Saturday, January 13, 2007


Ok, it's holiday season. Just started two weeks away at the beach in Bay of Plenty New Zealand.
The weather is ......yuk - rained from when we arrived yesterday until about 2 hours ago when it became foggy!! Yes, foggy!

But now the skies have cleared and it's beautiful:

Post your holiday experiences, good or bad here.

Why do you think the weather's been so awful this summer?? Must be the ethereal elements or maybe, SHP, global warming!!

Bring it on


Jenny said...

Global warming, hmm... there's an interesting page at Wikipedia that sums up various scientific opinions on global warming. A lot of evidence either way. Personally, I think we should err on the side of caution.

What do you think about that?

Greg Spark said...

Good page Jenny, and i'm pleased to see Wikipedia offers easily accessible information on both sides of the debate.

For a debate it certainly is, and the jury is still definitely out.

And here's why.

The real issue is AGW - anthropogenic GW. If the earth is going through it's natural cycle it's fanciful to think li'l ol' us can change that. If AGW is real we could possibly change that but somehow I doubt that given that China and India are becoming by far the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and WILL NOT compromise their economic development for this.

This debate is characterised by words such as "majority" and "consensus" - these are the words of politics and not science. Many say that only cranks don't believe in it - check out the list of scientists - many highly reputable - who do not accept that the evidence supports yet the proof of the hypothesis of AGW.

I am not an expert in climatology and in fact have not made up my mind as to where I sit on this issue. However it is clear to anyone with half a brain that this issue is as cloudy as our CO2 laden skies and the waters are getting muddier if I can mix my metaphors.

Many AGW proponents say opposers (or deniers to use their chilling parlance) are driven by commercial or financial motives. Bull. And if so, the same can be said for the other side - globally there has been an explosion of bureaucracy that has occurred all feeding at the trough and dependent on this issue staying alive - and all jetting everywhere pouring zillions of tonnes of CO2 into the air on their travels. And plenty of commercial opportunists are springing up with profit making ways of reducing or storing CO2.

"Deniers" are usually subjected to personal villification and character assassination. Politicians take a huge risk if they err from the path of AGW. You almost expect burning at the stake to reappear as a punishment! Is this really where rational debate has come to?

You say that we should err on the side of caution - caution being to reduce our CO2 production and prevent AGW - I've already pointed out that will never happen globally.

The cost of such a policy to an economy such as ours is potentially crippling, and the difference we would make is literally infinitesimal - truly so! To sacrifice ourselves on such an absurd idealistic altar is frankly stupid. But our preening government are going there anyway just so they can smugly crow about what a difference they are making.

Total and complete BULL.