Frequently we have smoke coming out of chimneys as a background. The implication is we are still pouring carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere. Most of the time this is white smoke and it appears to be coming from nuclear power stations. White smoke is nearly always steam - hot water vapour. It’s part of the cooling process for a nuclear power station. Absolutely harmless.
Steam - hot water vapour from nuclear power stations, as well as many other sources.
Then we had some scaremongering about sea level rise-yet again! Let’s go back a few years.
UN predicts disaster if global warming not checked.
From Peter James Spielmann June 30th 1989:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) A senior UN environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is no reversed by the year 2000- (YES 2000) !
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco refugees threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the UN environmental programme UNEP.
He said governments had a 10 year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes out of control. (That’s still by the year 2000.)
As the warming melts polar ice caps (That’s both ice caps), ocean levels will rise up to three feet, (that’s nearly a metre), enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations , Brown told the Associated Press in an interview.
Coastal regions will be inundated, one sixth of Bangladesh will be flooded displacing a quarter of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta will be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and US Environmental Protection Agency study. Ecological refugees will become a major concern.
Pretty scary. The trouble is none of this happened by the year 2000. It still hasn’t happened.
Now the climate alarmists are having another go. If we don’t cut emissions (meaning carbon dioxide) by such and such a date then coastlines will be under water. Once again they were calling land subsidence, sea level rise. Continents are moving constantly. They are basically floating and move around – continental drift it is called. NZ separated from Australia some 80 million years ago. Parts of continents are sinking while other parts may be rising, but a sinking part of land is not sea level rise. A portion of land may be sinking because residents have drawn off too much ground water leaving an underground void. This is still not sea level rise.
Let’s look at the Maldives, since that was specifically mentioned back in 1989. The Maldives should have been covered by the sea by now. When the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage their entirety. As the ice caps melted and seas crept higher, these accidents of geologic history were bound to be corrected and the tiny islands returned to watery oblivion.
Not long ago researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. Eventually they looked at close to 1000 islands. They found that over the past decades while several islands stayed just the same, many had grown in size.
New Zealand researchers published a study in 2018. Based on aerial photos and satellite images of Pacific Islands over the last four decades the study found that most atolls they examined were increasing in size. The results echoed a 2015 study by the same lead author that also found coral island expansion. Study lead author and scientist Paul Kench told the New Scientist “that the Maldives were also growing.”
In 1988 when the Agence France-Presse reported a gradual rise in sea level is threatening to cover this small Indian Ocean nation of about 1200 islands within the next thirty years, the population was 200,000. Today more than 417,000 people live in the Maldives.
Sea level rise is a bit less than 2mm per year, a result of coming out of the last major ice age, plus the Little Ice Age. Several prominent scientists, among them a sea level expert, have found that the rate of sea level rise In NOT increasing. This minimal sea level rise gives us plenty of time to adapt.
Coastal Erosion
TV1 trotted out the effect of king tides on coastal areas. The inference being that rising sea levels were causing coastal erosion. Now and again we get what are called king tides. A king tide occurs when the orbits of the Earth, moon and sun combine to produce the greatest tidal effects of the year. If a strong wind is behind an incoming tide, then waves can be pushed high up on the shore-nothing to do with sea level rise. The prevailing wind in New Zealand is from the west, so that the west coast suffers most from coastal erosion. TV 1 makes hay out of this and shows water over roads and damage to property, the implication being that humans are causing global warming, sea level rise and so on.
Then we had some scaremongering about sea level rise-yet again! Let’s go back a few years.
UN predicts disaster if global warming not checked.
From Peter James Spielmann June 30th 1989:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) A senior UN environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is no reversed by the year 2000- (YES 2000) !
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco refugees threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the UN environmental programme UNEP.
He said governments had a 10 year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes out of control. (That’s still by the year 2000.)
As the warming melts polar ice caps (That’s both ice caps), ocean levels will rise up to three feet, (that’s nearly a metre), enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations , Brown told the Associated Press in an interview.
