Conservatives waking up to climate change

[flacaltenn]

Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.

Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:

A new report has spelled out our future under climate change - but warns there is still much to learn over what it will mean for extreme events, diseases, pests and other impacts.

The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.

There would be less rainfall in summer and autumn over the west of the North Island - but rates could increase by 5 per cent in winter and spring.

The picture was again different on the other side of the island; the Gisborne and Hawkes Bay regions stood to lose up to 10 per cent of its winter and spring rainfall.

Extreme weather on the horizon - National - NZ Herald News

This is EXACTLY the type of BullCrap that clouds your thinking and scientific objectivity..

Some politically appointed wanker goes off and channels Nostradamus making extraordinary PINPOINT FORECASTS for regions of their little islands --- 100 yrs into the future --- And MORONS call that "climate science"..

Even your article quotes Climate scientists TRYING to be skeptical about such arrogant nonsense..

The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.

But a climate scientist said it might never be possible to accurately pin-point future climates in specific locations.

The report does, however, make broad predictions for various regions around the country over coming decades, outlining wind, temperature, rainfall and seasonal extremes.
Victoria University climate scientist Dr James Renwick believed there was only so far scientists could go in attempting to make accurate projections.

"The smaller down the scale you go, the harder it is to do," he told the Herald.

"It's fairly easy to be sure about the global-scale changes, but when it gets down to local levels, there are so many things going on.

You have to suspend MOST of reality to believe horseshit like this.. INCLUDING what the science says is possible..

 

[S.J.]

Climate change occurs naturally, man has nothing to do with it. Global warming is a politically driven hoax. If it were not, the left would be forcing the REAL offenders to comply with their "solutions". The U.S. has the strictest environmental laws in the world, yet they are targeted as the cause of something that doesn't even exist. It's all bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate change occurs naturally, man has nothing to do with it. Global warming is a politically driven hoax. If it were not, the left would be forcing the REAL offenders to comply with their "solutions". The U.S. has the strictest environmental laws in the world, yet they are targeted as the cause of something that doesn't even exist. It's all bullshit.

AGW is a scary doomsday Cult, the legions of followers are brainless zealots

 

[westwall]

Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.

Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:

A new report has spelled out our future under climate change - but warns there is still much to learn over what it will mean for extreme events, diseases, pests and other impacts.

The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.

There would be less rainfall in summer and autumn over the west of the North Island - but rates could increase by 5 per cent in winter and spring.

The picture was again different on the other side of the island; the Gisborne and Hawkes Bay regions stood to lose up to 10 per cent of its winter and spring rainfall.

Extreme weather on the horizon - National - NZ Herald News

This is EXACTLY the type of BullCrap that clouds your thinking and scientific objectivity..

Some politically appointed wanker goes off and channels Nostradamus making extraordinary PINPOINT FORECASTS for regions of their little islands --- 100 yrs into the future --- And MORONS call that "climate science"..

Even your article quotes Climate scientists TRYING to be skeptical about such arrogant nonsense..

The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.

But a climate scientist said it might never be possible to accurately pin-point future climates in specific locations.

The report does, however, make broad predictions for various regions around the country over coming decades, outlining wind, temperature, rainfall and seasonal extremes.
Victoria University climate scientist Dr James Renwick believed there was only so far scientists could go in attempting to make accurate projections.

"The smaller down the scale you go, the harder it is to do," he told the Herald.

"It's fairly easy to be sure about the global-scale changes, but when it gets down to local levels, there are so many things going on.

You have to suspend MOST of reality to believe horseshit like this.. INCLUDING what the science says is possible..

Saggy is a PROPAGANDIST. He doesn't give a rats ass about scientific integrity or accuracy. He only cares about his message and furthering global collectivization.

 

[westwall]

Meanwhile...from today's NZ Herald...

A major US report held as the world's most authorative annual climate check has shown a range of records were broken last year - and mostly for the wrong reasons.

The 2012 State of the Climate report, released this morning, found that average temperatures across global land and sea surfaces last year ranked among the 10 warmest years on record.

And it showed New Zealand stood on the edge on an area experiencing the fastest rising sea levels on Earth.

