Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why National will Never Act on Climate Change
244 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
as does most of the western world and much of the east
Look I get your ideological hatred of the neoliberal doctrine. But I'm sorry you are shifting into an extreme ideological position yourself and frankly that is distorting your view.
China is far from any kind of neoliberal ideology and while elements of Western Europe are neoliberal huge parts of it are incredibly socialist and can and have run neoliberals out the exit door.
As for India and Africa, neither could be described by any ideology as simplistic as "neoliberal".
Sure our morons in Wellington are indeed neoloberal but actually they are much better described as corrupt. All of the actions of the Nats over the last terms could quite simply be put down to simple corruption by companies with deep pockets (Insurance, Oil, Fonterra, and Fletchers being prime examples).
None of which would matter a damn if you weren't wasting time and energy on a pointless attack on an ideology. History should teach you that attacking ideologies is hopeless. What works is is making the ideology irrelevant.
For New Zealand it's as simple as deciding that "no thanks we don't want to fuck up our environment" and voting accordingly. No impossible ideological revolution required.
-
Steve Rowe, in reply to
"The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere."
From Skeptical Science https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
Still have to pinch myself that we are arguing over whether Climate Change is a "thing".
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I would appreciate an explanation
There is abundant scientific literature. If you don't have the knowledge to understand that literature there are multiple statements from scientists who do have the knowledge and have clearly explained that the literature is correct and the effect is real.
What you are in fact saying is that you don't believe those scientists and you are instead relying on some other process to guide your thoughts. Since that process has nothing to do with logic or rational thinking there is no point in engaging with you. You will drag out flawed debunked graphs and data endlessly wasting everyone's time and none of it will change the reality of the world.
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
Still have to pinch myself that we are arguing over whether Climate Change is a “thing”.
Then don't argue. It's settled.
Move on to the next phase. Now the denial movement has moved ahead of you and are seeking to minimise the possible effects of the CO2 levels. The 'lukewarmers' are in the ascendant and have pushed aside the people that simply said 'there's no such thing as climate change'.
Sure, there are a few (like romperstomper here), that haven't received the latest memo from Central Command but they will, so time to prepare for the next assault on science. -
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
…given that the world’s surface temperature has remain static for some 18 years to-date…
It hasn’t
Come on chap! - you should have seen that response a mile off...
There is merit in trying to challenge falsehoods - the chance to educate a casual observer maybe.
The initial post however, contains huge red flags that you are embarking on a fruitless endeavour and giving our friend the opportunity to post large amounts of cherry picked poppycock.
Best to leave them alone to knit their navel fluff? -
Re: Hiatus
There was a similar hiatus in surface temperature increases in the middle of the 20th century, then look what happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#/media/File:Warming_since_1880_yearly.jpg
-
Ross Clark, in reply to
Temperature talk can be ambiguous. First there is surface temperature and there is sea temperature. To date some 96% of the temperature has been absorbed in the sea and temperature graphs show a constant increase. So that is the main one. Surface temperatures are up and down but trending up - and the denier industry likes to use this one but they cherry pick a period that suits them - eg 2008 was a very high year so they just cherry pick the from 2008 onwards. That is the same as saying people are getting shorter because the tallest man in the world died in 2008. Hope that helps
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
The closest look into neoliberal minds that I’ve seen is in The Hollow Men, and I got the impression that Don Brash and his entourage genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing for the country. They were just wrong.
Or to put it succinctly, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
-
Watch the dvd "Hot Air - the politics of NZ climate change" and you will see the several big corporations that got in behind National to kill any action. Also note some of our 'rich list' who have made millions at the taxpayers expense while doing so. Build from the grass roots up is my suggestion, join the likes of the Transition Movement. As Buckminster Fuller said ""You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing system obsolete.”
-
tom dale, in reply to
from the site that supplied your graphic:
"The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible."
http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature -
Steve Rowe, in reply to
Exactly, an individual and small group response is they only way. Look to limit your dependence on industrialised society even in small steps. Start with food, grow as much as you can - live like your grandparents did.
-
Stamper Stamp, in reply to
Hi Ross
I am not the only person who believes there is no significant increase in surface temperatures:http://www.thegwpf.com/happy-anniversary-1-october-marks-18-years-without-global-warming-trend/
So, the question remains unanswered - given that CO2 has increased from about 350ppm to 400ppm - why are we flat-lining for over 18 years? -
Carol Stewart, in reply to
The GWPF! Oh please.
Just have a look at the board members. Nigel Lawson FFS. -
This is a bit like watching a hungry angler fish flicking its worm-like lure in the murky depths...
Hey Ross - you're not gonna fall for that old trick are ya? -
andin, in reply to
I am not the only person
No your not the only one who falls for this kind of rhetoric.
Against bias and alarm
The coverage of climate change in the news media has been stromgly biased in favour of alarm. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media have failed to give appropriate space to authoritative critics of climate alarmism. The Forum will campaign for more objective media reportingOh so biased alarmists are winning the day? Riiigght!
-
Oh! Carol - NO!
Now he'll post more links as dodgy as a Kosher pork sausage... -
Here's a little video which stamper might find quite informative.
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
None of which would matter a damn if you weren’t wasting time and energy on a pointless attack on an ideology. History should teach you that attacking ideologies is hopeless. What works is is making the ideology irrelevant.
