Energy, a little picture #wow

█ A short chain of correspondence was forwarded this morning. As far as I’m concerned Agenda 21 adherents with (fossilised) climate panic may fall off the Earth as soon as possible to good effect. Elizabeth Head-In-Sand, Site Admin

From: Calvin Oaten
To: Jinty MacTavish
Subject: Energy
Date: 5 April 2015 12:56 pm NZST

Hi Jinty,

I thought you might be interested in reading this article. Eighty four pages, but I suspect the gist of it can be got from reading the last maybe twenty, if time is of the essence.

Jinty, I know your aversion to fossil fuels and can understand the argument. But it seems to me that we desperately need to continue to use energy to ‘sustain’ present needs of food and almost every detail of present day living. That, until technology can replace it is totally reliant on fossil fuels.

To suddenly turn off the taps so to speak, would almost destroy society as we know it. Buying time is the only option as I see it and precipitate action would be counterproductive. This might come as a surprise to you but I do care for the planet as well, but also the people on it. I am just frightened that the current moves, ostensibly to ‘save the planet’, might be premature. It is not as if the perceived disaster of Co2 increase in the atmosphere is a proven model, yet. One of the aspects that have been touted is that of imminent sea rise and runaway warming. It seems at present that neither have come to pass according to projections. That they might is still based on theories that while they could become valid (who am I to know) have yet to do so. We must wait.

Another claim is that we will be subjected to more and more ‘climatic events’ of disastrous moment like cyclone/hurricanes of increasing intensity due to this inherent warming. That I question as I have done some research into the history of ‘events’ past.

In no particular order this is what I found.

● 1900 Galveston Texas. Deadliest hurricane in US history, 8,000 killed, 145mph (233kph) winds.

● 1928 Okeechebee. 4,000 killed, category 5 160mph (260kph) winds.

● 1974 Darwin. Tracy, 240kmh winds, tremendous destruction.

● 1998 North American Ice Storm. Huge destruction.

● 1780 Great Hurricane of the Antilles. 20,000 – 22,000 deaths, winds probably exceeding 200mph (320kph). It ran from 10-16 October. Six continuous days! There were two other deadly events in that 1780 season.

Now for what it is worth in 1780 the industrial revolution had not started, coal as an industry was in its infancy and oil far in the future.
Further, 1780 was firmly in the Little Ice Age.

Oil was just found around 1900 when Galveston was hit. 1928 was still pre intense fossil fuel exploitation.

Jinty, I only want to make the point that just maybe we are jumping the gun here in the demonising of fossil fuels relative to our way of life. Which is it to be, destroy, or buy time till viable alternatives become feasible? A serious choice which ought not be made on whims or unsubstantiated theories.

Here is the attachment as suggested.*
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

Cheers,
Calvin

*‘Perfect Storm: Energy, finance and the end of growth’ by Tim Morgan, Head of Global Research, Tullett Prebon. -Eds

—————

On 5/04/2015, at 10:39 pm, Jinty MacTavish wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/10-myths-about-fossil-fuel-divestment-put-to-the-sword

—————

On 5/04/2015, at 11:19 pm, “Calvin Oaten” wrote:

Hi Jinty,
Love the informality of your intro.

Read it, Bill McKibben is firstly not a scientist, he is a lobbyist or rabble rouser. That’s OK and I believe his heart is in what he espouses.
That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just his opinions. As I maintain all along it’s a matter of reason not emotion.

Notice of course there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the ramifications on society if his dreams were to come true even over the longer term. That is my worry, the “What now”, when the taps are turned down not off. First comes the shortages, next comes the cost increases, then comes the hardships for the poor and middle classes struggling to meet their power bills and put food on their tables. That, Jinty is what I am alluding to.

