological Sciences
          American Institute of Physics
          American Meteorological Society
          American Physical Society
          American Public Health Association
          American Quaternary Association
          American Society for Microbiology
          American Society of Agronomy
          American Society of Civil Engineers
          American Society of Plant Biologists
          American Statistical Association
          Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
          Australian Academy of Science
          Australian Bureau of Meteorology
          Australian Coral Reef Society
          Australian Institute of Marine Science
          Australian Institute of Physics
          Australian Marine Sciences Association
          Australian Medical Association
          Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
          Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
          Botanical Society of America
          Brazilian Academy of Sciences
          British Antarctic Survey
          Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
          California Academy of Sciences
          Cameroon Academy of Sciences
          Canadian Association of Physicists
          Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
          Canadian Geophysical Union
          Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
          Canadian Society of Soil Science
          Canadian Society of Zoologists
          Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
          Center for International Forestry Research
          Chinese Academy of Sciences
          Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
          Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
          Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
          Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
          Crop Science Society of America
          Cuban Academy of Sciences
          Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
          Ecological Society of America
          Ecological Society of Australia
          Environmental Protection Agency
          European Academy of Sciences and Arts
          European Federation of Geologists
          European Geosciences Union
          European Physical Society
          European Science Foundation
          Federation of American Scientists
          French Academy of Sciences
          Geological Society of America
          Geological Society of Australia
          Geological Society of London
          Georgian Academy of Sciences
          German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
          Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
          Indian National Science Academy
          Indonesian Academy of Sciences
          Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
          Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
          Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
          Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
          InterAcademy Council
          International Alliance of Research Universities
          International Arctic Science Committee
          International Association for Great Lakes Research
          International Council for Science
          International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
          International Research Institute for Climate and Society
          International Union for Quaternary Research
          International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
          International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
          Islamic World Academy of Sciences
          Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
          Kenya National Academy of Sciences
          Korean Academy of Science and Technology
          Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
          l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
          Latin American Academy of Sciences
          Latvian Academy of Sciences
          Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
          Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
          Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
          Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
          National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
          National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
          National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
          National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
          National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration
          National Association of Geoscience Teachers
          National Association of State Foresters
          National Center for Atmospheric Research
          National Council of Engineers Australia
          National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          National Research Council
          National Science Foundation
          Natural England
          Natural Environment Research Council, UK
          Natural Science Collections Alliance
          Network of African Science Academies
          New York Academy of Sciences
          Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
          Nigerian Academy of Sciences
          Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
          Oklahoma Climatological Survey
          Organization of Biological Field Stations
          Pakistan Academy of Sciences
          Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
          Pew Center on Global Climate Change
          Polish Academy of Sciences
          Romanian Academy
          Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
          Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
          Royal Astronomical Society, UK
          Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
          Royal Irish Academy
          Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
          Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
          Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
          Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
          Royal Society of Canada
          Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
          Royal Society of the United Kingdom
          Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
          Russian Academy of Sciences
          Science and Technology, Australia
          Science Council of Japan
          Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
          Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
          Scripps Institution of Oceanography
          Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
          Slovak Academy of Sciences
          Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
          Society for Ecological Restoration International
          Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
          Society of American Foresters
          Society of Biology (UK)
          Society of Systematic Biologists
          Soil Science Society of America
          Sudan Academy of Sciences
          Sudanese National Academy of Science
          Tanzania Academy of Sciences
          The Wildlife Society (international)
          Turkish Academy of Sciences
          Uganda National Academy of Sciences
          Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
          United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
          University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
          Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
          Woods Hole Research Center
          World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
          World Federation of Public Health Associations
          World Forestry Congress
          World Health Organization
          World Meteorological Organization
          Zambia Academy of Sciences
          Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  22nd April 2019

            How many hold Dennis’s view that all global warming has been caused by humans?

            In fact most of them have stated my view that human activities have affected the climate and are some of the factors that do.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  22nd April 2019

              Can you actually read Alan?

              The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action
              </blockquote<

              IPCC.
              Best estimate 110% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by human actions .
              That is the consensus view the above institutions are supporting.

              Again
              You are a fringe dweller who denies well supported science .
              Little better than a flat earthier mate.
              .

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd April 2019

              Yes, can you? That doesn’t answer my question.

            • Griff.

               /  22nd April 2019

              How many hold Dennis’s view that all global warming has been caused by humans?

              How much warming by humans ?
              IPCC.
              Best estimate 110% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by human actions .
              That is the consensus view the above institutions are supporting.

              That does not rule out a contribution to the warming before 1950 it is just less certain how much and when human induced warming started.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd April 2019

              Rubbish Griff. 110% is rubbish, starting in 1950 is rubbish and so is the claim these professional organisations agree with that. They have a more nuanced professional view, eg: ACS:

              The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.

              Continuing to improve and strengthen our societies’ scientific understanding and literacy concerning all aspects of climate change is vitally important, enabling us to make informed decisions at national and international levels and helping us to lessen the future risk of climate change.

