Now New Zealand forge climate data!

[Teki187]

I don't know what MSM means I was simply saying that this 'news' (which I actually agree with) has not been on the TV, newspapers, or radio (local, national, nor World Service).

Seems a bit odd.

MSM means "Main Stream Media" and the reason why you dont know, is because they don't want you too.

Why allow news companies to broadcast against the policies there trying to push via those same news companies?

 

[Teki187]

No, should I? (although just having browsed through it does seem more normal, however the other links just seem like a load of random blogs...)

The blog links are for variation and possible external links to other new sites and the Examiner is a well respected news site (still highly MSM though)

 

[Berserker]

I'd have said it was arrogant to think we are so powerful as to change the climate.

An interesting argument. Although I won't deny it's a tenuous link, would this also extend to the ozone hole? Was the CFC ban a waste of time?

I'd say it's arrogant to assume either way. Indeed, it's arrogant to assume we know enough to be able to know either way (and I count the Climategate group as the epitome of this latter arrogance). Does that mean we bury our heads in the sand, carry on as we are, and assume it'll never happen, or take steps to reduce our dependency upon fossil fuels (especially fossil fuels from sources that we have no control over)?

I don't have the answers - but that doesn't diminish my right to ask the questions.

 

[Amp34]

Change is a good thing when its needed, but why fix something that isnt broken?

Granted deforestation, dumping and other things that are dangerous to the environment are really important issues, but with this pointless crusade on climate change, these issues are being overlooked.

These issues are part of one big whole. Reducing our CO2/gas output is onnected to deforestation and use of the earths resources. People always jump up and complain about petrol costs but that is just one small part of it. You reduce emissions by reducing consumption, that includes wood, metals, oil/petrol etc. meaning less need for deforestation, less dumping, less strip mining and less general pollution as well as many other things.

People need to realise it is our entire system that needs changing, which governments are trying to do, the problem is the only thing people really take note of is the increase in fuel prices due to tax.

 

[Amp34]

The blog links are for variation and possible external links to other new sites and the Examiner is a well respected news site (still highly MSM though)

I assume it's another American newpaper/media outlet from the looks of it so I don't see why I should know about it.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

MSM means "Main Stream Media" and the reason why you dont know, is because they don't want you too.

Why allow news companies to broadcast against the policies there trying to push via those same news companies?

Man, just ... just stop. For once, I thought this was going to be something other than your normal CT rubbish. It's not. You have an acronym for the media? Jesus.

If this gets any airtime that I catch, I'll pop back in to this thread and post it. NZ is a small country so if this is news of any sort, there's no reason why it wouldn't get put on TV. I really, really doubt it will though.

 

[Teki187]

These issues are part of one big whole. Reducing our CO2/gas output is onnected to deforestation and use of the earths resources. People always jump up and complain about petrol costs but that is just one small part of it. You reduce emissions by reducing consumption, that includes wood, metals, oil/petrol etc. meaning less need for deforestation, less dumping, less strip mining and less general pollution as well as many other things.

People need to realise it is our entire system that needs changing, which governments are trying to do, the problem is the only thing people really take note of is the increase in fuel prices due to tax.

Right so without any new technologies to back up the scrapping of current ones, how to you propose we survive as a technologically advanced species?

CO2 emissions from humans does not account for climate change and is no where near the sole factor behind climate change.

Stop chopping trees, less CO2 in the air. So why the need press rewind on society?

 

[philip2009]

Anyone who includes UKIP MEP Godfrey "Buffoon" in their submission really can't be taken seriously ...

As for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition -

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: November 26, 2009 7:49 AM, by Tim Lambert

Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we're causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn't made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a "news alert" from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)

The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. ...

Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result -- they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won't explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:

Nothing in the station histories? It's all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about "adjusted data". In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?


http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php

Like people who don't believe in the moon landings or 911 "truthers" climate change deniers post reams of unfounded tosh and then expect everybody else to scurry around "fact" checking (it's in quotes because there hardly ever are any).

 

[Amp34]

Right so without any new technologies to back up the scrapping of current ones, how to you propose we survive as a technologically advanced species?

I'm intrigued, what tech have we scrapped that we haven't replaced with new tech?

I know of none. We have however started pushing new tech and phasing out old tech (light bulbs, power generation, petrol in cars). It's not happening over night but also we do need to change. There is so much waste in our society that due to being cheap and being seen to not affect us we can't care less about. Unfortunately (and I hate it too) the only way of changing that culture is to hit people in their pockets.