All before there has been shown a glimpse of truth in the speculations of disaster. That you as a public leader, will wantonly subscribe to these policies on the strength of your emotions without considering the effects on your constituents in real time disturbs me as does the whole pressure thing as manifested. It is developing into a sort of ‘mob cult’ movement and I see needless hardship down the track as the one-per-centers perversely destroy the lower and middle class life styles. In fact, one could be excused for thinking it was a type of conspiracy centred on the United Nations plans for world government. Dismiss that as madness if you like but if you study the implications of the “Agenda 21” manifesto you might have cause to ponder just a little.

You not care to comment on my findings re weather events?

Cheers,
Calvin

—————

From: Jinty MacTavish
To: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Re: Energy
Date: 6 April 2015 8:48:45 am NZST

Dear Mr. Oaten,
As I have previously commented, I do not wish to engage with you in correspondence on this matter. The reason being, we have previously explored the topic in detail, over a number of emails, with our differences coming down to the fact that I believe it immoral to sit on our hands whilst over 97% of climate scientists, all but a handful of the world’s governments, and international bodies like the United Nations, agree we urgently need to do something about the matter (and that if we don’t, we are consigning future generations to untold misery). You, on the other hand, prefer to believe the UN is running a conspiracy and that Agenda 21 is some kind of giant plot for it take over the planet, and hold onto the words of the very small minority of (generally fossil-fuel funded) scientists who continue to deny action is required. And then you tell me it is a matter of “reason not emotion”? Wow.
As such, as I have previously stated, I think our positions irreconcilable, and I do not think it worth my time or yours to continue to email back and forwards on the matter.
Best,
Jinty

[ends]

Links added.-Eds

J MacTavish [youtube.com]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofRG0Pb5wQ

Related Post and Comments:
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Advertisements

40 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, Offshore drilling, People, Politics, What stadium

40 responses to “Energy, a little picture #wow

  1. Cars

    One of the traits of those who believed in a flat earth (the majority of “scientists”) was to deny debate.

    Whilst it may be true that 3% of scientists are paid or funded by client deniers it is almost certain to be true that the 97% who support climate change are almost inevitably employed by governments and bureaucracies who like Lawrence Yule are seeking further access to the pockets of tax and ratepayers.

    Climate change is about carbon TAXES. A new way to rob you as if you are not already showing the inside of the pockets.

  2. @Cars April 6, 2015 at 2:13 p.m.
    Never let people get away with this 97% myth. It is just that. Sadly the likes of poor Jinty don’t know any better. This has been well and truly debunked on many occasions yet it still gets repeated and then regurgitated by such people as Jinty without question. I have extracted (abbreviated) the following that provided some pertinent comment on that matter.

    The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
    Extracted from Wall Street Journal by J. Bast and Roy Spencer May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m.
    What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

    The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

    One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard.
    Ms Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

    Another widely cited source for the consensus view by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Ms Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

    The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions.

    The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

    In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

    Mr Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three co-authors reviewed the same papers as did Mr Cook. They found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

    Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models.

    Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority opposes the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

    Finally, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the twentieth century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

    Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, California, has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a PhD). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

    • Elizabeth

      Mick, J MacTavish might accuse you of heresy; however, slavish devotion to crook science is naive and youthful high treason.

      • Elizabeth
        April 6, 2015 at 6:39 p.m.
        Mick, J MacTavish might accuse you of heresy; however, slavish devotion to crook science is her own naive and youthful high treason.

        Ah well Elizabeth she might accuse me of anything of course but her reply to Calvin is so typical of responses from such people. Littered with inaccuracies – vis the 97% myth – then – all but a handful of the world’s governments agree on the need to do ‘something’. Yeah right. Like has she checked with China, India, Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia and Japan? Some handful that. Nope – profound meaningless waffle – what they might ‘say’ and what they might do are not quite the same thing. For example it’s an open secret that China has completely outflanked the US as to when it might agree do ‘something’. As for India – lickity split building coal fired electricity plants. Well they are doing ‘something’. Then the guilt threat – IF we don’t do ‘something ‘ THEN untold misery – Oh dear – then the unsubstantiated fossil fuel funded sceptic scientist chestnut. Her final declamatory ‘Wow’ is the best she can muster. Calvin was right her response was an emotional outburst. I would call it emotional claptrap. Especially the ‘Wow’. Ha.