Coastal regions will be inundated, one sixth of Bangladesh will be flooded displacing a quarter of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta will be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and US Environmental Protection Agency study. Ecological refugees will become a major concern.
Pretty scary. The trouble is none of this happened by the year 2000. It still hasn’t happened.
Now the climate alarmists are having another go. If we don’t cut emissions (meaning carbon dioxide) by such and such a date then coastlines will be under water. Once again they were calling land subsidence, sea level rise. Continents are moving constantly. They are basically floating and move around – continental drift it is called. NZ separated from Australia some 80 million years ago. Parts of continents are sinking while other parts may be rising, but a sinking part of land is not sea level rise. A portion of land may be sinking because residents have drawn off too much ground water leaving an underground void. This is still not sea level rise.
Let’s look at the Maldives, since that was specifically mentioned back in 1989. The Maldives should have been covered by the sea by now. When the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage their entirety. As the ice caps melted and seas crept higher, these accidents of geologic history were bound to be corrected and the tiny islands returned to watery oblivion.
Not long ago researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. Eventually they looked at close to 1000 islands. They found that over the past decades while several islands stayed just the same, many had grown in size.
New Zealand researchers published a study in 2018. Based on aerial photos and satellite images of Pacific Islands over the last four decades the study found that most atolls they examined were increasing in size. The results echoed a 2015 study by the same lead author that also found coral island expansion. Study lead author and scientist Paul Kench told the New Scientist “that the Maldives were also growing.”
In 1988 when the Agence France-Presse reported a gradual rise in sea level is threatening to cover this small Indian Ocean nation of about 1200 islands within the next thirty years, the population was 200,000. Today more than 417,000 people live in the Maldives.
Sea level rise is a bit less than 2mm per year, a result of coming out of the last major ice age, plus the Little Ice Age. Several prominent scientists, among them a sea level expert, have found that the rate of sea level rise In NOT increasing. This minimal sea level rise gives us plenty of time to adapt.
Coastal Erosion
TV1 trotted out the effect of king tides on coastal areas. The inference being that rising sea levels were causing coastal erosion. Now and again we get what are called king tides. A king tide occurs when the orbits of the Earth, moon and sun combine to produce the greatest tidal effects of the year. If a strong wind is behind an incoming tide, then waves can be pushed high up on the shore-nothing to do with sea level rise. The prevailing wind in New Zealand is from the west, so that the west coast suffers most from coastal erosion. TV 1 makes hay out of this and shows water over roads and damage to property, the implication being that humans are causing global warming, sea level rise and so on.
I have deliberately chosen this photo from 1903, long before carbon dioxide or climate change mania arose as a problem. Coastal erosion has always happened.
Ocean “acidification”
We are constantly told that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving in our oceans is making the oceans more acidic. Actually the oceans are warming. Warm water holds less carbon dioxide, so the oceans are actually putting out carbon dioxide - not absorbing it. But let’s go with the alarmists - the oceans are becoming more acidic. The acidification of the oceans is, according to the IPCC and the climate alarmists, postulated to result in serious consequences to marine life, plus the dissolving of shells of various organisms. This is challenged by many scientists. Determining what is an acid or alkali depends on the pH of the solution. Without defining pH we can just say that pH is a number from 0 to 14. The half way point 7, is neutral, a number less than 7 means an acid, and more than 7 means an alkali. Pure water has a pH of 7.
This is what the IPCC said in one of their reports:
Since the beginning of the Industrial era, oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide has resulted in acidification of the oceans. The pH of surface water has decreased by 0.1, corresponding to a 26% increasing acidity measured as Hydrogen ion concentration.
If you read this you would get the impression that the oceans are acidic. They are not. The oceans are alkaline and have been for many millions of years. The figure 26% sounds very frightening. It’s NOT a 26% decrease in pH, it is a 26% increase in Hydrogen ion concentration. (Hydrogen ions are a measure of acidity). However the figure 26% is wrong anyway.
