Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 03:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 20:44:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/08/24/the-founder-of-the-weather-channel-debunks-the-climate-cult/

There is an increasing number of people with solid backgrounds and >>>>>expertise
who are saying similar things.
Time to open minds.

I am interested in climate trends. To me it is apparent that our >>>>planet is warming up, but not apparent is what is causing this and how >>>>catastrophic this development is to humans. I get that there is >>>>opposition to the notion that climate change is man-made, and I >>>>certainly oppose climate-mitigation in NZ until northern-hemisphere >>>>countries show serious intent to do the same.

Am I missing something here? Is there a widespread belief that the >>>>earth is not warming up?

Not to my knowledge Crash. I have never suggested that it is not warming. >>>And
it has gone through warming and cooling periods for millenia.
My concern is that the assumption, rarely supported scientifically, that the >>>cause is predominantly man-made is at least questionable.

The most-often cited link to man-made cause seems to be the large
increase in CO2 emissions, starting with the advent of steam power
during the industrial revolution (produced by fire-heated boilers) and
then increasing substantially with the extraction/refining of crude
oil and the burning of refined product.

I don't know all the nuances linking CO2 emissions to man-made global >>warming so I would appreciate clarity on this.

I saw a chart some time ago showing the rate of growth of vegetation/trees etc >for different levels of CO2 in the air. And it showed that the optimum CO2 >level was a few hundred years ago and CO2 is actually lower than that now. I >will see if I can find that chart and post a link here.
Tony

Sorry Crash, I cannot find that chart.
Suffice it to say that more and more scientists are disputing the extent to which human activity is the main cause of climate change.
I and others have posted examples of that here dozeens of times.
Climate has always changed and it has been hotter than it is now. Nature appears to compensate rather well, better at it than mankind I believe.
No one here (to my knowledge) argues against us doing sensible things to mitigate our impact on the environment. Doing those things is good. The question is what is sensible and what is merely panic (often driven by politics and/or greed) - and that is my debate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 02:42:23 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 03:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 20:44:26 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/08/24/the-founder-of-the-weather-channel-debunks-the-climate-cult/

There is an increasing number of people with solid backgrounds and >>>>>>expertise
who are saying similar things.
Time to open minds.

I am interested in climate trends. To me it is apparent that our >>>>>planet is warming up, but not apparent is what is causing this and how >>>>>catastrophic this development is to humans. I get that there is >>>>>opposition to the notion that climate change is man-made, and I >>>>>certainly oppose climate-mitigation in NZ until northern-hemisphere >>>>>countries show serious intent to do the same.

Am I missing something here? Is there a widespread belief that the >>>>>earth is not warming up?

Not to my knowledge Crash. I have never suggested that it is not warming. >>>>And
it has gone through warming and cooling periods for millenia.
My concern is that the assumption, rarely supported scientifically, that the
cause is predominantly man-made is at least questionable.

The most-often cited link to man-made cause seems to be the large >>>increase in CO2 emissions, starting with the advent of steam power
during the industrial revolution (produced by fire-heated boilers) and >>>then increasing substantially with the extraction/refining of crude
oil and the burning of refined product.

I don't know all the nuances linking CO2 emissions to man-made global >>>warming so I would appreciate clarity on this.

I saw a chart some time ago showing the rate of growth of vegetation/trees etc
for different levels of CO2 in the air. And it showed that the optimum CO2 >>level was a few hundred years ago and CO2 is actually lower than that now. I >>will see if I can find that chart and post a link here.
Tony

Sorry Crash, I cannot find that chart.
Suffice it to say that more and more scientists are disputing the extent to >which human activity is the main cause of climate change.
I and others have posted examples of that here dozeens of times.
Climate has always changed and it has been hotter than it is now. Nature >appears to compensate rather well, better at it than mankind I believe.
No one here (to my knowledge) argues against us doing sensible things to >mitigate our impact on the environment. Doing those things is good. The >question is what is sensible and what is merely panic (often driven by politics
and/or greed) - and that is my debate.

Thanks Tony.

My angle has always been that financial ruin of NZers in the name of
climate change mitigation is irrational because weather bombs such as
cyclones etc. will continue to occur because they are driven by
world-wide causes. We can mitigate climate change to the nth degree
but the weather bombs will continue because climate change causes are
rooted in Northern Hemisphere country emissions. Yes there are 'set
the example' considerations for Southern Hemisphere countries but
setting the example is pointless if it generates no action from
Northern Hemisphere countries (dominated by countries governed by
totalitarian governments (hello Russia and China and other smaller
players).

So NZ should certainly mitigate the anticipated sea-level rises and
other coastal defences, but we should carry on with our exported
production of food without bothering with climate-change measures.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:35:07 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:13:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

So NZ should certainly mitigate the anticipated sea-level rises and
other coastal defences,

Why?

Some coastal settlements probably need to be moved. The damage done
by the recent cyclones is evidence that repaired infrastructure and
rebuilt buildings should be more resilient.

In 1988 the Maldives were predicted to be uninhabitable in thirty
years time because man made climate change was going to cause the sea
level to rise.

The due date came and went without incident.

I can watch the tides going up and down from my French windows, and in
the last 18 years there has been no perceptible change in tidal
behaviour.

The alarmists have been predicting climate disasters for more than
fitfy years. Every one of their predictions has failed.

The only reason this stuff is taken seriously is because of the
incessant drumbeat of propaganda from the media. If it wasn't for
that, nobody would have any concerns about the climate.

"We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy anymore" - Ottmar Edenhofer. Co-chair
IPCC Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change"

Bill.

I agree with the general tenor of what you say. In my original
comment I should have said that we build back more resilient or
relocate and rebuild as the need arises. I was referring to actual
damage suffered (primarily from weather events).


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:13:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

So NZ should certainly mitigate the anticipated sea-level rises and
other coastal defences,

Why?

In 1988 the Maldives were predicted to be uninhabitable in thirty
years time because man made climate change was going to cause the sea
level to rise.

The due date came and went without incident.

I can watch the tides going up and down from my French windows, and in
the last 18 years there has been no perceptible change in tidal
behaviour.

The alarmists have been predicting climate disasters for more than
fitfy years. Every one of their predictions has failed.

The only reason this stuff is taken seriously is because of the
incessant drumbeat of propaganda from the media. If it wasn't for
that, nobody would have any concerns about the climate.

"We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy anymore" - Ottmar Edenhofer. Co-chair
IPCC Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change"

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 08:14:08 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:35:07 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:13:42 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:

So NZ should certainly mitigate the anticipated sea-level rises and
other coastal defences,

Why?

Some coastal settlements probably need to be moved. The damage done
by the recent cyclones is evidence that repaired infrastructure and
rebuilt buildings should be more resilient.

I agree. Some of the damage is from changes to sea and storm patterns,
some from natural erosion, some from human change to land that is not sustainable (around the Firth of Thames is one region where water
control has been getting more difficult.

In 1988 the Maldives were predicted to be uninhabitable in thirty
years time because man made climate change was going to cause the sea
level to rise.

The due date came and went without incident.

I can watch the tides going up and down from my French windows, and in
the last 18 years there has been no perceptible change in tidal
behaviour.

It is difficult for scientists to detect small changes in sea levels
as the effects of seasonal tides and daily weather fluctuations need
to be carefully separated from true sea level changes (and in some
areas earthquakes have affected levels as well). Changes to ice
levels at the poles are perhaps more readily identified., but personal perceptions are not usually adequate for the very small changes from
day to day, month to month or year to year . . .

The alarmists have been predicting climate disasters for more than
fitfy years. Every one of their predictions has failed.

The only reason this stuff is taken seriously is because of the
incessant drumbeat of propaganda from the media. If it wasn't for
that, nobody would have any concerns about the climate.

"We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate
policy is environmental policy anymore" - Ottmar Edenhofer. Co-chair
IPCC Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change"

Bill.

I agree with the general tenor of what you say. In my original
comment I should have said that we build back more resilient or
relocate and rebuild as the need arises. I was referring to actual
damage suffered (primarily from weather events).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)