  3. Why do we let extremists on the City Council?

  4. Elizabeth

    The pearl pic deserves a baby waaahhhh rather than a wow.

  5. Hype O'Thermia

    What is the training to be a “climate scientist”? And why are they the only scientists who “count” for opinions on climate change and whether it is largely/slightly/not happening faster/slower/different from the way it normally changes – you know, the major swings from ice age to tropical making the globe more polar or more tropical? And the smaller ups’n’downs within those huge long-lasting swings, what about them? Geologists and geographers have a good deal of knowledge about the fossil record, pollens, plant and animal distributions, whole villages that were built too close to vulnerable land and ended up crumbling into the sea, rivers that changed course, all manner of knowledge about the conditions and climate of the earth in the past and at present.

    • Hype O’Thermia
      April 7, 2015 at 6:14 pm
      What is the training to be a “climate scientist”? And why are they the only scientists who “count” for opinions on climate change.

      Well to answer your first question according to Professor L Richard Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist, ‘climate scientists’ are the ‘ones who couldn’t cut it at physics’ which I think is as good as you need. Richard Lindzen is as you will perceive, very dry.

      The second question comes down to ‘who they answer to’, the shenanigans at the Climate Unit at the University of East Anglia that were uncovered by ‘climategate’. In 2009. This in part was a connivance to exclude anyone who was not part of the shall we say ‘club’ led by the now discredited Phil Jones. That should give you all the clues you need to have to perceive their motives regarding their ‘exclusivity’. There are plenty of NZ examples involved in all of this what I might call this ‘cloak and dagger’ activity.

      The first director of the CRU unit was Professor Hubert Lamb, who had previously led research into climatic variation at the Met Office. He was a regular and highly regarded scientist who was intent on dealing with the science. His immediate successor was Tom Wigley. He was a different ‘rooster’ and it was he who led the direction towards the now largely discredited computer modelling approach to ‘climate science’ that Freeman Dyson discussed briefly in the interview I posted here today.

      But to round my reply to you I insert another clip from Freeman Dyson. He pretty well covers all your questions and observations. If you want to get a handle on him look him up in Wikipedia.

      An essay by Freeman Dyson
      My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

      {Wikipedia link added for Freeman Dyson. -Eds}

  6. Hype O'Thermia

    It’s that reliance on models that puzzles me.
    A model may work perfectly, pooping out precisely the shape of turd the program is designed to produce when fed certain assemblages of data, and even coating them with glitter at the moment of depositing them in the baseball cap of waiting “climate scientists”. But if a model – or salami machine for that matter – is so constructed that only finely sieved pasteurized data can be fed into it, you’ll never end up with an authentic end-product. Good salami has chunky bits of real meat and real spices, not gloop. As complex a subject as the earth and its climate has a great many chunky bits of reality, many different shapes, sizes and textures, and they have their own sets of reactions within the greater picture of all Earth’s goings-on.

    • @Hype O’Thermia
      April 8, 2015 at 12:51 am
      It’s that reliance on models that puzzles me.

      Well Dyson explained it (politely) but they needed a seemingly irrefutable ‘scientific’ tool to achieve their objective. The models were used to prove that anthropogenic co2 was the cause. It worked. ‘Carbon’ is evil. The models prove it. And then as Calvin alluded to, the ‘demonising’ of fossil fuels is behind that which goes back to the reason for establishing the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in 1988.
      The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

      1. Human-induced climate change,
      2. The impacts of human-induced climate change,
      3. Options for adaptation and mitigation.

      Regarding these purposes the IPCC was in effect ‘required’ to find a ‘human induced’ cause of climate change. They figured that co2 fitted the bill and determined this to be main one. So that was enough. If you could ‘prove’ a human induced ‘cause’ of climate change you could accrue considerable power.

      The IPCC is an instrument of the United Nations. What is the main purpose of the UN?
      I would suggest that in the end it boils down to power.