Vital Statistics

* 392.66 parts per million - the projected concentration of CO2 in the world's atmosphere in 2012, a level exceeded in some parts of the globe.
* 35.6 billion tonnes - projected global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production.
* 97 per cent - a worrying new melt extent record observed at the Greenland Ice Sheet last September, meaning nearly all of the vast body was seen to be melting.
* 285 - people killed when Hurricane Sandy struck the US.
* 2.1C deg - mid-range projections for average temperature rises in New Zealand by 2090.

Range of climate records broken - report - National - NZ Herald News

Oh, looky! Big numbers to scare the savages! Sooooo we have the weight of the CO2 at
35,600,000,000 tons...but the weight of the atmosphere is
5,700,000,000,000,000 tons. Hmmmm, that little CO2 number reeeeeeaaallly doesn't look too impressive any more...maybe that's why you didn't include it....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.

Really? Is that your opinion or did one of the Koch Brothers pay you to post that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.

Really? Is that your opinion or did one of the Koch Brothers pay you to post that?

nobody cares about the Koch bro's except the fringe k00ks on the left.

 

[Saigon]

Flac-

Some politically appointed wanker

Firstly, you forgot to mention - a CONSERVATIVE politially apppointed wanker. Which is the basis of this thread, i.e. that real conservative politicians have come to understand climate change.

What this means for sceptics, is that there is now virtually no one left in your corner. We have seen oil companies and auto manufacturers abandon climate denial, and now conservative politicians and parties have joined them.

Secondly, and as explained earlier, the conservative PM obviously appoints an adviser he feels best equipped to keep him up to speed. If you are suggesting that he delierately chooses someone poor, I suggest you don't understand the process terribly well.

Thirdyl, if you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Lastly, I do agree with the scientists quoted - not all changes can be predicted at a local level. NZ is too small, and has too many micro-climates.

 

[S.J.]

btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Speaking of 100 years, the hottest temperature in the history of our planet was 100 years ago, not recently.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.

Really? Is that your opinion or did one of the Koch Brothers pay you to post that?

nobody cares about the Koch bro's except the fringe k00ks on the left.

Sorry Kook, everyone knows that Scalia and Thomas are their buds.

 

[Saigon]

btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Speaking of 100 years, the hottest temperature in the history of our planet was 100 years ago, not recently.

I just checked that, and was surprised to find it is true - although only because a more recent reading from Libya was disqualified!

But it is important here to try and really step away from the politics and grasp the facts -

The hottest year on record is 2010.
The hottest year on American records is 2012.
The hottest decade on record is 2000 -2009.

These are the 10 hottest years on record:

1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995

Note that 13 of the warmest years have occured in the past 15 years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/

It is this kind of data which explains why essentially all scientists and scientific bodies tell us that human activity impacts our climate. It is this kind of data which the few remaining sceptics really need to go away and think about again.

 

[S.J.]

btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Speaking of 100 years, the hottest temperature in the history of our planet was 100 years ago, not recently.

I just checked that, and was surprised to find it is true - although only because a more recent reading from Libya was disqualified!

But it is important here to try and really step away from the politics and grasp the facts -

The hottest year on record is 2010.
The hottest year on American records is 2012.
The hottest decade on record is 2000 -2009.

These are the 10 hottest years on record:

1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995

Note that 13 of the warmest years have occured in the past 15 years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/

It is this kind of data which explains why essentially all scientists and scientific bodies tell us that human activity impacts our climate. It is this kind of data which the few remaining sceptics really need to go away and think about again.

If there really was global warming it would be 15 out of 15.

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

No, it would not be 15/15. Weather isn ever going to be so perfect and predictable that it does exactly what any theory or model says it is going to do. Next year might be cold. It might be hotter still.

Put it this way - if you were hearing about this topic for the first time today, and heard that 13 of the hottest years on record had all occured within the past 15 years, you'd be amazed. And convinced.

It is such a strange feature of this site that so much of the apparent scepiticism to climate science is based purely and simply on politics, and has actually nothing to do with the science itself.

 

[westwall]

Flac-

Some politically appointed wanker

Firstly, you forgot to mention - a CONSERVATIVE politially apppointed wanker. Which is the basis of this thread, i.e. that real conservative politicians have come to understand climate change.

