Thread: Climate

Well it is different to what we have experienced in my 50+ years living CNI.
No runs of frosts for awhile.
Cloudier winter days.
No sun to warm up during the day.
Burning more wood.
Wood that is a bit damper as we had a wet summer.
The land use change appears to have made a big difference here.
Literally thousands of hectares from trees both cutover native and pines into grass.
Mate worked on block by the Pouakani Totara and records show it went from summer safe to drier.
Just have to work around it we don't have much choice.

On the topic of how Climate will affect hunting I have the following thoughts:
In areas with sufficient scope to move, such as we have in the South Island along the main divide, animals already migrate back and forth in seasonal patterns.
As I write this I know that the deer and chamois from the Harper Avoca, the kowhia and Craigiburn have for the most all ( certainly hinds)migrated to the West Coast for the winter. The pigs around the Inland Kaikoura road / Hossack have migrated to coastal Cheviot as a further example.
In extreme droughts or extreme wet periods now and into the future I see the animals moving and responding to these potential extremes. In landlocked areas with only one climate exposure it is likely that animals will abandon those sites and not return.

I am loath to touch on anthropogenic climate change as it is one of those topics that people cannot debate without deriding and mocking of any view not considered 'mainstream' We see it here in this thread.
But anyway, I know that some members consider me a 'conspiracy theorist' for views that I have proposed. Bearing this in mind I 'set up' some of the members who rather than asking for science jump straight into mocking. So the subject of geo engineering was raised by me followed by the usual derided mocking..... until I copied a presentation to the UN calling for restrictions on the current geoengineering programs because they were causing an increase in Aluminium and Barium in vegetable crops.
What really rankles me regarding all the climate change 'Science' are the continuous attacks on agriculture. I have been writing to Greenpeace regarding their stance and they have finally admitted that they are using 'Gross Emission' figures from models not 'Nett Emissions' This paints the incorrect / false picture of agriculture being our largest GHG emitter and takes pressure off fossil carbon release.
I fully agree that Nitrogen contamination of waterways and groundwater from agriculture must be reduced but using gross emission figures does nothing to encourage farmers to move to more sustainable practice.
Our forests likely release more CH4 into the atmosphere than our livestock. When I suggested to Greenpeace that following their rational of reducing methane from livestock to save the planet greater gains were to be made from draining all the wetlands and felling the Amazon basin forest which by itself emits 50 - 60 million tonnes of methane into the atmosphere annually they threw their toys.
The point being that all of the science needs to be considered and not just what the media provides.
In the Netherlands the farmers protests go on. These protests are not because of reductions in nitrogen fertiliser caps / limits but because 3000 farms have been forcibly confiscated by the govt under the guise of meeting EU Nitrogen caps. This is not a conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Cripes, it will take the rest of my life to fact check all of that I will look at Pinkers' book. It might be the therapy I need.

You may wish to continue to live. That'll depress ya...

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings,
All options will be costly including doing nothing. For some areas doing nothing will result in inundation and total loss.
GPM.

again I will point to the maungaparua valley...... we humans went in,changed things,were going well but cound not continue..the resulting slips from the forest clearing and lack of fertilizer to keep hillsides growing were compounding issues and the roads stopped being maintained as deemed too expensive....given how we now can utilize good ground and replant not so good ground..a lot of that type of area could be productive land again...but man it would really have to be looked at hard and the areas used policed..for want of a better word.

Originally Posted by Lurch

tahr once again illustrates the gullibility and apathy of the general non thinkers.
His solution is to absolve responsibility for doing anything by making it someone elses problem and opting out by dying.
Easier than asking questions and finding uncomfortable answers.

right you self rightious pompus prick.......if and when you can give our man another opting out option..EG give us a way NOT TO DIE ..you will have the right to condemn someone else for doing so..but then you of course will be playing GOD......
just because you dont agree with folks doesnt mean they are wrong
you throughout this entire thread have been chucking insults at folks..enough is enough play the ball and not the man.
and lets see some real world numbers and figures..not crack pot loony tune hooch smoking dream talking please???
the world is changing,it always has and always will... the science community taught us a bout ice ages and dinosaurs walking around then dying out becuase of something changing...no body thought to tax the way out of that!!!!! no body was making electric cars to save burning coal when the power companies are burning coal to make the power.....
here in south canterbury less than 2 decades ago we saw a huge snowdump and folks freezing in houses as they had replaced fires wit hheatpumps..heatpumps dont work without electricity..neither do pellet fires....yet councils still pushed ahead with removing fires.
we have huge amounts of carbon forestry that is now CAUSING issues to the enviroment when flooding happens..so lets get proactive about it and utilize the slash...cut it into rings and dump it in towns n cities for people to burn to keep warm..who will pay??the taxpayer is already so no difference except that way there will be some positive outcome.