      If you establish that humans cause climate change then items 2 and 3 above follow for the implementation of that power.
      The ‘lighting’ upon co2 as the main ‘driver’ of global warming (climate change) comes down to the arguments that Freeman Dyson so eloquently exposes as being ludicrous.
      However, it is always a good technique to frighten people if you want to get money from them. It’s not new – the churches (and witch doctors) knew this from way back.

      So in turn, this ‘driver’ goes back to money. As the saying goes, ‘follow the money’.
      This in turn leads to control.
      The United Nations is all about control.
      That is where Agenda 21 comes into play. The UN Rio conference in 1992 sets out that agenda fully and it extends right through all aspects of governance of people throughout the world, right down to the local body level.
      In order to achieve control
      So we see here:
      Agenda 21 – Chapter 28
      LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ INITIATIVES IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA 21 PROGRAMME AREA
      Basis for action
      28.1. Because so many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities, the participation and co-operation of local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its objectives. Local Authorities construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in educating, mobilising and responding to the public to promote sustainable development.

      You will remember that Jinty snorted at Calvin when he suggested that Agenda 21 was very much behind all of this nonsense. Well she might be dismissive but I see her and for that matter Mayor Cull as being one of the ‘useful idiots’ in this power play. Did Calvin get too close to the bone?

      What I do know is that an astronomical amount of money has been expended especially in Europe on the development of alternative and inefficient energy supplies to replace fossil fuels that are bankrupting their economies. What I also know is that the main purpose of local government in New Zealand is to manage the essential utilities. Instead they dabble in and pontificate about matters well outside their purview at the expense of the people.

  7. Cars

    Fishermen at the Otakou wharf whose grandfathers fished there maintain there has been no measurable rise in sea levels since at least 1900. If sea levels are to rise by one metre by 2050 they are going to have to rise by at least an inch each year from here. However the DCC maintain it will all happen in one year! 2049-2050 by which time Jinty could be Mayor.

    • Elizabeth

      Cars, when has DCC been right about anything ?
      Besides by that time J MacTavish will be working in Wellington on some godawful greenie select committee, or for some UN mission overseas.

      • Elizabeth
        April 8, 2015 at 9:08 pm
        Cars, when has DCC been right about anything ?
        Besides by that time J MacTavish will be working in Wellington on some godawful greenie select committee, or for some UN mission overseas.

        Reply
        Yes Elizabeth – talking about missions overseas maybe she is conferring with this guy who has just boarded an oil rig with Greenpeace. Check out story in the link below.

        Johno Smith, the New Zealander, accused Shell of “exploiting the melting ice to increase a manmade disaster,” adding: “Climate change is real and already inflicting pain and suffering on my brothers and sisters in the Pacific.”

        http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/04/06/greenpeace-boards-seattle-bound-shell-drilling-platform-in-mid-pacific/

      • Anyone aligning themselves with Greenpeace identifies themselves as being above all STUPID but also piratical and anarchistic.
        If you need to know what Greenpeace does to large populations that struggle to survive, check this one out about India.

        Meanwhile in India, Greenpeace India’s Registration Suspended, Bank Accounts Frozen

        The Home Ministry said in a statement that there were serious allegations of Greenpeace’s involvement in what it called ‘anti-development’ activities. All seven bank accounts of the organisation have been frozen for the next 180 days, and a show cause notice slapped on it asking why its registration should not be cancelled permanently. That would make the organization a non-entity in India, and it would need to close all operations in the country.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/04/09/greenpeace-registration-s_n_7031582.html

    • Hype O'Thermia

      Do these fishermen have qualifications in Climate Science? Are they using the most up to date model?
      No?
      Well then, it’s just “anecdotal” evidence therefore worthless.
      Theory trumps real life. Please don’t forget again.

      • Gurglars

        These fishermen, Hype, have analytical, theoretical and practical methodology, it’s the same way you test how much petrol is in a jerry can – with a stick.

