About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 13, 2015 7:00am by David Farrar

Blunt on climate change marches

Note cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editor.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment65

Humour
Blunt
cartoons

Comments (65)

Login to comment or vote

Nukuleka

Good try, David! Only a global warming cynic would find that funny- as I do!

The power of the sun, David, the power of the sun.
38 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:15am
Captain Mainwaring

Your turn Griff……..
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:16am
Manolo

A question worth asking:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/12/climate-skeptics-on-historic-un-treaty-does-this-mean-we-never-have-to-hear-about-solving-global-warming-again/

Climate Skeptics on ‘historic’ UN treaty: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’
22 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:19am
Odakyu-sen

The models do take the energy input from the sun into account, don’t they?
16 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:20am
Scott1

Actually I think the cartoon still applies for those that believe in climate change.
It might be in theory easier to prevent climate change than to prevent plate tectonics – but in practice we seem to have very little chance of stopping it (failing some sort of unforeseen revolution in technology) and so it isn’t clear exactly what the marchers are demanding.
8 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:33am
oldpark

The real story is that 32,000 unemployed scientists looking for a reason to be employed have finally convinced the naïve that if a lie is told long enough,it will become the truth. Even though the biggest con job called “global warming” will just be that, a myth and a perennial con job.
37 5
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:36am
Ross Nixon

Being ‘Blunt’ is sometimes the best way to convey the truth.
16 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:37am
Maggy Wassilieff

Wow, that agreement thingee works! No sun in Gizzy this morning. And we are only gonna hit 27 deg.
20 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:39am
Simon

“The models do take the energy input from the sun into account, don’t they?”

You are in denial. There is 97% scientific consensus that complex climate systems have been reduced to one single linear cause man made Co2 emissions which started to occur in earnest circa 1950 onward. Any natural variations that have happened to temperate prior to 1950 has been flat lined out in accordance with scientific consensus.

Beware I am prepared to argue with anyone on this subject, with all the conviction of a born again, for the next 24 hours straight.
9 24
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:43am
Odakyu-sen

Simon is Griff!
I claim my chocolate fish!
15 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:46am
All_on_Red

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they have made in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C. And “only” at a cost to the global economy of $1.5 Trillion per annum.
Still, I’m sure all the delegates and world leaders who attended had some nice food and drink
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/duck_le_orange/
21 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:51am
Boris Piscina

Good on you, Simon. Some of us however have real lives as well, and we’re bored shitless with listening to the deranged babblings of scientifically illiterate doomsayers and all the other ignorant zealots of the AGW religion.

But, feel free to argue away to yourself. Do it quietly in a corner somewhere, there’s a good chap.

🙂
28 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:51am
Simon

‘Simon is Griff!
I claim my chocolate fish!”

Chocolate fish. Check your privilege. We are the 97%.

I have put the extra strong coffee on. It is going to a hard next 24 hrs.
3 11
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:52am
B.L.Zeebub

There used to be a time when the Doomsayers stood on street corners wearing placards proclaiming “The END is Nigh!” now they appear to all have PhDs and jobs in the Climate Change industry.
I for one look forward to be able to grow Tomatoes, Papayas and Bananas without a greenhouse. : /
25 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:52am
All_on_Red

“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”
John Kerry
18 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 7:54am
lolitasbrother

We have to do something about this bloody Sun. We should tax it .. We should tax the clouds too ….We have to pay the Social Scientists to fly to conferences and make up more graphs … We have to send Africa $100 billion every year …We have to impose the New World Social Order .. Skeptics must be implanted with chips ..haven’t you seen the smoke in the air , Yes thats the evil poison CO2 .. CO2 does not cause plants to grow .. plants do not like warm weather ..This is the most critical problem of our generation .. its pollution you hear … its pollution .. stop whatever you are doing now .. switch on Al Jazeera .. soak in the garbage and prepare to sizzle ..