For New Zealand it’s as simple as deciding that “no thanks we don’t want to fuck up our environment” and voting accordingly. No impossible ideological revolution required.
This approach is very appealing but I wonder how quickly you think we will get to this point?
To get global carbon emissions down as quickly as we need to will be painful for those that lead our current lifestyle. So much easier to reject the required sacrifices when the populace are told that they are not necessary or that someone else should make them. -
“As Naomi Klein pointed out in This Changes Everything, neoliberals are not just blocking action on climate change; they’re sandbagging a global economic and political empire they took thirty years to create.”
What they (neoliberals in government) are scared of is their lobbyist supporters sacking them from government, if they do not deliver to meet their sponsors’ expectations, but they also fear the anger of voters, should they actually take measures, which will necessitate change in behaviour and incurring costs on citizens, to fund the needed change.
What we have had so far, is a lot of appeals from climate scientists, the summits they and others attend, and activists that push for change. We have had media only pick up some of the news about climate change and the consequences, but the media themselves are dependent on advertising revenue, and with than on “sponsors” or financiers, who have vested interests and rather wish things to continue as they are.
The greatest challenge honest, committed reformers face is the human nature, the human condition, being human beings sticking to habits, and having brains that were shaped over millions or at least hundreds of thousands of years, to make us hunters and gatherers, at best “farmers” and “harvesters”, who make judgments on past observations and experiences.
The human brain and mind is very ill equipped to grasp and act upon climate change. Yes, many people seem happy to agree, something needs to be done, but unless the dramatic consequences are right in front and around us, we tend to continue with established habits. There is no other explanation for the largely urban inhabitants to say on one hand, that they want more things done, like better public transport, better buildings and infrastructure using resources more efficiently, but on the other hand continue to jump into their cars each morning, to burn fossil fuels, and continue to fill rubbish bins with one-way waste, going into landfills.
There is a price to pay, sacrifices need to be made, and that will require efforts and forgoing some still appreciated luxuries and conveniences, and few are actually honestly willing to commit to this and do it. That is the major dilemma we face.
For instance cycling is much cheaper and healthier than driving in cars, and can easily be done in most cities, but few do buy a bike and cycle, as they dislike exposure to weather, to the dangers of other traffic, and doing physical exercise causing them to sweat. It would be an easy solution to reduce emissions and to improve health outcomes, but few take it up. Also re rubbish bags, one way food containers, the supermarkets keep delivering these, and almost nobody takes action to change this packaging madness.
Habits die hard, and change is not easy. When expected to deliver, most voters will simply not vote for major change, given the dinosaur type brain we have, and due to habits dictated by learned, old behaviour. Some form of pressure appears necessary, which will though cause various reactions, some in anger.
At least scientists are working on the methane issue, now looking at reducing animal methane production by 30 to 90 percent, as the news reported tonight.
More needs doing, but first we need a government that dares and brings change. National and their allies were though voted in not only by themselves, voters voted for them. See the dilemma again?
-
Sacha, in reply to
I still don't see the scientific relationship between Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and CO2
you could take that up with a therapist, perhaps
-
Sacha, in reply to
For New Zealand it's as simple as deciding that "no thanks we don't want to fuck up our environment" and voting accordingly. No impossible ideological revolution required.
Only if NZ wasn't so thoroughly embedded in a neoliberal world system - and about to strengthen that by signing up to TPP. Wish you were correct, I really do.
-
What we have now is government and private enterprise, both of whom invest in science and research, increasingly trying to put pressure on scientists, to deliver the reports they so desire, which are increasingly less independent.
Have a listen to the interview Kathryn Ryan conducted with Nicola Gaston, from the Association of Scientists, what their concerns are (from Nine to Noon on 10 April 2015):
And look at our media, probably amongst the worst in terms of "independence", despite of favourable international comments. Most is in private hands, almost all media now follow the commercial media, funded through advertising, and hence we get more shallow, brief and poorly researched reports, rather than investigative journalism and focus on stuff that really matters.
The media, and to some degree even scientists, seem to be put into the neoliberal straight-jacket, so with that, we have a dim chance to get a change of sentiment and any real action with the largely brain-washed populace, primarily geared to consume, to keep "the economy" going (as it is).
Housing in Auckland and Christchurch is the best example. Instead of standing up, protesting for change, most join the property speculation (those who can), or resign to the fact they will be renting for the rest of their lives, and "adjust" by living in cramped conditions, more akin the "Asian" way of being housed.
Brainwashing works, and as long as we have the type of brainwashing there is, forget about any change to happen soon.
No wonder that neoliberal forces ensured certain persons were placed in the media, to run it and to front it. Control the minds of the poeple (in laissez faire fashion), and you control society.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Sadly the liberals have been spending their time counteracting the well funded denial apparatus for many wasted years.
And in so many other areas. The Standard is a classic example of how much energy the left wastes reacting to rubbish rather than organising against it.
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
“Asian”
Mmm. Maybe you should nuance that generalisation. People may take it the "Wrong way".
-
Stamper Stamp, in reply to
Hi Steve
“Still have to pinch myself that we are arguing over whether Climate Change is a “thing” ”.Nah – there is no doubt that climate changes – it is a chaotic system which has always changed and always will. The issue is – is man-made CO2 the dominant factor in current climate change?.
To quote Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”So – no need for panic mate – it is just another beat-up for ulterior motives.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.