WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Posted on July 8, 2015 by KG

NZ:
‘..In a consultation paper, the Ministry for the Environment estimated raising the target from 5 per cent to 10 per cent would cost households $30 more a year. Raising it to 40 per cent would cost households about $530 a year.
But environmental advocates said the ministry had failed to include the cost of not acting on climate change. A 2013 drought fuelled in part by man-made climate change, for example, cost the New Zealand economy more than $1.3 billion…’
Who are these “environmental advocates”? What are their backgrounds, expertise, sources of funding? Who do they speak for?
And where is the evidence that the 2013 drought was “fuelled in part by climate change”?
How about we factor in the very real possibility (supported by real evidence) that the earth is entering a cooling phase. The costs of not acting in that case would be horrific, especially since so much capital has been squandered in support of the global warming scam.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

  1. Cadwallader says:
    July 8, 2015 at 07:58

    The answer to your question: There is no evidence! There are loads of political/emotional garbage. The enviro “advocates” are not advocates at all, they are a motley gang of those who fear life, liberty and freedom, while using this clap-trap to attack those who relish freedom and personal prosperity.

  2. MacDoctor says:
    July 8, 2015 at 12:38

    Statistically, it is complete nonsense to talk about climate change with respect to a single drought. A single drought is just bad weather, it is only bad climate over decades. If these so-called experts (who are clearly not intelligent enough to appreciate this) can demonstrate an increased frequency of drought over, say, the last two decades as compare to the two decades before then the extra number of droughts is the additional cost of climate change.

    Eg. IF 1975-1995 had 5 droughts and 1995 to date had 7 droughts then the actual cost would be 1.3 billion x 2 / 10 or 260 million a year (about $6 per person). And that is ONLY if you can demonstrate an increase in droughts over a reasonably long time frame.

    I am appalled the so-called experts don’t understand this. What are they experts in? Tea leaf reading?

  3. Daily Media Review says:
    July 8, 2015 at 13:01

    Check this out. The paper by de Freitas et al that proved NIWA’s temperature is 70% incorrect is rated top 5% of 3.67M scientific papers.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/07/de-freitas-temperature-study-reaches-top-5-of-3-67m-scientific-papers/

    There’ll be tears & gnashing of teeth over this. Hehe.

  4. Darin says:
    July 8, 2015 at 13:28

    Spotted this over at American Digest and figured it has some bearing here-

    The 8 stages of a Scam-

    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/the_8_stages_of_scam.php

    The best and most accurate part is number 8-

    “8) stages 6 and 7 have been reached in the cholesterol cycle; they are beginning in the anthropogenic global warming scam. Fifty years from now, there will still be clanking windmills in the North Sea, but whether they will be still linked to a power grid is less likely, and whether anyone will pay attention is doubtful. The lobbies that keep them there, however, will still exist.

  5. Warren Tooley says:
    July 8, 2015 at 16:00

    Next thing they’ll be telling us is that gummi bears are real. Now just for a little entertainment, they are going to get caught with their pants down, once they get investigated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuoRGuxs8FY