Odakyu-sen [7:20 am ] your trial for heresy will be soon // prepare to burn.
quote ” The models do take the energy input from the sun into account, don’t they? It is warming the earth. ” unquote
Heresy Odakyu-sen heresy
20 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:04am
nasska

DPF has lit the fuse. Griff will have carpal tunnel syndrome ere nightfall! 🙂
19 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:06am
Longknives

Those smelly ‘Climate Change’ activists getting locked in the Antarctic Ice was the funniest thing in years..
20 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:17am
Scott Chris

The collective stupidity of much of the human race is amply shown in both the inane cartoon and the above thread.
4 23
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:25am
G152

I expect that next years ‘conference’ in some scenic part
of the world will be needed to dot some ‘T’s and cross some ‘I’s
In the meantime any natural disaster or event can be blamed on
either climate change or global warming with backshots
of crumbling ice floes and polar bears
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:29am
Odakyu-sen

Huh?
(Trying to remove bits of marshmallow from between teeth)

What just happened?

(And what’s that burning smell?)
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:33am
Paulus

It appears to me that the principle conclusion to the Le Bourget Conference is …………..
Where is the next 50,000 people Conference going to be and how soon.
196 approx countries actually collectively agreeing to anything – bullshit incorporated.
14 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:34am
stephieboy

THE COMMON THREADS BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISM,

“I’ve always considered all forms of denialism, whether it’s climate change, creationism or the latest anti-vaccine lunacy, to be based on the same arguments. It’s essentially an ignorant belief that either science is wrong or, worse yet, is a vast conspiracy to push false information onto innocent humans….”

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/common-threads-creationism-climate-change-denialism/
4 26
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:42am
Maggy Wassilieff

@stephieboy

you’ve missed out the moon-landing denial….

keep on script, buddy
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/11/stephan-lewandowskys-moon-landing-paper-scathingly-criticized-by-team-of-psychologists-in-a-new-book/
17 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 8:54am
Shawn Herles

Scott Chris

“The collective stupidity of much of the human race is amply shown in both the inane cartoon and the above thread.”

How do you know? You keep telling people everything is subjective. You said recently that terrorism is subjective. Well, so is weather then, and AGW.

So according to your own position, there should be nothing for you to know objectively about AGW, the cartoon, and the opinions on this thread, and thus nothing for you to argue and complain about.

Or am I right in my suspicion that with you and your tribe everything is subjective until it comes to fashionable Left Wing causes?
14 6
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:01am
David Garrett

Well, looks like my CD’s will finally all get arranged by genre and in alphabetical order…
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:03am
Dexter

The real story is that 32,000 unemployed scientists looking for a reason to be employed have finally convinced the naïve that if a lie is told long enough,it will become the truth.

And 9/11 was a false flag attack, vaccines are a ploy to chemically control the young and Obama is actually a lizard man.

Lmao.
4 13
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:03am
tspoon765

When I was younger everyone worried about Russians. Nuclear Bombs. Radiation Sickness. Destruction of Civilisation. Which made sense. Now the main problem facing mankind seems to be that the world will get a teeny bit warmer. Which may or may not happen. And which may or may not be a problem. It’s difficult to really get excited about it.
30 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:07am
All_on_Red

Stephie, I’ll raise your opinion piece with a Peer Reveiwed Research Paper
Abstract
In this chapter, we review basic processes by which moral purposes can sometimes motivate immoral behavior, and then suggest how moral agendas can sometimes lead social psychology astray through an array of questionable interpretive practices (QIPs). These practices can be used to advance a moral agenda by permitting researchers to interpret the data as supporting that agenda even when it does not. The QIPs reviewed here include: blind spots (overlooking or ignoring data inconsistent with one’s moral agenda), selective preference (accepting research supporting one’s agenda at face value, but subjecting opposing research of comparable or greater quality to withering criticism), and phantom facts (making declarations or drawing implications without evidence). Four major areas of social psychological research – sex differences, stereotype threat, attitudes towards climate science, and the ideology-prejudice relationship– are reviewed and shown to be characterized by unjustified conclusions plausibly reflecting high moral purposes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how to reduce QIPs in research that has moral undertones.
For instance, self-identified American liberals and conservatives each display equal willingness to deprive each other of Constitutionally-protected rights
The Curious Case of Condemning Climate Skeptics as Conspiracy Theorists (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013)
To some, fighting the “deniers” of global warming may have taken on a high moral purpose.
Into this mix stepped Lewandowski et al. (2013) with a paper titled, “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” – which strongly implies that people who doubt global warming believe bizarre conspiracy theories. As Lewandowsky et al. (2013, p. 622) put it, “… conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”
One possibility is that this was true – that a disproportionately high number of people who disbelieve climate science also believe in something as silly as the faking of the moon landing. Another, however, was that this was essentially trumped up in order to cast those who are most skeptical of the climate science as fools. Fortunately, and to their credit, Lewandowsky et al (2013) publicly posted their data, so we can evaluate these two alternative explanations for the claim in the title.
Their evidence for these conclusions was drawn from 1145 readers of environmentalist blogs who completed a web survey asking about their belief in conspiracies and acceptance of scientific conclusions (HIV causes AIDs, burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric temperatures, etc.). Lewandowsky et al. (2013) subjected responses to latent variable modeling and did indeed find that “conspiracist ideation” negatively predicted (-.21, standardized regression coefficient) acceptance of climate science. So, where is the problem?
The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact. Out of over 1145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked. Among the 134 of participants who “rejected climate science,” only three people (2%) endorsed the moon-landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exist in the sample. Correlations primarily resulted from covariance in levels of agreement among reasonable positions (i.e., people varied in how much they disbelieved hoaxes and in how strongly they accepted science). It would be fair to characterize their results as indicating “the more strongly people disbelieved hoaxes, the more strongly they believed in climate science” – people varied in how strongly they rejected hoaxes and accepted science, but almost no one believed the moon hoax.
Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researchers. No matter how worthy the efforts to advance policy changes to combat human sources of global warming, the goal of “getting it right” is jeopardized when scientists claim their data shows their ideological opponents hold silly beliefs when they, in fact, do not. As such, this constitutes another example of high moral purposes undermining scientific integrity.”

In short, your anti vax comment is a baseless smear made by you because your political beliefs overcome any sense of objectivity you might have.
20 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:08am
holysheet

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the science is settled didn’t you know?

Only 97% of these eminent, esteemed, respected, admired, highly regarded, acclaimed, approbated, approved, appreciated, favoured, popular, recognised, venerated, awed, reverenced, deferenced, honoured, praised, adulated, extolled, homaged and lauded scientists agree.

What about the rest of us
18 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:12am
Joe

All on red: tldr
7 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:16am
mikenmild

Sure, All_on_Red, climate change denial is a particularly insidious form of conspiracist thinking. Most conspiracy theories are relatively easily debunked: 9/11 myths, moon land hoax, Holocaust denial, anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoride.
What is different about climate change denial? Funding and influence. Vested interests have kept the denialists in business for many years, despite oil companies themselves private admitting that climate change is a real thing. Unscrupulous politicians, particularly in the US, have jumped on the bandwagon.
So, despite the IPCC, every major scientific organisation in the world and most governments being on board with reality, the myths persist.
Case in point: today’s inane cartoon and the swarm of gullible comments that followed it.
3 25
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:16am
All_on_Red

Joe
Fair enough – the last sentence sums it up.
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:24am
All_on_Red

Mikey
Who actually denies the climate changes?
Also the amount of money given to Climate Scientists by governments and green groups vastly outnumbers that given by “oil” companies so I’d suggest the vested interests lie more with those currently attending Paris and having a fine old time.
You’re a denier if you can’t see that.
Edit- have you ever read what the IPCC says in AR5 WG about actual changes to our weather? Thought not.
16 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:25am
Brigitte

A quick primer why scientists and deniers will never agree using a simple example of a biased coin. The coin comes up heads 75% of the time.

Toss it 100 times (and repeat a few times). There are, let’s say, 72, 78, and 74 heads. The scientists say “the science is settled, the coin is seriously biased”. The deniers say it’s not settled as it could be 73%, 75%, or 77% biased (for example).

The deniers say “ooh look at toss #43, a tail, it can’t be biased after all”. The scientists shake their collective heads and point out that it’s statistical and you expect less tails and more heads over the long run.

The deniers say “more heads, ok show me one of these extra heads then”. The scientists either shake their heads in disbelief (once again) or bang it on the nearest brick wall.

And today, we are going to see this precise mechanism play out on KiwiBlog. Have fun campers.
4 4
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:29am
mikenmild

Place yourself on the denial scale:

1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring. This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic.
2. Simply deny global warming is happening — and maintain that no action is necessary — an increasingly uncommon position.
3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it’s caused by solar activity — so we don’t have to change anything.
5. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don’t have to change anything
6. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything
7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world’s poor from improving their lives] — so we don’t have to change anything
8. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority — so we don’t have to change anything
9. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren’t doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything
10 Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I’ve heard about this new energy source/technology that’s going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don’t have to change anything
11. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything
12. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it’s too late now!
4 23
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:31am
All_on_Red

Brigitte
Some nice false equivalence from you.
In IPCC AR 5, they state that the rate of Climate Sensitivity is from 1.5 to 4.5C Extemely likely
Does that sound like it’s settled?
You’re a denier if you think the science is settled given that range.
14 5
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:36am
All_on_Red

Mikey
How about providing some links to actual scientific research about our weather changing instead of some Women’s Weekly surveys?
Have you read IPCC AR5 WG?
16 3
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:38am
stephieboy

This real cartoon encapsulates the climate denial industry ably led by the Koch Bothers and sundry toadies ,

Group of Penguins cluster on top a sinking iceberg,

“ It’s nothing guys – its just a hoax perpetrated by the climate scientist and a vast world conspiracy “

A large Orca is beached on the sinking ice berg called Global warming ,

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/globalwarming/ig/Global-Warming-Cartoons/Climate-Hoax.0zJ0.htm#step-heading
1 20
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:42am
Ross12

Oh, there is always a party pooper !

” 12 Dec: Guardian: Oliver Milman: James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud’
The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’
Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy…
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head ..”

Or maybe he is just ensuring there is another colossal waste of money next year and the year after etc.
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:43am
stephieboy

All on Red,some actual scientific research and evidence on weather change ?

Try this for starters ,

http://climate.nasa.gov

and this,

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
2 15
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:45am
RightNow

The planet will be ok now that they’ve reached an agreement in Paris though won’t it? Does this mean the end of marches for the climate?
18 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:48am
RightNow

Ha ha stephieboy, a “sinking” iceberg. Nice metaphor for the agw scam.
15 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:50am
stephieboy

Roos12, James Hanes was actually critically of the Paris Talks because they did not go far enough in dealing with the real dangers and issues confronting climate change ,

James Hansen, Climate Scientist Turned Activist, Criticises Paris Talks

“LE BOURGET, France — James E. Hansen, the retired NASA climate scientist, issued a stark warning Wednesday that the deal being negotiated here was nowhere close to what was needed to avert dangerous levels of global warming.

“This is half-assed and it’s half-baked,” Dr. Hansen said in a public forum on the sidelines of the conference. He said that the deal, praised by world leaders including President Obama, would allow emissions to continue to increase — until 2030, in the case of China — when what was needed is an immediate and rapid reduction.

The remarks were less notable for what Dr. Hansen said – he has long held a dim view of United Nations climate talks – than for where and when he said them.

Dr. Hansen, who retired in 2013 after decades in charge of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was making his first appearance at one of the annual U.N. climate conferences. He was introduced as “the Paul Revere of the climate-change movement” before a public interview for a video program…”

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/hansen
1 12
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:54am
All_on_Red

A “discussion” on climate change events? Is that the best you got.
Here you go
IPCC.ch
Here’s an example
AR5: Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
Read the Working Group Chapters, that’s the stuff done by the scientists. Don’t bother with the SPMs, Summary for Policy Makers- that’s all done by politicians and green groups for the media. Why is that ?
8 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:00am
stephieboy

Lord Christopher Monckton , leading Climate denier Mentor and purveyor of quackery ,

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton
4 15
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:02am
All_on_Red

“He was introduced as “the Don Quixote of the climate-change movement” before a public interview for a video program…”

There, fixed it for you.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:03am
Ross12

stephieboy

That’s my point —this will just go on and on. Paris was nothing to do with climate , it was all about MONEY, nothing else.

Do really think most countries will go back and start to implement all their vague promises for the benefit of the world climate? they will just do what is best for their own people , period.

If we believe all the hot air coming from Paris most climate scientists will be out of work (after all the science is settled and now the agreement is fixed ). No way it will be back to work as normal on Monday.
When you wonderfully vague things like this in the agreement it will ensure the gravy train continues “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.
12 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:04am
Dexter

Lmao all on red wants people to cherry pick and misquote sentences in a report that found;

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report
4 5
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:06am
tom hunter

I think this cartoon was more appropriate given this morning’s announcement.
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:12am
stephieboy

roos12, no I think James Hanes was critical of the fact that were no clear action and goals and in coming to grips with the fact of climate change . Not surprising with so many different economic and political agendas as we often see in the U N.

Certainly he does not believe Climate change is a hoax as you might be implying .
1 5
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:15am
Manolo

Another talkfest is over. What about the next?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLIMATE_COUNTDOWN_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-12-15-18-21

French President Francois Hollande says he is proud of the commitments of nearly 200 countries that have adopted the Paris agreement.

The deal calls on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposes no sanctions on countries that don’t. It aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius between now and 2100.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:24am
Ross12

stephieboy

I’m in the camp that says “climate has always changed and will continue to change”
15 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:26am
Manolo

When this buffoon is on your side you know the whole thing is a joke:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/263051-kerry-climate-pact-a-victory-for-all-of-the-planet

Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday thanked international delegates gathered in Paris for adopting a climate change pact that he called a win for the entire world.

“This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens,” Kerry said on the floor of the United Nations negotiations in Paris, shortly after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared that the agreement had been adopted.
10 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:27am
holysheet

Tom Hunter, that cartoon says it all really.
There will never be a consensus on global warming. There is just too many fingers in the pie. All the attendees at Paris are there for their own benefit. Whats in it for me, how can I get some of this dosh going around.
13 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:36am
Ross12

The UK has bought into this “low carbon economy” idea in a big way . This is what happens when reality strikes ( can you imagine the fun Spike Milligan & co would have if they were still in their prime)

“10 Dec: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Coal, nuclear and diesel to keep lights on in £800m scheme
Subsidy price for energy companies likely to be too low to result in construction of any new gas plants
Hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies will be paid to diesel generators and old coal and nuclear plants to help keep the lights on later this decade, ministers are set to confirm on Friday.
National Grid is preparing to publish the results of the latest “capacity market” auction, a Government scheme that will pay energy companies to guarantee they can provide electricity in 2019-20…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12045006/Coal-nuclear-and-diesel-to-keep-lights-on-in-800m-scheme.html “
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 10:59am
Chuck Bird

If the agreement had targets of reducing CO2 levels it could have a little credibility.

The fact that they have targets of what temperature the world will be in 100 years time lacks any credibility at all.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 12:23pm
prosper

I have trouble with predictions. As I understand data is being fed into a computer that predicts global warming. I am sure some of the data is inaccurate.Would one or two pieces of inaccurate date bias the prediction?. Possibly. I do think though that for the sake of their own people China should clean up its air polution as should other countries with similar problems.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 12:41pm
Chuck Bird

“I do think though that for the sake of their own people China should clean up its air polution as should other countries with similar problems.”

I totally agree and the environment problem are also in our own rivers. Deforestation is also a major problem for threatened species. However this AGW claim is junk science. It appears to be a lot to do with wealth transfer from developed nations to developing nations.
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 12:57pm
SJM

All_on_Red (2,285 comments) says:
December 13th, 2015 at 7:51 am
If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they have made in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C. And “only” at a cost to the global economy of $1.5 Trillion per annum.
Still, I’m sure all the delegates and world leaders who attended had some nice food and drink
##########################

And remember, its your money and your life it effects. Agree or dissagree with this treaty, you dont get a choice.
6 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 2:46pm
SJM

holysheet (1,091 comments) says:
December 13th, 2015 at 9:12 am
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the science is settled didn’t you know?

Only 97% of these eminent, esteemed, respected, admired, highly regarded, acclaimed, approbated, approved, appreciated, favoured, popular, recognised, venerated, awed, reverenced, deferenced, honoured, praised, adulated, extolled, homaged and lauded scientists agree.

What about the rest of us
#########################

Your life, your money your land your home, but you dont get a choice in it? Sure you get a say, you have freedom of speech but I ask you what good does it do if you and your fellow citizens dont have choice, let alone power?
Dont agree with this treaty that effects you? Shit outta luck your not in the decision making process, in fact you are excluded.

You live in a politicracy with civil liberties, not a democracy
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 2:59pm
Dave Mann

Note cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editor.

That’s one of the most tragic things I’ve ever read on Kiwibllog. It means that political correctness has poisoned your ability to think for yourself and own an opinion which is not sanctioned by the high priests, DPF.

You’re an intelligent man, David. You can’t possibly believe this nonsense, surely? Why do you feel the need to cover your arsenal like this? Are you afraid of the Inquisition or something?

Sad.
5 2
Log in to Reply
Report
December 13, 2015 9:06pm
Mark

In respect of global warming we will believe what best suits our economic and political ideology. Science has fuck all to do with it.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 14, 2015 6:46am
deadrightkev

Milkey

The good news is that its all OK. There is no GW you can do anything about even if you tried in a million years. Not only that but should GW occur and it was 1-2 clicks warmer our summer would be longer by maybe a day at the most and our veges would be a bit bigger in the garden.

As for any other change maybe an extra wet day a year give or take.

So relax. Move along. Nothing to see here.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
December 14, 2015 11:09pm
Left Right and Centre

Beware I am prepared to argue with anyone on this subject, with all the conviction of a born again, for the next 24 hours straight.

Climate change answer to 1980s telethons. They’ve thought of everything.
You know what ? I’ve never in my life bothered to think what the hell the word ‘telethon’ ever meant. Right – I get it now – telephone marathon. Far out !! The same with Sky. It was just a name – you accepted it without thinking. Oh, right – the signal comes through the air so they’ve called it Sky. Sky TV. But isn’t normal TV also sky tv ? And radio. Mobiles. Or did Sky do something wildly different to free to air ? And when did people start saying ‘free to air’ ? Shouldn’t they have been doing that when Sky started ? Was it about the same time as a phone became a ‘landline’ ? Which makes it sound like a ‘land lubber’ as if mobiles are sailors and really really special and much better – which reminds me of how rural folks are special compared to townies – who are truly detestable airy-fairy oinks doing their weird little urban routine. I wonder how many humans would ever read this lunacy ? Seriously, two ? On a good day ?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 23, 2015 4:59am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Herald picks English as MP of the Year

General Debate 13 December 2015 »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Top Stories

General Debate 24 November 2024
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris
A $25 million glasshouse
Small but promising change
RANZ Update
Who are the major emitters?
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
General Debate 23 November 2024
The newest Green MP
Can we afford such generous research leave?

Recent Posts

General Debate 25 November 2024 25 November 2024
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice 25 November 2024
Small but promising change 24 November 2024
A $25 million glasshouse 24 November 2024
General Debate 24 November 2024 24 November 2024
Guest Post: Response to Max Harris 24 November 2024
RANZ Update 23 November 2024
Who are the major emitters? 23 November 2024
A whale on a prediction market 23 November 2024
General Debate 23 November 2024 23 November 2024
Can we afford such generous research leave? 23 November 2024
Secret lawyers 22 November 2024

Recent Comments

General Debate 25 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
David Garrett
General Debate 25 November 2024
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 25 November 2024
Bridgenag
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
peterwn
Small but promising change
MCōs
Guest Post: Peter Ellis Case Blows Up New Zealand – Twice
NK
General Debate 24 November 2024
waikatosinger
General Debate 24 November 2024
Burtland
General Debate 24 November 2024
Burtland
General Debate 24 November 2024
Burtland
General Debate 24 November 2024
Jack5
General Debate 24 November 2024
AitchW
General Debate 24 November 2024
Prince
General Debate 24 November 2024
Jack5

Links

Quotes of the Week
Hompaddock
MEDIAWATCH: I told you this about Luxon when he was first elected, why is it spun gold now Hooton has said it?
The Daily Blog
Open mike 25/11/2024
The Standard
Schadenfreudeliciousness VII: The MSM Are Dying!
No Minister
Automakers’ Costly Gamble on EVs: A Lesson in Ignoring Consumer Demand
Utopia
Treaty Principles Debate
NZCPR
Much ado about cussing…
Point of Order
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d