The percentage change in the Hydrogen ion concentration is actually 20.6 not 26.
Now the pH has dropped from 8.3 to 8.2 so the percentage drop is (8.3-8.2)/ 8.3 x 100 and this equals just 1%. So the pH has dropped only 1% in about 170 years. (That’s without considering the recent warming of the oceans.)
At this rate, it will take a very long time for the pH to fall below 7, especially if the oceans keep warming.
Coral Reefs
Two women M J Altman and Dinahlee Padilla Vasquez wrote an article on June 6th 2024: “While bleaching of coral reefs is one of the most visible signs of the world’ oceans in crisis, for the most part we do not see what is happening underwater.”
They say that reports from the IPCC shows that ocean warming, ocean acidification and oxygen loss will continue to increase in the 21st century. This is complete disinformation by the IPCC. You can’t have it both ways. They say the oceans are warming and then in the next breath that acidification of the oceans will increase. NO! The warming oceans will release more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The oceans will not become more acidic, but more alkaline.
There will not be more oxygen loss. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere will produce more plant life, therefore more oxygen. The carbon dioxide that comes out of the oceans does not use any oxygen, unlike burning. Jessie Turner, Executive director of the International Alliance to Combat Ocean acidification says: “We could lose 90% of the world’s coral by 2025.”
The Bleaching: Clifford Oliver from the University of Perth in Western Australia has a word about coral bleaching: “There is a completely fake argument used by alarmists that coral bleaching is caused by carbon dioxide. Bleached coral is perfectly normal, and occurs when wave driven mixing ceases during periods of extended calm, with unusual warming of the surface 1-2m of sea water. The reef recovers in a few years by recolonisation.”
Up until 2016/17 the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), published aggregate data for the coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef. Then they stopped. However some scientists allied to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, obtained aggregate data from 2017 onwards and published the findings. The graph below makes it clear that AIMS has hidden the good news that the average reef cover in 2022 is the highest on record. The reefs are alive and doing very well. AIMS had previously predicted that coral growth would decline to between 5% and 10% by 2022. The cover in 2022 is now over 30%.
Ocean “acidification”
We are constantly told that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving in our oceans is making the oceans more acidic. Actually the oceans are warming. Warm water holds less carbon dioxide, so the oceans are actually putting out carbon dioxide - not absorbing it. But let’s go with the alarmists - the oceans are becoming more acidic. The acidification of the oceans is, according to the IPCC and the climate alarmists, postulated to result in serious consequences to marine life, plus the dissolving of shells of various organisms. This is challenged by many scientists. Determining what is an acid or alkali depends on the pH of the solution. Without defining pH we can just say that pH is a number from 0 to 14. The half way point 7, is neutral, a number less than 7 means an acid, and more than 7 means an alkali. Pure water has a pH of 7.
This is what the IPCC said in one of their reports:
Since the beginning of the Industrial era, oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide has resulted in acidification of the oceans. The pH of surface water has decreased by 0.1, corresponding to a 26% increasing acidity measured as Hydrogen ion concentration.
If you read this you would get the impression that the oceans are acidic. They are not. The oceans are alkaline and have been for many millions of years. The figure 26% sounds very frightening. It’s NOT a 26% decrease in pH, it is a 26% increase in Hydrogen ion concentration. (Hydrogen ions are a measure of acidity). However the figure 26% is wrong anyway.
The percentage change in the Hydrogen ion concentration is actually 20.6 not 26.
Now the pH has dropped from 8.3 to 8.2 so the percentage drop is (8.3-8.2)/ 8.3 x 100 and this equals just 1%. So the pH has dropped only 1% in about 170 years. (That’s without considering the recent warming of the oceans.)
At this rate, it will take a very long time for the pH to fall below 7, especially if the oceans keep warming.
Coral Reefs
Two women M J Altman and Dinahlee Padilla Vasquez wrote an article on June 6th 2024: “While bleaching of coral reefs is one of the most visible signs of the world’ oceans in crisis, for the most part we do not see what is happening underwater.”
They say that reports from the IPCC shows that ocean warming, ocean acidification and oxygen loss will continue to increase in the 21st century. This is complete disinformation by the IPCC. You can’t have it both ways. They say the oceans are warming and then in the next breath that acidification of the oceans will increase. NO! The warming oceans will release more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The oceans will not become more acidic, but more alkaline.
There will not be more oxygen loss. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere will produce more plant life, therefore more oxygen. The carbon dioxide that comes out of the oceans does not use any oxygen, unlike burning. Jessie Turner, Executive director of the International Alliance to Combat Ocean acidification says: “We could lose 90% of the world’s coral by 2025.”
The Bleaching: Clifford Oliver from the University of Perth in Western Australia has a word about coral bleaching: “There is a completely fake argument used by alarmists that coral bleaching is caused by carbon dioxide. Bleached coral is perfectly normal, and occurs when wave driven mixing ceases during periods of extended calm, with unusual warming of the surface 1-2m of sea water. The reef recovers in a few years by recolonisation.”
Up until 2016/17 the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), published aggregate data for the coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef. Then they stopped. However some scientists allied to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, obtained aggregate data from 2017 onwards and published the findings. The graph below makes it clear that AIMS has hidden the good news that the average reef cover in 2022 is the highest on record. The reefs are alive and doing very well. AIMS had previously predicted that coral growth would decline to between 5% and 10% by 2022. The cover in 2022 is now over 30%.
Why did AIMS stop publishing Data? Simply because it showed coral reefs were actually growing and doing very well. Oh, and the author exposing this cover-up is Peter Ridd who is a physicist. He has researched the Gt. Barrier Reef since 1984, and has published over 100 scientific publications. A former head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, at James Cook University in Townsville Australia, he was fired in 2018 for pointing out quality assurance deficiencies in reef science institutions. Speak out against the climate activists and you lose your job.
Is the IPCC Honest?
It is often reported that there is a consensus of opinion among climate scientists that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change but this is not the case. According to many involved with the IPCC including Professor John Christy, lead author, not all of the 2500 scientists listed as contributors agree with the findings of the reports, and some have had to fight to have their names removed. There are claims that the IPCC has censored its scientists. PROFESSOR FREDERICK SEITZ WROTE A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYING THAT THE VERSION OF THE LATEST IPCC REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED WAS NOT THE VERSION APPROVED BY THE SCIENTISTS LISTED ON THE TITLE PAGE. He went on to say that at least 15 of the key sections in the science chapter had been deleted including the following statements: “NONE OF THE STUDIES CITED ABOVE HAS SHOWN ANY CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN ATTRIBUTE THE OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GASES, AND NO STUDY TO DATE HAS POSITIVELY ATTRIBUTED ALL OR PART OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE OBSERVED TO DATE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES
The IPCC did not deny removing any sections but said there was “no bias” in their report.
So here we have the scientists in the IPCC saying it was FAR from certain that humans were causing climate change, and that there wasn’t any clear evidence that Carbon Dioxide was causing climate changes. But clearly this was overridden by the political members of the IPCC.
It seems a great many politicians have made up their minds that greenhouse gases are the main driver of climate change, and they do not seem very willing to explore other possibilities. The media seems to have followed their lead.
At least some of the scientists in the IPCC are honest, but the politicians seem to dictate the play.
So is the IPCC about scientists making decisions? NO. IT IS ABOUT POLITICIANS WITHIN THAT GROUP MAKING THE DECISIONS TO KEEP THE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE FRAUD GOING.
THE POLITICIANS ARE RUNNING THE IPCC NOT THE SCIENTISTS
Many have suggested that politicians are providing funds for scientists to prove a CO2-Temperature link and that the IPCC findings are politically led. Certainly looks like it.
