Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Key's 'Eva Peron' tour of the States avoiding the emissions issue

You'll have to excuse farmers if John Key's much trumpeted speech in New York last week declaring that Kiwis would lead a global research initiative to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture doesn't leave them braying with joy.

It's not that they don't like the cheerful little's just that he's so damn blatantly desperate to have New Zealand leading the world at something, that he's blindly about to all but sink our economy.

And no - those sentiments are not unrealistic. It is incredulous to think that the Government of the day would commit a country that is banking on its agriculture sector, into an emissions trading scheme that would see the same sector heavily penalised.

It all smacks of that 'little fish' chip on the shoulder we seem to carry around as Kiwis. If we're not at the forefront of everything (think mountaineering, women's vote...domestic violence) then we'll push our way forward, puff out the shoulders and say 'we'll do it mate', even if it does mean less money in the economy, slow economic growth and the difference between profitability and quitting the farm.

Isn't that what asking for a seat on the UN security council was all about after all?

And in all of it there is a distinct immaturity about our attitude, a need to be the teachers pet and to receive adulation from other countries who are not dumb enough to sign their countries to a death warrant.

What happened to the Lange 'up yours' nuclear ethos? Since when did we try to brown nose everyone?

Forget leading the world in research John boy, and sink that money into other agricultural research that scientists are clamouring to know, the kind that puts more money in our pockets - yours and ours.


Anonymous said...

Whacko-- good to read your perceptive comments once more.

What with Bill English having lost his way home and John Key determined to'sale'farmers on to the rocks,NZ needs somebody new in charge of navigation.

Would comment under my usual'Tired Farmer'name but only seem to be able to post on your site under Anonymous .

Sally said...


How can you trust government-funded scientists after this bombshell at

Blatant and grossly deceptive data selection ("cherrypicking") by Warmist "scientists"

The gist of the revelation is :

Audits of the climate science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded ($75 billion spent over 20years) highly organized climate monopoly.

Steve McIntyre a retired statistician became suspicious of the Hockey Stick Graph that the IPCC have widely cited as unimpeachable evidence that mankind was damaging the planet - an impact that would require drastic measures to reverse. At considerable personal expense McIntyre has finally exposed the scandal.

The Briffa temperature graphs appear to be based on a very carefully selected set of data where 12 samples were used to arrive at his version of the hockey stick. For years Briffa “refused” to provide his data for peer review. McIntyre finally got hold of it, and looked at the 34 samples left out of the graphs, a stark message was displayed that McIntyre describes it as one of the most disquieting images he’s ever presented.

The whole saga reveals the inadequacies of peer review particularly when the peer reviewers form a clique of colleagues and co-authors. Steve McIntyre has clearly demonstrated the importance of replication, which means the release of all data and methods, something that has been resisted by the climate community for far too long.

In science, getting the stamp of “peer review” has become like a free pass to credibility. This unwillingness to allow open examination of methods and data sources is rather common for some in the climate studies field. Despite that, we still have those who claim the “science is settled” and that we need to do whatever it takes to avoid climate catastrophe.

Science publishing by press release has resulted in a politicising of the science of global warming with fortunes to be made or lost based on how elected officials’ vote on a bill. We have ended up with science being used to support political consensus rather than finding the truth.