Current Affairs đźŚˇď¸Ź Weather / climate change

NZWarriors.com

A great listen

So funny, socialist radio promotes the socialist lie of man made climate change.
"Scientist say" that after looking at data for 47 years the ice extent on a planet 3.8 billion years old is the worst it has ever been.
Let's put that in terms that are easier to understand. If the planet had been around for one day (24h) then these "scientists" are making claims based on data collected during the last 1/1000th of a second.
But actually we have sat data for the last 60 years, I wonder where the other 13 years went? Don't tell me... the dust bin of ignored data that doesn't fit the narrative.
But won't somebody think of the Penguins.
Ha! They must be so relived to be able to find another cute victim after the polar bear BS blew up in their faces.
 
So funny, socialist radio promotes the socialist lie of man made climate change.
"Scientist say" that after looking at data for 47 years the ice extent on a planet 3.8 billion years old is the worst it has ever been.
Let's put that in terms that are easier to understand. If the planet had been around for one day (24h) then these "scientists" are making claims based on data collected during the last 1/1000th of a second.
But actually we have sat data for the last 60 years, I wonder where the other 13 years went? Don't tell me... the dust bin of ignored data that doesn't fit the narrative.
But won't somebody think of the Penguins.
Ha! They must be so relived to be able to find another cute victim after the polar bear BS blew up in their faces.
Blah blah disinformation rabbithole conspiracy theory blah blah.
 
Blah blah disinformation rabbithole conspiracy theory blah blah.
You have convinced me that 47 years is exactly the right time period.
I compliment you on the sound scientific reasoning in your response.
Cleverly laying out the facts to support your argument and then drawing your conclusions.
Thats it, I am on board the climate band wagon….Not
Ha! I crack me up.:LOL:

Let me propose another possibility that is supported by facts.
47 Years ago was the end of the great global cooling scare, remember Time magazine in 1972 “the coming ice age”.
If you choose your data set carefully, 47 years ago in this case, it makes the trend all downhill.
Sadly this sort of data manipulation, cherry picking as it is sometimes called, is now rife in the scientific community. Rutherford called it stamp collecting.
The scientific method has morphed into a process where data is selected to support the desired outcome.
 
You have convinced me that 47 years is exactly the right time period.
I compliment you on the sound scientific reasoning in your response.
Cleverly laying out the facts to support your argument and then drawing your conclusions.
Thats it, I am on board the climate band wagon….Not
Ha! I crack me up.:LOL:

Let me propose another possibility that is supported by facts.
47 Years ago was the end of the great global cooling scare, remember Time magazine in 1972 “the coming ice age”.
If you choose your data set carefully, 47 years ago in this case, it makes the trend all downhill.
Sadly this sort of data manipulation, cherry picking as it is sometimes called, is now rife in the scientific community. Rutherford called it stamp collecting.
The scientific method has morphed into a process where data is selected to support the desired outcome.
blah blah don't believe in science blah blah disinformation blah blah conspiracy theories blah blah
 
Except for countries like NZ, EV's aren't the answer to climate change.

New Zealand is well-placed despite an inconvenient truth for those on the moral EV mound – Editorial​

An inconvenient truth was published this week.

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption globally is likely doing more harm than good when it comes to CO2 emissions, according to a study by researchers from the University of Auckland and Xiamen University in China.

The study, using data from 26 countries over 15 years, found higher EV uptake was linked to increased global emissions.

Despite the narrative often proclaimed from a moral mound by proponents and proprietors, EVs have never been the answer to our climate change crisis.

Now it’s proven their belief to be bogus, with the study showing EV drivers may indirectly be contributing to higher emissions than drivers of modern petrol or diesel vehicles.

This is also before other factors are included such as the increased energy needed during the EV manufacturing process, largely due to battery production.

“Electric vehicles are often seen as a silver bullet for climate change, but our results show that’s not the case if the electricity powering them isn’t clean,” Auckland University Associate Professor Stephen Poletti said.

As many readers will know, the truth is in most countries EVs are powered by electricity generated from burning fossil fuels like coal or oil.

And with an increased EV uptake in recent years, electricity consumption from these sources has risen.

The study also suggested that only when the global share of renewable electricity generation reaches 48% will EVs help reduce emissions. Currently that generation sits at 30%.