        Hype, they have a multitude of devices, sticks (large ones) piles and supports which show maximum tide levels.

        A computer which started analysing in 1900 would be a waste of time as it would have a number of problems mainly obvious like no processing power in 1900, obsolete by 1905 and a loose connection negating the charge in 1998 when CO2 levels fell!

        A stick however lives on and therefore is the most reliable scientific device followed by the eye of the fisherman wanting to unload his fish. Also unusually reliable.

  8. Elizabeth

    ODT: Findings shed light on climate change
    Big changes in the earth’s oceans contributed to the greatest mass extinction of all time, research into which has provided a ”wake-up call” about the dangers of modern climate change.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/338659/findings-shed-light-climate-change

  9. Hype O'Thermia

    The government needs to set up a task force on regulating volcanoes, urgently.

  10. Elizabeth

    (guffaw)

    It was a plan focused on creating new jobs in Dunedin and giving its residents more money in their pockets.
    –Maria Ioannou, DCC corporate policy manager*

    ### ODT Online Tue, 15 Sep 2015
    Star attraction money saver
    By Craig Borley
    A revolution in how Dunedin is lit at night could save money, grow tourism, create a new export industry and give the city’s residents better views of the southern stars. The Dunedin “Night Sky City” concept is a key feature of the Dunedin City Council’s draft energy plan which is now available for public consultation.
    Read more

    I have nothing against lowering night glare/artificial light levels.
    BUT…. *There’s another salary-with-benefits to expunge from DCC, asap.
    Do we need her ‘energy’ ?

    Oh yeah. DCC Drivel brought to you by Enterprise Dunedin, J Christie’s fat-salaried nincompoops:

    Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Night skies key part of draft Energy Plan

    This item was published on 14 Sep 2015

    Dunedin is aiming for the stars. A plan to showcase Dunedin’s amazing night skies while saving ratepayers money is one of the first actions proposed under the draft Energy Plan 1.0. Dunedin is poised to take advantage of economic opportunities around energy use and efficiency. The draft Plan is an action under Dunedin’s Economic Development Strategy and has the commitment of the five Strategy partners.

    Grow Dunedin Partnership Chair Chris Staynes says, “Many businesses and households are spending about 10% of their income on energy, and that’s a handbrake on our economic growth. We’ve got some really innovative businesses and groups here that are primed to help businesses and households through the maze of energy choices and technology, such as what outdoor lighting would be best.”

    LED lighting technology is creating a lot of change in the way we light our outdoor spaces. This will save money and reveal Dunedin’s spectacular night skies – another tourist attraction for the city.

    “There’s already a real buzz about the draft Energy Plan’s Night Sky City action. That’s about using the revolution in LED lighting technology to create world-class stargazing locations around the city, as well as creating attractive night time streetscapes. That could include lighting up particular areas of the city if there’s an event. The revolutionary part is that we can do that and save our energy dollars at the same time.”

    The Economic Development Strategy is governed by the Grow Dunedin Partnership. The key partners are the Dunedin City Council, Ngāi Tahu, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, the Otago Polytechnic, the Otago Southland Employers’ Association and the University of Otago.

    Mr Staynes says energy is on the agenda under the Strategy’s alliances for innovation theme. Grow Dunedin partners and other organisations have committed to an Energy Leaders’ Accord to drive Dunedin’s energy economy. That might be about investing in high tech woodchip boilers or electric vehicles, or pursuing opportunities for joint procurement.

    Mr Christie says there are many opportunities for Dunedin businesses to benefit from the draft Energy Strategy. These include reduced costs and improved efficiencies, along with the potential new businesses that will be established to provide energy related services and products. “Dunedin is well placed to work with local tertiary institutes and entrepreneurs to bring new energy efficient products and services to the market.”

    There are two other actions under the draft Energy Plan. One is to work with local businesses to make every Dunedin home warm and cosy by 2025 – the Cosy Homes initiative. The other is the Energy Fast Track action which is about helping energy start-ups and innovators to get off the ground. Mr Staynes says, “We want to get some early runs on the board with practical projects that our partners are committed to seeing through, before moving on to new challenges.”

