I had a look at the NSIDC long term arctic ice record; see attached copy. The 30 year graph by NSIDC (Word file) doesn't look flash, but that's because the bottom line is not zero, it is 14 million square km. I plotted this graph with a zero sq km bottom line and it changes the picture dramatically, it does not look anywhere near so bad, the 30 year decline is about 7.8%, which in geological terms is not at all big. The trend could easily reverse (as it has in the Antarctic) and increase the ice cover dramatically.
Yes, this really is the SAME Nick Smith....!!!!!!
How times do change.
Read the Nelson/Marlborough Farming Column from 2005:
|Friday, 25 November 2005|
Nelson/Marlborough Farming Column
The appetite of Dr Cullen and this Government for more taxes is legendary, 43 new and increased levies and taxes have been introduced. The latest is the carbon tax. It will add 6c per litre to the price of petrol, 7c per litre to diesel, 6% to all power bills and put the price of coal and gas up by 9%.
This week National launches the axecarbontax.co.nz campaign. The new finely balanced Parliament gives us the opportunity to send the carbon tax the way of the fart tax.
The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain.
Labour Ministers may take pride in being toasted at International Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue.
Press Release Thursday, April 8 2010
Speech on Third Reading, Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill, Wednesday, March 31 2010
Press Release by Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) at
11:15 am, 08 Apr 2010
The introduction of the Emissions Trading Scheme must be delayed, the
Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) says.
"The New Zealand economy is in no state to lead the world with an
emissions trading scheme covering the entire New Zealand economy," said
EMA's chief executive Alasdair Thompson.
"In these circumstances EMA recommends the government legislate to align
the entry of our industry sectors into the ETS with those of our trading
partners, once they have their schemes in place.
"Our financial situation is far too fragile to absorb the extra $255
million the government calculates the ETS will cost all of us.
"The cost is effectively another tax that will impact on every family.
"It will come on top of changes to GST, and also higher ACC levies which
are cutting into the take home pay of all employees right now.
"The ETS will also hit hard the competitiveness of many of our leading
industries, including all our major food producing exporters.
"They will face cost increases that their competitors overseas and in
the New Zealand market do not face.
"It will cost jobs.
"New Zealand is the only country in the world to be introducing an ETS
that covers all sectors and all so called greenhouse gases.
"It was disingenuous of Minister Nick Smith to say on Radio New Zealand
this morning that the EU has an ETS in place - theirs covers only four
percent of EU output; ours covers 100 per cent of output.
"His main reason for proceeding now was that not to would lead to
perverse outcomes in the forestry sector. However forestry could be
incentivised to keep planting under a low level carbon tax which could
be used to give them a credit though not part of an ETS.
United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a report every six years. Often referred to as the "climate bible" these reports are relied on by governments around the world.
The latest was released in 2007. Sometimes called the AR4 (the Fourth Assessment Report), it contains 44 chapters and is nearly 3,000 pages long. Written by people organized into teams - Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - it consists of three smaller reports bundled into one.
The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly said the report relies solely on peer-reviewed literature to support its findings. He has said research that hasn't appeared in peer-reviewed journals should be thrown "into the dustbin" (see the last line of this newspaper article). But our audit has discovered almost 5,600 non-peer-reviewed references in this report.
In elementary schools in the United States, students are assigned grades ranging from an A to an F, based on the mark they've achieved out of 100 (see Wikipedia's table here). Most parents would be alarmed if their child brought home a report card similar to the one received by the IPCC.
Pastural Farming Climate Research newsletter- 14 April 2010
by Robin Grieve
The Herald on Sunday ran an editorial “Meat the good and bad news”
It related to the finding that our sheep meat has a lower carbon footprint than European sheep meat when sold in Europe, despite the food miles.
This was the good news.
The AgResearch analysis bears out what farmers have long been saying: that food miles are only a small part of the equation and that European and American sheepmeat production techniques have huge energy costs that farming of pasture-fed animals does not incur.
Then the bad news.
But the figures tell a darker story: 80 per cent of the carbon emissions are generated before the animals are even trucked out the farm gate.
The editorial concluded
there is no getting away from the fact that we all need to eat less meat.
Where does one start? People who call for us to eat less meat based on carbon emissions but do not make the same call for a reduction in rice consumption, which is also a significant producer of methane, have I believe questionable motives. A number of vegetarians, Paul McCartney and Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, to name a couple have been very vocal in trying to get people to eat less meat.
John Boscawen MP, ACT New Zealand
Speech to New Zealand Grey Power Federation Annual General Meeting, College House, Christchurch, Wednesday, April 14 2010.
8 February 2010
NEW YORK — Before the United Nations can save the planet, it needs to clean up its own house. And as scandal after scandal has unfolded over the past decade, from Oil for Food to procurement fraud to peacekeeper rape, the size of that job has become stunningly clear.
But any understanding of the real efforts that job entails should begin with a look at the long and murky career of Maurice Strong, the man who may have had the most to do with what the U.N. has become today, and still sparks controversy even after he claims to have cut his ties to the world organization.
From Oil for Food to the latest scandals involving U.N. funding in North Korea, Maurice Strong appears as a shadowy and often critically important figure.