So, a wee ways to go yet.

New Zealand, however, is well-placed and has more than 80% of this electricity coming from renewable sources.

Through some good planning and frankly geographical luck, we can be one of a handful of countries to reap the benefits of EVs.

There is of course a caveat to this, our renewable energy is only as good as its reliability. And this winter, once again, we are going to test that reliability.

Genesis Energy has already said it is adding more coal to its stockpile and may start up a third gas-fired Rankine unit at its Huntly Power Station.

The company said it anticipates 630 kilotonnes (kt) of coal being sent down to the Waikato town between now and September 2025, in addition to the current stockpile of 515kt.

That’s a lot more coal set to be burned behind the famous Deka sign.

Power prices, meanwhile, have been steadily rising this year in response to dry conditions and lower levels in the key hydro lakes.

The big four electricity generators – Meridian, Genesis, Mercury and Contact – are now considering market options to improve national security of supply.

We will continue to use more and more electricity - economic growth increases emissions.

Let’s put to bed the idea that EVs were the panacea and decarbonise through green technology innovation.

 
Except for countries like NZ, EV's aren't the answer to climate change.

New Zealand is well-placed despite an inconvenient truth for those on the moral EV mound – Editorial​

An inconvenient truth was published this week.

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption globally is likely doing more harm than good when it comes to CO2 emissions, according to a study by researchers from the University of Auckland and Xiamen University in China.

The study, using data from 26 countries over 15 years, found higher EV uptake was linked to increased global emissions.

Despite the narrative often proclaimed from a moral mound by proponents and proprietors, EVs have never been the answer to our climate change crisis.

Now it’s proven their belief to be bogus, with the study showing EV drivers may indirectly be contributing to higher emissions than drivers of modern petrol or diesel vehicles.

This is also before other factors are included such as the increased energy needed during the EV manufacturing process, largely due to battery production.

“Electric vehicles are often seen as a silver bullet for climate change, but our results show that’s not the case if the electricity powering them isn’t clean,” Auckland University Associate Professor Stephen Poletti said.

As many readers will know, the truth is in most countries EVs are powered by electricity generated from burning fossil fuels like coal or oil.

And with an increased EV uptake in recent years, electricity consumption from these sources has risen.

The study also suggested that only when the global share of renewable electricity generation reaches 48% will EVs help reduce emissions. Currently that generation sits at 30%.

So, a wee ways to go yet.

New Zealand, however, is well-placed and has more than 80% of this electricity coming from renewable sources.

Through some good planning and frankly geographical luck, we can be one of a handful of countries to reap the benefits of EVs.

There is of course a caveat to this, our renewable energy is only as good as its reliability. And this winter, once again, we are going to test that reliability.

Genesis Energy has already said it is adding more coal to its stockpile and may start up a third gas-fired Rankine unit at its Huntly Power Station.

The company said it anticipates 630 kilotonnes (kt) of coal being sent down to the Waikato town between now and September 2025, in addition to the current stockpile of 515kt.

That’s a lot more coal set to be burned behind the famous Deka sign.

Power prices, meanwhile, have been steadily rising this year in response to dry conditions and lower levels in the key hydro lakes.

The big four electricity generators – Meridian, Genesis, Mercury and Contact – are now considering market options to improve national security of supply.

We will continue to use more and more electricity - economic growth increases emissions.

Let’s put to bed the idea that EVs were the panacea and decarbonise through green technology innovation.

Mike, that's a pretty rubbish editorial. And it is an editorial.

And I'll qualify that with my opinion of course.

The headline already adopts a stance using language to me that situates itself within the fossil fuel camp immediately, and ultimately within some kind of culture war already.

The next section: 3 key facts, where the first one cites a study but doesn't actually link to that study. And the second sentence "Electric vehicle (EV) adoption globally is likely doing more harm than good" has no surrounding context or inputs to back it up and appears to be cherry picked.

Note I'm not putting doubt as to whether the study exists or not, it's just not represented in the article, so we don't know.

1744347619643.webp
Nowhere does it say how.

The next sentence is straight out of the fossil fuel propaganda book - "Despite the narrative often proclaimed from a moral mound by proponents and proprietors, EVs have never been the answer to our climate change crisis."