Finally: Climate alarmist cult members just ignore aspects of climate change that do not suit their narrative. Here are some:
The Club of Rome used computer models to show that the Earth may run out of resources. They wanted to check population growth and made the following statement:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the IDEA that the threat of global warming would fit the bill”
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this in an interview in 2010:
“We (The UN/IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
This is real person - a member of the IPCC. He actually said this. It is on record.
What he is saying is that this is a political movement. The climate scare is nothing but a tool to help them achieve their aim of a world government.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
Is the IPCC Honest?
It is often reported that there is a consensus of opinion among climate scientists that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change but this is not the case. According to many involved with the IPCC including Professor John Christy, lead author, not all of the 2500 scientists listed as contributors agree with the findings of the reports, and some have had to fight to have their names removed. There are claims that the IPCC has censored its scientists. PROFESSOR FREDERICK SEITZ WROTE A LETTER TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYING THAT THE VERSION OF THE LATEST IPCC REPORT THAT WAS RELEASED WAS NOT THE VERSION APPROVED BY THE SCIENTISTS LISTED ON THE TITLE PAGE. He went on to say that at least 15 of the key sections in the science chapter had been deleted including the following statements: “NONE OF THE STUDIES CITED ABOVE HAS SHOWN ANY CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN ATTRIBUTE THE OBSERVED CLIMATE CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC CAUSE OF INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GASES, AND NO STUDY TO DATE HAS POSITIVELY ATTRIBUTED ALL OR PART OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE OBSERVED TO DATE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSES
The IPCC did not deny removing any sections but said there was “no bias” in their report.
So here we have the scientists in the IPCC saying it was FAR from certain that humans were causing climate change, and that there wasn’t any clear evidence that Carbon Dioxide was causing climate changes. But clearly this was overridden by the political members of the IPCC.
It seems a great many politicians have made up their minds that greenhouse gases are the main driver of climate change, and they do not seem very willing to explore other possibilities. The media seems to have followed their lead.
At least some of the scientists in the IPCC are honest, but the politicians seem to dictate the play.
So is the IPCC about scientists making decisions? NO. IT IS ABOUT POLITICIANS WITHIN THAT GROUP MAKING THE DECISIONS TO KEEP THE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE FRAUD GOING.
THE POLITICIANS ARE RUNNING THE IPCC NOT THE SCIENTISTS
Many have suggested that politicians are providing funds for scientists to prove a CO2-Temperature link and that the IPCC findings are politically led. Certainly looks like it.
Finally: Climate alarmist cult members just ignore aspects of climate change that do not suit their narrative. Here are some:
The Club of Rome used computer models to show that the Earth may run out of resources. They wanted to check population growth and made the following statement:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the IDEA that the threat of global warming would fit the bill”
Dr Ottmar Endenhoffer, a member of the IPCC said this in an interview in 2010:
“We (The UN/IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
This is real person - a member of the IPCC. He actually said this. It is on record.
What he is saying is that this is a political movement. The climate scare is nothing but a tool to help them achieve their aim of a world government.
Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.
7 comments:
I also saw thae TV1 propoganda item, hosted by that well known scientist, Simon Dallow. That was the last time I watched TV1 news. It's not news, but mostly opinion and in this case blatent propaganda for the climate change cause.
Thanks Ian, glad we missed the TVI propagandising. I am prompted to repeat something of a comment attached to Muriel's last piece about Climate Deception.
This mainstay of wokedom is diverting resources and attention from what many of us boomers have long thought was the real threat. Reading one of the latest updates regarding the 1970's book Limits to Growth (search on jiec.13442 and the paper will pop up). Figure 3 in that update (I cannot paste that here) shows the latest recalibration against the original Business as Usual (BAU) World 3 modelling. Reality has been pretty much following the BAU modelling which is no surprise to me. I was expecting the Seneca cliff to be looming because of the protracting effects of fracking, etc. Well, this shows it very graphically with the World at peak Industrial output/food production and only one place to go from here. Apart from buying into the climate crisis nonsense, politicians are looking at growth as our saviour. However, a good look at Fig 3 would indicate that the growth phase of humanity is pretty much over bar the shouting.
