Climate Conversation Group

We’ve just received a reply from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, who answers the question in my original letter: “What do we get for something that will cost our families from $30 to $112 each and every week?”

He says we’ll get nothing for it. It won’t even affect the climate — it’s just our “fair share” of a “global effort” (both letters are here, see mine above, Nick’s below).

So the average family will pay perhaps $60 or more per week just to signal to our trading partners and incoming tourists that we’re doing “our bit”. Terrific — $60 a week for a better image. I guess it’s commercially important to stay in the club with our trading partners, but that’s a helluva lot for struggling householders to pay.

He expresses far too little concern for the economic problems of his citizens than I care for. His gaze is on other things and the people are coming last.

Nick tries to blame overseas influences for the costs to be faced by Kiwi households. He says: “Costs to households will mainly result from the international price on carbon and will pass through to New Zealanders” via a modified ETS. You can read his entire letter (pdf, 63KB) if you like.

Chris de Freitas takes aim at decision-makers who should know, but apparently don’t know, what they’re doing. If they don’t squirm on reading this stinging criticism, then surely they possess no conscience. Let us hope they’re strong enough to honestly re-evaluate their position. I’m posting his article in toto; crafted with the best possible reasoning, it deserves the widest possible circulation.

Published in Energy New Zealand, Sept 2009.
by Chris de Freitas

Bias or blindness… emission targets

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, an icon of the global environmental movement, is soon to be replaced by a more radical international treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

What it will involve depends on the outcome of negotiations that begin this December in Copenhagen. In preparation, the Government has committed New Zealand to cut up to a third of current emissions by 2020.

The economic, social and moral implications are immense, since carbon taxes and tradable emissions alone cannot make such a massive reduction. Sweeping legislation restricting the use of oil, coal and natural gas would be required, along with far-reaching reforms in pastoral farming to cut methane release. Read more… »

Emptiness of AGW theory

Dan Satterfield is an experienced TV meteorologist in Huntsville, Alabama—the town which is also home to the world-famous team led by Dr Roy Spencer that tracks the Earth’s temperature with satellites.

Despite his credentials, despite the fact that he deals with climate information every day and despite the fact that he parrots warmist dogma and calls it “climate science”, Dan evinces no actual knowledge of climate facts. And confronted with that fact, Dan finally confesses (by retreat) that he cannot debate the issues on which he claims to be passionate. In withdrawing, he demonstrates the emptiness of the AGW hypothesis.

When the audience strikes back, he cannot mount a defence. His incompetence is great, though he had poor material to work with. Still, alas, he doesn’t make a notable opponent; he is only today’s. One down, thousands yet to go.

Dreary and detailed

Dan’s post tries to describe the imagined “psychology” of “the deniers of climate change”, rather than accepting that there do actually exist real-world observations which fail to support the AGW hypothesis. Everybody believes the evidence of their own senses, and it has nothing to do with having a particular psychology.

What follows is dreary and detailed; I write it because I can, not because I imagine anyone will hasten to read it. Oh—and because I care about the truth. Observing Mr Satterfield squeezing and pinching the truth of global warming out of shape inspires me to pen this lone refutation, dreary and uninspiring though it may be, whose only reward might be a faint righteousness. Read more… »