    A public discussion evening will be held at the Otago Museum from 5.30pm to 7pm on Wednesday, 7 October. One highlight will be Museum Director Dr Ian Griffin presenting one of his popular talks on Dunedin’s Night Sky City.

    █ Consultation on the draft Energy Plan 1.0 closes on Friday, 16 October. For more information and to make a submission visit http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/energyplan or view the draft plan at the Customer Services Centre in the Civic Centre, or Dunedin Public Libraries and Services Centres.

    Contact JOHN CHRISTIE Director Enterprise Dunedin, Dunedin City Council on 477 4000.

    DCC Link

  11. photonz

    Had to double check the date on that one. I thought it was one of the ODTs April fool pranks.

    It sounds like it’s had even less intelligent thought put into it than the South Dunedin Cycleway.

    What deluded councillor thinks tourists are going to flock to Dunedin to just to see the night sky, when EVERY other place in the South island except Chch would be better.

    (not to mention there’s ten times more cloudy nights here than there are inland)

    • Hype O'Thermia

      I’m in favour of using LED lights and directing the beams where they are of use, instead of into the sky. Those are sensible changes. But it looks that the sense aspect has been overtaken by another “build it and they will come” fever of witless enthusiasm. If I am right instead of seeing gradual low-cost improvements by replacing lights with better ones when they need replacing, another nice little earner / empire enhancement will see perfectly good lights binned with the excuse of “saving”(!) and star-gazing. photonz ain’t wrong: “there’s ten times more cloudy nights here than there are inland” so though a good view of the night sky, on a good night, would add to general pleasure for residents and visitors alike, it’s not even going to make us world-famous in Otago.

      • photonz

        Agreed – I have no problem with replacing lights with LEDs as they are needed, or even sooner IF it makes economic sense.

        We have a good view over the city, and a lot of light in the evening – perhaps up to half – comes from sources other than street lights.

        Even if they spent as much as the stadium on this, they’d STILL have the worst place in the South Island to view stars. A city trying to become the starlight capital, is lunacy.

  12. Elizabeth

    OMG the sweet naive….
    “But what it does, like Paris, is provide us with a framework that will allow us to strengthen that commitment over the years.” –Cr Hawkins

    ### ODT Online Wed, 16 Dec 2015
    Plan sets city ‘on a journey’
    By Chris Morris
    The Dunedin City Council has signed off on its first energy plan for the city, despite councillors from all sides this week criticising the document’s weaknesses. Councillors at Monday’s full council meeting voted unanimously to adopt the plan, which sought to plan for the city’s future energy needs, despite criticising it for not going far enough.
    Read more

  13. Calvin Oaten

    Cr Hawkins, for what it is worth the Paris exercise is like a three legged stool.

    First, is the IPPC’s flawed ‘Climate Change’ theories based almost entirely upon computer models which are of various persons’ construct and (due to the “Pause” in temperature increases over some nineteen years plus, with no measurable increase in the rate of sea level rises) are failing to perform to projections.

    Second, is the Political construct likened to bagging wild cats.

    Third, is the ‘biggie’ the $100 billion pa money transfer from the so-called rich nations to the poor. Who decides which is which, and by what criteria? My guess is the cheques will always be in the mail, but never arriving.

    As you would know, one leg fails, the stool collapses, doesn’t matter which it is.

    Maybe, instead of ‘fizzing at the bung’ over this, it would be more prudent as a councillor to wait until there is some ’empirical’ data to justify the ramp up of spending ratepayers’ monies on what may well be false projects. Of course there is no heroics in that, and your ‘Great Leader’ shows no prudence in matters financial.

  14. Gurglars

    And if you needed any further convincing, these charts put out by persons who have charted climate change demonstrate that even a single volcano can and does drop temperatures dramatically and overnight.

    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

    Read this including the comments which are in the main rational.