For example, walk that mile to the shops instead of drive, turn those lights out when you leave a room, think about whether you need a gas guzzling v8 or a normal small car.

CO2 emissions from humans does not account for climate change and is no where near the sole factor behind climate change.

I know of no scientists or politicians that think that. CO2 emissions from humans (as well as the large amount of more potent gases, such as methane) is thought to increase the rate of climate change not be the sole cause of it.

I personally am on the fence on the matter, having studied it for 3 years at uni and reading actual papers written by scientists (not mainstream media), some from my own lecturers I've come to the conclusion that it is a distinct possibility but there is a lot more research needed. HOWEVER I hate the consumerist and wasteful society we are now, people to lazy to walk to their local shop, people that drive their kids the mile to school, companies that leave every light on in their buildings, defrestation of HUGE areas of rainforest for western consumption of the wood and produce grown on the slashed and burned land...

Stop chopping trees, less CO2 in the air. So why the need press rewind on society?

I agree, stop chopping down trees (or manage the chopping and replanting), problem is that isn't going to help if we are part of the problem. That also doesn't solve the other issues of a wasteful society.

 

[Teki187]

I'm intrigued, what tech have we scrapped that we haven't replaced with new tech?

You said "reduce emissions by reducing consumption, that includes wood, metals, oil/petrol etc."

We haven't invented an alternate means for paper and as such trees are needed.

We haven't invented an alternate to toilet paper and as such trees are needed.

We haven't invented a Applicable solution to petrol cars and as such, petrol is still needed.

Some villages in the UK don' have gas or other means to power there houses and as such, oil is needed.

We haven't invented anything to replace the tech your talking about phasing out, so why should we go back in our progression as a species to satisfy something we cant control in regards to climate change?

I know of none. We have however started pushing new tech and phasing out old tech (light bulbs, power generation, petrol in cars).

Light bulbs granted, power generation no new tech, petrol no applicable tech. 1 out of 3 isn't bad.

It's not happening over night but also we do need to change. There is so much waste in our society that due to being cheap and being seen to not affect us we can't care less about. Unfortunately (and I hate it too) the only way of changing that culture is to hit people in their pockets.

Using tax as a form of change is the worst thing you can do, how about incentives for corperations to invent new tech to replace the bad tech? How about promoting the values you want, from the heads of our government?

It seems your trying to fob off the green tax as something like a holy grail tax that cures all climate change issues.

For example, walk that mile to the shops instead of drive, turn those lights out when you leave a room, think about whether you need a gas guzzling v8 or a normal small car.

Walking granted, turning lights on and off, i'd love to see statistical usage of power upon switch on and off lights via burst energy use over sustained lights on use.

Gas drinking cars would be an issue if we had climate change issues.

I know of no scientists or politicians that think that. CO2 emissions from humans (as well as the large amount of more potent gases, such as methane) is thought to increase the rate of climate change not be the sole cause of it.

Check my link in my sig and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Cybergangster]

Until now I've never even heard of NIWA...

As for Global Warming - feels exactly like it did when I left the country 10 years ago.

 

[Amp34]

You said "reduce emissions by reducing consumption, that includes wood, metals, oil/petrol etc."

We haven't invented an alternate means for paper and as such trees are needed.

We haven't invented an alternate to toilet paper and as such trees are needed.

We haven't invented a Applicable solution to petrol cars and as such, petrol is still needed.

Some villages in the UK don' have gas or other means to power there houses and as such, oil is needed.

We haven't invented anything to replace the tech your talking about phasing out, so why should we go back in our progression as a species to satisfy something we cant control in regards to climate change?

Paper and toilet roll... sustainable cutting, where almost all of the UK's paper (and general wood) comes from. The forestry comission for example cut and replant huge areas of land in the UK every year. There is a difference between that and what other nations are doing (partly for our consumption of hardwoods for garden furnature...)

Hydrogen, electricity... Neither are brilliant or mainstream at the moment, which is why I mentioned phasing it out, not some overnight switch. This is already happening with companies releasing cars such as the Prius.

Also i'm not talking cutting things out completely, so those that need oil to heat their homes wouldn't suddenly find they couldn't buy oil... I'm talking about change and reduction.

So how has this change affected you personally?

Light bulbs granted, power generation no new tech, petrol no applicable tech. 1 out of 3 isn't bad.