Originally Posted by Sidney

You may wish to continue to live. That'll depress ya...

Bugger.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

right you self rightious pompus prick.......if and when you can give our man another opting out option..EG give us a way NOT TO DIE ..you will have the right to condemn someone else for doing so..but then you of course will be playing GOD......
just because you dont agree with folks doesnt mean they are wrong
you throughout this entire thread have been chucking insults at folks..enough is enough play the ball and not the man.
and lets see some real world numbers and figures..not crack pot loony tune hooch smoking dream talking please???
the world is changing,it always has and always will... the science community taught us a bout ice ages and dinosaurs walking around then dying out becuase of something changing...no body thought to tax the way out of that!!!!! no body was making electric cars to save burning coal when the power companies are burning coal to make the power.....
here in south canterbury less than 2 decades ago we saw a huge snowdump and folks freezing in houses as they had replaced fires wit hheatpumps..heatpumps dont work without electricity..neither do pellet fires....yet councils still pushed ahead with removing fires.
we have huge amounts of carbon forestry that is now CAUSING issues to the enviroment when flooding happens..so lets get proactive about it and utilize the slash...cut it into rings and dump it in towns n cities for people to burn to keep warm..who will pay??the taxpayer is already so no difference except that way there will be some positive outcome.

MD with respect, I am sure that Tahr is fully capable of defending his own position with science should he wish to. Your other points make good sense but dont fit with the media driven narrative that does not understand short cycle carbon

indeed he is..LURCH came here,we went for a hunt...all good..Im pointing out he is being a sod...weather or not he chooses to pull his head in is up to him.
at present the last 10 posts he has made read like a looney tune. time to stop and think about life.
life is better than the alternative....drop all the negativaty and that warm sunshine on your back is pleasant,keep it and its trying to get you via melanoma

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

indeed he is..LURCH came here,we went for a hunt...all good..Im pointing out he is being a sod...weather or not he chooses to pull his head in is up to him.
at present the last 10 posts he has made read like a looney tune. time to stop and think about life.
life is better than the alternative....drop all the negativaty and that warm sunshine on your back is pleasant,keep it and its trying to get you via melanoma

And yet post #63 dismisses any opinion that challenges the accepted narrative as a conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by XR500

The Mrs is in the UK at present, visiting family. Has seen the sun about half a dozen times in the last month. Grey drizzle the rest of the time. So Its not blanket Northern Hemisphere.

We have burnt more firewood this calendar year so far than in the past 15 years living here in the CNI.

"Since records began" is a common catch cry: Records began (1880's) at the coldest period in the last 8-10,000 years. So all roads lead to a warming climate, for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE0zHZPQJzA (video is from the late 1990's so from the pre hysteria period)

But the Romans didn't have coal fired power stations or Nissan Patrols, and it was a couple of degrees warmer then, than now.

So yes, she's gonna get warmer. Adapt. Get used to it.

But taxing us lots more is only going to make a few multinational companies and organisations much much richer, whilst impoverishing the vast majority of a Nation's citizens.

When the leaders of a Nation do something that benefits external and multinational entities whilst impoverishing its own people, I do believe there's a word for that.

Those bloody hot fires you have on special occasions only add towards global warming. Mine you it was so bloody cold they were needed

I was in Greece in 2007 and the place was ablaze everywhere, not like it’s the first time now?

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

And yet post #63 dismisses any opinion that challenges the accepted narrative as a conspiracy theorist.

Not dismisses any opinion. I said that a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist is the use of the term "current narrative" (as a pejorative term).
"Follow the money" can also be added as an indicator.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Not dismisses any opinion. I said that a reliable indicator of a conspiracy theorist is the use of the term "current narrative" (as a pejorative term).
"Follow the money" can also be added as an indicator.

A conspiracy theorist if they have a different view to yours.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

A conspiracy theorist if they have a different view to yours.

depends on if "yours " includes a tinfoil hat does it not????

because if you look at it from far enough away.....believing someone has a conspiracy is conspiracy in and of itself.

thus its just easier to say someone is talking a load of utter bullshit and be done with it.