    What I want to see next is Al Gore taxing volcanoes, Jinty MacTavish and Aaron Hawkins rushing to the coal or wood yard straight after a major volcano to get fuel to keep warm. The DCC of course will not refer to the gigantic lost opportunity cost of investing in fuels designed to keep you warm, alive and well.

  15. Elizabeth

    Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Wind farm decision released

    This item was published on 12 Jul 2016

    An application to build and operate a wind farm at Blueskin Bay in Dunedin has been declined, having failed to meet the required standards to gain consent.

    The Dunedin City Council Hearings Committee released its decision today. The application was heard by Ministry for the Environment-approved independent Commissioner Colin Weatherall over four days in May.

    Blueskin Energy Ltd sought resource consent to establish a community owned wind farm, with three turbines, on Porteous Hill near Warrington.

    Mr Weatherall says he carefully considered all relevant reports and documents supplied with the application, submissions, staff reports and evidence produced during the hearing. He also made numerous site visits.

    “My decision to decline the application was significantly influenced by the adverse effects the wind farm would have on the amenity and character of three Pryde Road properties. These effects were not able to be mitigated.”

    The decision is subject to an appeal period of 15 working days.

    Mr Weatherall says there has been significant community and public interest in the issue. This was evident in the 153 submissions made to the wind farm application.

    The site of the proposed wind farm is zoned rural in the operative Dunedin City District Plan. The proposal included extending an access road, excavation of the tower foundations and erection and commissioning of the turbines.

    For a copy of the decision and associated documents, visit http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/rma

    Contact DCC on 03 477 4000.
    DCC Link

    ****

    Tue, 12 Jul 2016
    ODT: No wind farm for Blueskin Bay (+ video)
    An application to build and operate a wind farm at Blueskin Bay in Dunedin has been turned down, as it failed to meet required standards to gain consent.

    Otago Daily Times Published on Jul 11, 2016
    No wind farm for Blueskin Bay
    Commissioner Colin Weatherall announces his decision to decline a proposed three-turbine wind farm at Porteous Hill during a press conference in the Mayor’s Lounge at the Dunedin City Council Civic Centre

    • Elizabeth

      Proposal “far more intrusive” than necessary. –Neighbour

      Wed, 13 Jul 2016
      ODT: ‘Disappointed’ wind farm trust to assess options (+ video)
      Common sense has prevailed and a plan for a three-turbine wind farm which would have devastated Porteous Hill residents has been quashed, a neighbour says. Blueskin Resilient Communities Trust proposed erecting three 90m turbines on Porteous Hill less than 500m from Simon Ryan and Jennifer Ashby’s Pryde Rd home. Commissioner Colin Weatherall yesterday declined consent, saying the proposal’s adverse effects on nearby residents could not be adequately minimised.

  16. Elizabeth

    Thu, 21 Jul 2016
    ODT: Call for council to tighten rules on wind farms
    A man who opposed a wind farm near Dunedin that would have been less than 500m from his home has called on the Dunedin City Council to tighten its planning rules concerning wind farms. Dr Simon Ryan’s home would have been close to the project, which was recently denied resource consent, that would have developed three wind turbines on Porteous Hill, north of Dunedin. Yesterday, he appeared at the council’s 2GP district plan hearings and proposed a rule that any turbine over 75m high must be 2km from homes. He said in his submission wind-farm technology was “viewed by many international planners and energy experts in some measure as last century’s technology”.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      It’s rather sad really. Wind farms look so planet-saving, so obviously chock full of virtue, but until there’s a way of storing their energy and doling it out when required, less virtuous energy producers are necessary and they can’t be turned on and off at short notice.
      Wind and solar work well on a private level where the people in the self-sufficient household adjust their use of energy according to when it’s available, at some inconvenience compared with ever available power. They almost always have a generator for backup, fuelled by petrol or diesel.

  17. Elizabeth

    God shines down upon the hapless with bolt cutters on dark and stormy nights.

    At Facebook:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s