Thursday, November 27, 2008

Australian Climate Madness: Bravo New Zealand
The government has also suggested a possible review of the science behind climate change, a move that has outraged environmental groups, who say New Zealand's reputation will be damaged if the concept of global warming is questioned.
Have you ever heard such unadulterated nonsense in a single sentence? Did I read that correctly? A possible review has "outraged environmental groups"? Sorry, is this science we're talking about, or the dogma of religion? Perish the thought that the divine words of the IPCC, as spoken through the prophet Al Gore, should ever be questioned. Quick, throw another heretic on the fire.

As for their reputation being damaged, in my book, it's quite the reverse. Bravo New Zealand.

3 comments:

Robert Wood said...

And, while we're at it, why is it so damned important that the enviromental (sic) groups not be outraged.

Palmerston North said...

Take a look at what " climate change " and emissions trading really means for the city where I live.
www.palmerston-north.info

Vengeanz said...

To be honest ... THANK GOD (I mean science). Most of New Zealand's "emissions" are agricultural, read:methane. Methane levels are not currently increasing, according to the IPCC, and as far as I'm aware no studies have shown what farm animals net effect on our "carbon footprint" is. I would argue they are actually reducing our carbon footprint as they are part of a carbon cycle. i.e. the carbon in the methane they produce comes from the grass they eat by way of the atmosphere when grass performs photosynthesis. Of course not all their carbon intake is turned into methane. i.e. they produce offspring, milk, fur, leather, or wool and of course excrement.

Further the current argument about CO2 being the main cause of of later 20th century warming seems to have almost no basis at all. There are large uncertainties in our understanding of aerosols and their climate forcing effects. They are assumed to be largely negative and are required by the IPCC to support the computer model assumptions about our climate's sensitivty to CO2. Further none of the computer models currently have the IRIS effect built in to them. Postulated by Dr Richard Lindzen and corroborated by Dr John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer. Ther IRIS effect actually shows any increase in CO2 and hence increase in atmospheric water vapour would cause a negative feedback loop i.e. cooling of the planet which would reduce the effect any increase in CO2 would have. All current computer models in use by the IPCC assume only positive feedback loops from increased atmospheric CO2.