The interesting and unexpected bit pertinent to Muriel's points and Ian writings, is the pushing out by some 50 years of the persistent pollution bit. This to me includes the global warming/climate change hysteria and hype. I always thought that if there was anything to it, nature would sort us out and I think that is pretty much what will happen. It may take a while for the starvation bit to get to us as it is (has already been!) starting in other parts of the World, so we can just swan along and leave the effects of resource depletion to those that follow us. Like George Box said, all models are wrong but some are useful, however in this case, the BAU model has proven fairly robust. It was and still is not a prediction, but I've watched it with interest now for nearly 50 years and it has tracked along fairly accurately apart from the delayed pollution bit. Could it be that our politicians have been blind sided and/or are looking in the wrong direction? Okay, I know, that is a rhetorical question. Climate change is not the threat, I fear that blind stupidity is.
I did some research on this topic, looking at some of the more apocalyptic claims being made by the various panic merchants.
What I found is that almost ALL of the IPCC computer model predictions simply did not occur. An example was the IPCC prediction in 2005 that by the year 2010, there would be 50 million "climate change refugees" caused by flooding of massive seaside areas around the world, all caused by sea level rise due to global warming.
Well - 2010 arrived and ZERO climate refugees. The map that the IPCC had published, showing where all the massive flooding would occur, was taken down.
The IPCC is consistently wrong in it's predictions of doom.
1/ No 50 million climate refugees by 2010, as they forecast in 2005. Zero, in fact.
2/ No increase in rate of sea level rising.
3/ Artic Ice is still there, and not melting away
3/ Antarctic Ice is actually growing.
4/ Extreme weather events, world-wide are NOT increasing.
5/ Forest fires, world-wide, are not increasing.
6/ Yes – the planet has been slowly warming, (in fits and starts) as its only 172 years since we came out of the Little Ice Age in 1850. (That rise has been just 0.8°C).
7/ Also, all of the dire predictions made by everybody from King Charles to Attenborough, simply did not occur. It was all apocalyptic panic merchant behavior.
On further study, I found that the “warming” effect of CO2 is very secondary to water vapor, which is present in much higher amounts. Also – the “warming” effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
I also found authoritive graphs of global temperatures and CO2 levels going back millions of years, showing that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global temp. It is very clear that climate change is a natural process, and that human CO2 emissions do not cause apocalyptic global warming.
It is also clear that – in the broader picture of planet Earth and it’s history – we are in a planetary CO2 starvation.
I have received a submission headed "Not for publication" apparently seeking contact with Ian Bradford. Unfortunately I have no way of tracing articles and comments back to their point of origin.
MODERATOR
I also seriously question that any government has actually worked out what it will cost for New Zealand (an extremely minor CO2 emitter) to actually carry out the proposed "emission reductions."
The Climate Control Commission’s recommendations have been costed out by NZIER.
Full compliance has been costed out. The cost to NZ’s economy will be $86b per year.
That is 86 BILLION DOLLARS per year – EVERY year. $86,000,000,000 per year.
That works out to $17,000 per year per head of population.
This is fast track, train wreck, economic suicide.
Translated – a typical four person family will be paying 4 x $17,000 = $68,000 per year, EVERY year just to meet the dreamland CCC’s recommendations. This is a THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK per person, every week.
Bear in mind that this is only to stop NZ’s emissions, which are only 0.17% (= 1/600th) of total global human emissions, which in turn are only 3% of total global CO2 emissions. 3% x 0.17% = 0.0051% !! i.e. NZ emissions are basically ZERO !!. So – goodbye Kiwis and the world does not give a sh^t.
The IPCC denies a connection between GHGs and most types of extreme weather.
A fact as their report ARG WG1, Table 12.12
Emissions do not need to be reduced.
Yes Doug, the sums are quite compelling. Should we blame the lack of a functional maths curriculum on the stupidity of our politicians of all ilk?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.