Power generation, wind, solar, wave... Again they aren't perfect at the moment and aren't a major contributor of our power as yet however they are being developed and are likely to be much more efficient and environment friendly in the longer run.

We also have nuclear fusion possibly on the horizon (aren't you the one that thinks China already have two plants?...)

Again change over a longer period, not overnight.

Using tax as a form of change is the worst thing you can do, how about incentives for corperations to invent new tech to replace the bad tech? How about promoting the values you want, from the heads of our government?

It seems your trying to fob off the green tax as something like a holy grail tax that cures all climate change issues.

I don't like it either, unfortunately it's very effective. Governments and companies themselves have invested huge amounts in new technology. Problem is it takes time and drive, a drive that has been getting stronger due to the "threat" of man made global warming.

Again you seem to be taking things singularly instead of the area. You need a variety of things to make things like this succeed, re-education, a stick (tax) and a carrot (tax breaks, grants etc). Governments, companies and people themselves are all using those and more to try and progress change.

Walking granted, turning lights on and off, i'd love to see statistical usage of power upon switch on and off lights via burst energy use over sustained lights on use.

Gas drinking cars would be an issue if we had climate change issues.

There is a massive difference, standard incandesents take n extra power to turn on, others yes they do, that doesn't excuse the companies and people that leave lights on overnight for no apparent reason. I'm not one of those nutters that think you should turn the light off as soon as you leave the room to go for a pee, or sit in a big room with one piddly light, however I do find it stupid when lights are left on for hours for no reason.

We need smallish changes in all aspects of our lives, not massive cuts in a few. We need to try and change a variety of things and realise that like earth everything is linked. Turn some lights off and we save some oil, recycle some plastic/buy stuff with paper packaging from sustainable sources we save some oil. Don't buy loads of food and end up throwing it away, that sort of thing. It saves you in the long run and it "saves" the planet in the long run too. Is that really going backwards? Small changes in both the way we live and how we live won't massively change our lives or the planet however progressive investment and adoption of new tech allied with small changes inour lives will.

Check my link in my sig and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

What's that got to do with what I was talking about? I said I know of no scientist that thought any global warming was caused solely by us...

 

[Teki187]

Paper and toilet roll... sustainable cutting, where almost all of the UK's paper (and general wood) comes from. The forestry comission for example cut and replant huge areas of land in the UK every year. There is a difference between that and what other nations are doing (partly for our consumption of hardwoods for garden furnature...)

Granted, but surely before we decide to use less of said substance an alternate needs to be provided?

Hydrogen, electricity... Neither are brilliant or mainstream at the moment, which is why I mentioned phasing it out, not some overnight switch. This is already happening with companies releasing cars such as the Prius.

Hydrogen fuel cells do not provide enough power for sustainable use as car propulsion.

The tank-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle is about 45% at low loads and shows average values of about 36% when a driving cycle like the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) is used as test procedure.[25] The comparable NEDC value for a Diesel vehicle is 22%. In 2008 Honda released a car (the Honda FCX Clarity) with fuel stack claiming a 60% tank-to-wheel efficiency.[26]

Also i'm not talking cutting things out completely, so those that need oil to heat their homes wouldn't suddenly find they couldn't buy oil... I'm talking about change and reduction.

But how can you change from oil power C/H, when there is no alternative to it?

Power generation, wind, solar, wave... Again they aren't perfect at the moment and aren't a major contributor of our power as yet however they are being developed and are likely to be much more efficient and environment friendly in the longer run.

Why not pursue other more useful powering options? Solar, wind and wave are just plasters on a severed arm.

We as a society require too much power then the above can provide, IF hydrogen power stations where efficient enough, then scraping the above would be the best thing all around.

Again you seem to be taking things singularly instead of the area. You need a variety of things to make things like this succeed, re-education, a stick (tax) and a carrot (tax breaks, grants etc). Governments, companies and people themselves are all using those and more to try and progress change.

First off, re education, i agree with you there, but it needs to be devised by scientific peers, people who know whats what, not the government spoon feeding schools into watching an Inconvenient Truth, why not let leaders in the climate science field put forward there arguments, surely two sides and making up your own informed decision is better then a biased one sided one?

Tax should only be used if said tax is going to the places it should and not on MP duck houses.

I would more then happily pay green tax if i knew 100% it was being spent on research and development into alternative fuels. But as such i do not trust our government and this tax for the sake of "climate change" and not a healthier society is a wolf in sheeps clothing.