            • Griff.

               /  23rd April 2019

              Global Climate Change
              ACS Position Statement

              https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html
              References
              IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) ( http://www.ipcc.ch/)
              a. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
              b. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
              c. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
              d. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. (IPCC is 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming.)


              IPCC AR5 figure 10.5: Likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black.

              YOU WERE SAYING?
              Opss that right you are in denial and have no fuckin idea about how much of a fringe dwelling nutter you are when it comes to climate science .

            • Conspiratoor

               /  23rd April 2019

              “110% of the warming since 1950”

              That seems a little odd to me. How is it possible to have more of something that has already occurred? Perhaps these esteemed gents want another crack at it. I’m sure Cliff will have a plausible answer

            • Griff.

               /  23rd April 2019

              Try that link again.
              IPCC AR5 figure 10.5

            • Griff.

               /  23rd April 2019

              More than all the warming 110%

              Human emissions of aerosols{other anthropogenic forcings (OA) }which result in cooling have masked some of the warming potential of our emissions of green house gasses (GHG).
              Hence combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) =110% of the actual Warming.

              Even Some PhD’s have difficulty with this concept.
              This post on real climate has a more involved explanation of the 110% .
              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  23rd April 2019

              Try not to sound like a drivelling idiot, Griff. Just because ACS links to the IPCC report doesn’t mean they agree with every speculation in it. They’ve given their position and I cited it.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  23rd April 2019

              Cheers Griff. So to a layman it would appear we are simultaneously warming and cooling the atmosphere at the same time

              It would also appear from this graph there is little or no increase in GHG emissions anywhere in the world except asia. In fact in the OECD it is declining. So it is a reasonable question to ask why the contributors to this dire state of affairs aren’t being forced to clean up their act. China and India are just taking the piss surely

            • Griff.

               /  23rd April 2019

              Alan ‘they give the IPCC reports as the reference for their statement..
              Such a cite means they are relying on the IPCC conclusions to inform their position.

            • Griff.

               /  23rd April 2019

              in fact in the OECD it is declining. So it is a reasonable question to ask why the contributors to this dire state of affairs aren’t being forced to clean up their act. China and India are just taking the piss surely

              Emissions per capita.
              Every person has an equal right to pollute our atmosphere.
              China each person emits 2.04 metric tons
              USA each person emits 4.43 tons .
              https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Environment/CO2-Emissions-from-Fossil-fuel/CO2-emissions-per-capita
              Why should some one in the USA get to put more into the atmosphere than someone in china ?
              The west has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution In the 1800’s.
              China and India have been contributing significantly only for the last few decades .

            • Conspiratoor

               /  23rd April 2019

              “Why should some one in the USA get to put more into the atmosphere than someone in china ?”

              I get your point Griff but the atmosphere and the doomsday scenario don’t care how much you and I contribute compared to your average chinese peasant.

              Emissions from asia are increasing at a greater rate than the developing world’s are falling. If those graphs are correct the USA could halve their emissions and it would have a negligible effect on the outcome unless the major polluters front up now instead of waiting another 10 years

            • Dennis Horne

               /  22nd April 2019

              Link or cite three papers published in Nature or Science that any or all have written in the field of climate science.

              There are perhaps 8 million research scientists and you link to a self- selected group of people, very few of whom are doing research in any branch of science let alone climate science.

              Quite simply, you don’t know what science is, how it works, or where to find it.

            • Corky.

               /  23rd April 2019

              An own goal there, Dennis. Run down the list of names silly old Griff has given. I sometimes feel guilty having to correct the likes of people like you. However, ignorance must be met and exposed.

      • Corky

         /  22nd April 2019

        Griff wouldn’t have known about Thorium if he tripped over it. Now he’s a man of knowledge.

        Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  23rd April 2019

      Nuclear power is unlikely to happen in NZ, I hope, whether it’s thorium or any other kind.

      Reply
  7. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019

    No idea what happened to the link, here it is again:

    Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016) Jerry Kroth.

    Reply
  8. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019

    Try again:

    Reply
  9. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019

    Okay. You need to click on symbol top left corner to get playlist and choose 13.

    Reply
  10. Dennis Horne

     /  22nd April 2019

    Very clear lecture by a top mathematician:

    The Mathematics of Climate Change
    Gresham College
    Published on Nov 22, 2018
    Climate change is controversial and the subject of huge debate. Complex climate models based on maths helps us understand. How do these models work

    [Note. The forum for scientific debate is scientific publishing: peer-reviewed journals. There is no scientific debate about the reality and seriousness of man made global warming. Out of some 70,000 publishing climate scientists barely a handful disagree: Spencer, Christie, Curry, Lindzen. All have been thoroughly debunked.]

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Alan Wilkinson Cancel 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