And the next cherry pick highlights what I see as the major flaw here "“Electric vehicles are often seen as a silver bullet for climate change, but our results show that’s not the case if the electricity powering them isn’t clean,” Auckland University Associate Professor Stephen Poletti said." - the caveat here is if the electricity isn't clean, which the author uses as the gotcha.

We go on to see:
"As many readers will know, the truth is in most countries EVs are powered by electricity generated from burning fossil fuels like coal or oil.

And with an increased EV uptake in recent years, electricity consumption from these sources has risen"

So the flaw is with the source of the electricity, not ev usage itself.

Weirdly it even shoots itself in the foot here:
"The study also suggested that only when the global share of renewable electricity generation reaches 48% will EVs help reduce emissions. Currently that generation sits at 30%"

So, what is blatantly obvious to those of us not in the fossil fuel camp - invest in renewable energy.

It's poorly written and looks to come from an interest group playbook imo.
 
Last edited:
Mike, that's a pretty rubbish editorial. And it is an editorial.

And I'll qualify that with my opinion of course.

The headline already adopts a stance using language to me that situates itself within the fossil fuel camp immediately, and ultimately within some kind of culture war already.

The next section: 3 key facts, where the first one cites a study but doesn't actually link to that study. And the second sentence "Electric vehicle (EV) adoption globally is likely doing more harm than good" has no surrounding context or inputs to back it up and appears to be cherry picked.

Note I'm not putting doubt as to whether the study exists or not, it's just not represented in the article, so we don't know.

View attachment 12491
Nowhere does it say how.

The next sentence is straight out of the fossil fuel propaganda book - "Despite the narrative often proclaimed from a moral mound by proponents and proprietors, EVs have never been the answer to our climate change crisis."

And the next cherry pick highlights what I see as the major flaw here "“Electric vehicles are often seen as a silver bullet for climate change, but our results show that’s not the case if the electricity powering them isn’t clean,” Auckland University Associate Professor Stephen Poletti said." - the caveat here is if the electricity isn't clean, which the author uses as the gotcha.

We go on to see:
"As many readers will know, the truth is in most countries EVs are powered by electricity generated from burning fossil fuels like coal or oil.

And with an increased EV uptake in recent years, electricity consumption from these sources has risen"

So the flaw is with the source of the electricity, not ev usage itself.

Weirdly it even shoots itself in the foot here:
"The study also suggested that only when the global share of renewable electricity generation reaches 48% will EVs help reduce emissions. Currently that generation sits at 30%"

So, what is blatantly obvious to those of us not in the fossil fuel camp - invest in renewable energy.

It's poorly written and looks to come from an interest group playbook imo.
Really? The professor quoted in the article is one of New Zealand’s leading climate and energy professors who also co-wrote the international study this article mentions. He’s also a leading adovacate of NZ moving towards renewable energy and advocates for government funding for solar systems.

Sorry, despite all your time attacking it, the article is coming from “your” side of the climate change debate….. and certainly not out of an “interest group play group”.

Here’s a link from Auckland University about the source of the study….

 
Really? The professor quoted in the article is one of New Zealand’s leading climate and energy professors who also co-wrote the international study this article mentions. He’s also a leading adovacate of NZ moving towards renewable energy and advocates for government funding for solar systems.

Sorry, despite all your time attacking it, the article is coming from “your” side of the climate change debate….. and certainly not out of an “interest group play group”.

Here’s a link from Auckland University about the source of the study….

The study isolates the problem . The electricity grids and their energy sources. Imo the editorial takes a very different slant
 
The study isolates the problem . The electricity grids and their energy sources. Imo the editorial takes a very different slant
Interesting but how would you know if the editorial took a "very different slant" from the study unless you'd read both.

The editorial uses direct quotes from the Uni of Auckland press release. In fact, the press release is far more critical on the use of EV's in countries with lower renewable generation than the editorial.

1744355230583.webp
 
Interesting but how would you know if the editorial took a "very different slant" from the study unless you'd read both.

The editorial uses direct quotes from the Uni of Auckland press release. In fact, the press release is far more critical on the use of EV's in countries with lower renewable generation than the editorial.

View attachment 12493
Told you Mike, university studies aren’t even facts with some on here 🤣

He’s like a hammer and all he sees are nail…
 
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom