Info message
Successful operation message
Warning message
Error message

Colin Fenwick

83 comments · +567 / −362 · rank #4685 of 40,276

Ignoring platitudes like we must do our bit and NZ can lead the way, considering the annual increase in Chinas emissions is currently ten times NZs total, how much do you expect global temperatures to decrease if NZ does meet your 2050 target of zero emissions?

+74−9

Get to the Mexican/USA border and defend that caravan of indigenous people seeking refugee status in the United Snakes of Ameri-KKK-a.......Theyre seeking refuge because their countries have been wrecked by that colonial power known as the USA.So they are supposedly fleeing to a racist country that wreck their own countries. A career in hip hop was a wise choice.

+48−5

Sea levels had been rising by 2 millimetres a year since 1900 and would rise by between 20 centimetres and 30cm in the next few decades. Bell said the Governments Zero Carbon Bill aimed to reduce emissions, but it take decades to know if it made any differenceThis must be a misquote as a coastal engineer employed by NIWA couldnt be this naive. Expecting a 10 fold increase in sea level rise, when the trend has been constant for decades? NZs CO2 emissions accounts for around 0.1% of the total, globally. The Zero Carbon Bill will make Zero difference to rising sea levels. Zero!

+56−33

The fossil fuel industry must rapidly become obsolete if we are to protect this generation and future generations from the terrible effects of climate change. - Dr Russel Norman.If the fossil fuel industry did rapidly become obsolete, we wouldnt be able to protect future generations from much, including the climate, changing or otherwise.

+14−0

US-style denialismTheres that D word again. Not exactly sure what the author thinks the US is denying (the President has deviantly tweeted his abhorrence towards Obamas empty posturing on the subject). For what its worth, what can not be denied though is the recent reduction in total CO2 emissions from the US.

+17−4

SunnyDunners is correct. A simple example and for mathematical ease, lets assume GST is 10%. Net of GST, a business has input costs of $60 and sales of $100. This is a profit of $40.If we now include GST (or as you state, a Value Added Tax) and consider cash flow, the costs were $66 with sales of $110. The business collects and remits to the IRD net GST of $4 ($10 - $6). The net cash flow is therefore $40 ($110 - $66 - $4). Businesses are simply unpaid collectors of GST for the IRD. Also, turnovers of under $100 isnt a business, its a hobby.

+8−3

Capital gains tax punishes hard workTo be fair, most taxes punishes hard work, as its in the regressive nature of most tax systems seen globally.

+7−2

Carbon credits? What if the Larkins sourced the wood pellets from forests in North Carolina, then shipped them across the Atlantic? Wouldnt that be classified as â˜carbon neutral?Insert winking smiley face intended for Nathan Poe.

+3−0

In regards to California, I think you have confused aspirational with actual. The majority of the reductions are courtesy of cheap and abundant natural gas, made possible by fracking.I cant recall ever defending Trump. If he, or any other individual in my opinion deserved to be defended, then I shall obliged.

+2−0

I dont need a degree in Climate Astrology to provide a discerned comment. My reply was addressing Bells statement regarding the NZ Governments misnamed Zero Carbon Bill and its efficacy in relation to reducing future sea level rise. I thought was patently clear.Prof. Paul Kench from the University of Auckland has researched the changing land area of Pacific atolls. I recommend reading some of his work.

+3−1

Unfortunately, this article misrepresents NIWAs position regarding the link between El Niños and AGW. The actual statement from their website.Some researchers have suggested the frequency (and perhaps intensity) of El Niños will be affected by climate change resulting from continuing enhanced anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is as yet no scientific consensus on this issue, or on whether the relatively higher frequency of El Niños over the last two decades is related to the slow rise in global temperatures this centuryThe same page gives a thorough explanation of the ENSO phenomenon, which I do recommend to anyone who is interested.

+2−0

Bert, its not the first time you have confused facts with opinion.Under law and treaties signed & enacted by the National govt the launch site becomes effectively US territory similar to the US military base in Harewood ChchCare to provide actual support for this statement?

+5−4

It appears there been at least a partial misquote, as some of Bells wisdom has been edited.The article now reads: Bell said reductions in global emissions would take decades to make a difference to sea-level rise.Though, millimeters are still centimeters so your weetbix packet theory still holds.

+1−1

Ignoring air resistance, the distance or Range the ball will travel is equal to R = sin(2θ) . v²/g (where θ & v are the initial angle and velocity respectively and g acceleration due to gravity). θ of 45° will maximise R since sin(2θ) = 1. Alternatively, you can differentiate R wrt θ and solving this for zero also arrives at 45° (cos(2θ) = 0).Including air resistance obviously alters the angle for maximum R. Intuitively, a lower initial angle will result in the ball being in flight for less time, therefore affected by air resistance to a lesser degree (pun intended) hence further distance travelled.

+0−0

Unfortunately I have been unable to view the IMF report which claims these amount to $5T p.a. But as with similar other reports that I have been able to inspect, I imagine the definition of indirect subsidies is what inflates this figure.

+0−0

I doubt his were expecting one or two metres as a minimum means that at all, Surly. Over the past 25 years, satellite data has shown SLR to be constant at 3mm/yr. Continuing for another 80, should see around another 24cm. Significantly less than 70cm and a fraction of what Mr Dahm is expecting.

+3−3

NASA states 97 per cent of publishing scientists say humans are causing climate change – some refuse to be shifted from their position of dissent.When a member of the 3 per cent is also the chairman of the Horizons Regional Council, Bruce Gordon, we have a problemalthough Gordon doesnt deny humans play a role in accelerating global warming,Doesnt the second statement confirm that Bruce Gordon is in fact a member of the 97%? Regardless, his views on CAGW should be irrelevant in chairing a small local council.

+0−0

Ahhhh, its the classic neo-liberals in bed with the communists conspiracy. With perhaps an anti free buses twist, thrown in for good measure?

+7−9

Surly, the first Cook et al paper is in relation to #1 & 2. i.e that the fundamental cause of global warming is Anthropogenic. The second is Cook with a couple more of the usual suspects doubling down, in particular to criticism from Tol etc.There is no so-called consensus for The effects will be devasting.

+2−4

Bert, many studies have shown public transport to be price demand inelastic. Non financial factors like service quality, flexibility, travel times, convenience etc have been shown to be more important.

+0−3

I think you (and Westpac) have overstated the estimated $30B growth benefit over the next 3 decades. This is the difference between undertaking the Shock scenario or the Central scenario. Obviously a third option, do nothing, wasnt modelled.The report is high on assumptions and low on details. In particular, Figure 9. None of the 8 Climate Variables listed there have increased due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I guess the limitations inherent in climate models are shared with economic models.

+2−8