What this means for sceptics, is that there is now virtually no one left in your corner. We have seen oil companies and auto manufacturers abandon climate denial, and now conservative politicians and parties have joined them.

Secondly, and as explained earlier, the conservative PM obviously appoints an adviser he feels best equipped to keep him up to speed. If you are suggesting that he delierately chooses someone poor, I suggest you don't understand the process terribly well.

Thirdyl, if you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Lastly, I do agree with the scientists quoted - not all changes can be predicted at a local level. NZ is too small, and has too many micro-climates.

Keep talking to yourself 'cause you and yours are the only one's who believes your bullcrap.

The facts are the VAST majority of the people on this planet (obviously not the one you're from) no longer believe your fairy tales. You all have collectively cried wolf one too many times.

 

[westwall]

Really? Is that your opinion or did one of the Koch Brothers pay you to post that?

nobody cares about the Koch bro's except the fringe k00ks on the left.

Sorry Kook, everyone knows that Scalia and Thomas are their buds.

And who exactly are Soros's buds? Hmmmm? Funny how you neglect to mention him. He's a well known scumbag and funds most of your programs, foundations, groups, etc. I would wager that he gives far more money to his causes than the Kochs give to theirs.

 

[westwall]

btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Speaking of 100 years, the hottest temperature in the history of our planet was 100 years ago, not recently.

I just checked that, and was surprised to find it is true - although only because a more recent reading from Libya was disqualified!

But it is important here to try and really step away from the politics and grasp the facts -

The hottest year on record is 2010.
The hottest year on American records is 2012.
The hottest decade on record is 2000 -2009.

These are the 10 hottest years on record:

1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995

Note that 13 of the warmest years have occured in the past 15 years.

PolitiFact | Barack Obama says the 12 hottest years on record have come in the last 15 years

It is this kind of data which explains why essentially all scientists and scientific bodies tell us that human activity impacts our climate. It is this kind of data which the few remaining sceptics really need to go away and think about again.

2012 only ranked 9th according to the Master of Temperature Records Hansen. Might want to check your sources again....

 

[Saigon]

2012 only ranked 9th according to the Master of Temperature Records Hansen. Might want to check your sources again....

And you might want to check your reading skills - 2012 is the hottest year on American record, but the 9th warmest on global record.

Actually, this is a great example of what I've been talking about here, because you clearly find no fault in the science that is presented, but rather than admit that all of the science and evidence points to rising temperatures, you sit snarling in the corner like some spanked child.

How long can you keep that up, do you think?

Surely at some point even you are going to have to admit that the boat has long since sailed?

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

No, it would not be 15/15. Weather isn ever going to be so perfect and predictable that it does exactly what any theory or model says it is going to do. Next year might be cold. It might be hotter still.

Put it this way - if you were hearing about this topic for the first time today, and heard that 13 of the hottest years on record had all occured within the past 15 years, you'd be amazed. And convinced.

It is such a strange feature of this site that so much of the apparent scepiticism to climate science is based purely and simply on politics, and has actually nothing to do with the science itself.

The beauty of your global warming theory is that you can disregard logic when it doesn't fit your agenda, but use logic to make your point, like you just did.

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

Science does not have "an agenda".

Essentially all scientists and all scientific organisations confirm that human acivitity impacts the environment. Most oil companies, auto manufacturers and conservative politicians now agree with them.

If you read the science available, you'll agree with them as well. It really is that simple.

If you don't want to believe scientists, then by all means don't, but you should be adult enough to admit both that not a single scientific body shares you point of view, and that your position is based entirely and totally upon your political views.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

Science does not have "an agenda".

Essentially all scientists and all scientific organisations confirm that human acivitity impacts the environment. Most oil companies, auto manufacturers and conservative politicians now agree with them.

If you read the science available, you'll agree with them as well. It really is that simple.

Stop trying to change the subject. You didn't address the fact that you disregard logic when logic points to the inconsistencies of your "science". You cling to logic when it comes to your 13 out of 15 years, but ignore the logic that suggests the hottest day in history would not have been 100 years ago if the earth is consistently getting hotter, not to mention the logic that there would not be a break of a couple of years in rising temperatures if the earth is consistently getting hotter. Why is it "global warming" when you're making your claim, but it's "weather" when you can't explain a cooling trend?