"Last week's G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world's leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change.

Not trying to outdo each other, the global-warming commitments of the G20, which now carries more clout than the G8, went from nebulous to

Laugh Riot: 190-year climate 'tipping point' issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' in 1989!  

Newsletter from Friday 18 June 2010

Jock Allison  July 2010

The recent “Climate Change Great Farming Guide” included with the June issue of the Dairy Exporter is disappointing for a number of reasons.

Telegraph.co.uk   by Gerald Warner   8 July 2010

Move along now, please… Nothing to see here…” was the predictable burden of Sir Muir Russell’s investigation into Climategate. Are we surprised? Any other conclusion would have made world headlines as a first for the climate change establishment. This is the third Climategate whitewash job and it would be tempting to see it as just as futile as its predecessors. That, however, would be to underrate its value to the sceptic cause, which is considerable.

This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.

By Alan Caruba  |  July 7, 2010

by Tony Orman  30 June 2010

New Zealand's coal exports to China were labelled 'hypocritical' by audience members at a public meeting on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)in Blenheim last night.
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith addressed the meeting - part of the Government's road show on the scheme - and was adamant that the scheme was New Zealand's best option.
"The sooner we start an ETS, the easier the transition will be," Mr Smith said. "Also it will protect our clean, green image and market access."
Afforestation would be encouraged and grow while New Zealand would honour its Kyoto commitment, he said. New Zealand could not promote itself as clean and green when its carbon emissions had gone up 25 per cent since 1990.
However, in question time, farmers, foresters and others questioned the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol and the theory of global warming. One speaker termed New Zealand coal exports for China to burn in thousands of coal fired stations as as "blatant hypocrisy".
"Yes New Zealand does export coal to China but Kyoto penalises the country that burns it but not the country that exports," replied Mr Smith.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046150/how-come-we-now-have-to-go-to-the-chinese-for-the-truth-about-global-warming/

 Pastural Farming Climate Research-  newsletter by Robin Grieve

John Armstrong, NZ Herald political commentator, takes on the role of National Party spokesperson by justifying the Government’s implementation of the ETS

It firmly believes something had to be done to safeguard the country’s export trade - or New Zealand would otherwise face mounting consumer resistance to goods transported from afar.

Farmers - amazingly - have seemed to be blinkered to this danger to their livelihoods. They have poured scorn on what Smith calls a “soft” ETS when they should actually have been supporting it. They won’t get a better deal.

The bottom line is that whatever farmers think about the veracity of climate change is irrelevant. It is what the consumers of New Zealand’s export products believe that matters. They have choices. They call the shots. Yet, yesterday, Federated Farmers was calling for next year’s review of the scheme to be brought forward.

It seems the penny is taking an awfully long time to drop in that neck of the woods.

Points to note here.

John is saying that the facts of climate change are irrelevant and he is right to a point. I have long predicted that climate change will ultimately have nothing to do with it. The arguments for global warming may be weak and getting weaker but the argument for managing consumer resistance is strong. Meat and dairy products have to compete with other food products. Global warming is a weapon the producers of other food products use against it. As long as there is the remotest possibility that global warming could be happening and that agriculture is contributing to it, managing consumer resistance will be a strong argument.  John is saying the best way to manage that is for farmers to pay something to protect themselves from the perceptions painted by the global warmists, because even if global warming may not be real, perceptions are always real.