The Herald and someone’s crackers

The Herald says today “climate science says extremes of all weather events are a consequence of global warming.”

But climate science does not say that. The notion is ludicrous; it represents reality as much as a boiled plastic egg represents breakfast.

The leader writer says “NZ should be doing its bit” for the climate and would have us believe that global warming makes the air hazy and difficult to breathe. This is risible nonsense from the once-trustworthy Herald. It’s climate science from Christmas crackers—well, someone’s crackers.

It talks about “choking on the air of Chinese cities” and living under “the low hazy skies of Europe.” These are fallacious remarks, remote from reality. Carbon dioxide doesn’t do anything to the air. Pollution is caused by a noxious mixture of gases and particulates.

Carbon dioxide is not pollution but essential plant food and practically undetectable—you can’t see it, smell it or taste it—yet you wouldn’t be alive without it. Our production of CO2 shouldn’t be reduced, since it’s helped boost the planet’s forests and grasslands between 6% and 13% for the last thirty years.

After all, it’s called a “greenhouse gas” for a reason.

New Zealand could cease all emissions of CO2 for an entire year (if it shut down completely), but after six weeks China’s INCREASED emissions would totally replace them. That’s how fast China is growing. Every six weeks, its emissions growth matches our annual emissions. Every six weeks.

The climate does not notice our 0.2% contribution to global human emissions. We cannot save the earth. Not by everyone walking to work or by ironing used plastic bags or buying curly, mercury-filled light bulbs or standing under trees waiting to catch little baby sparrows fallen from their nests.

The Herald’s activism would have us eviscerate our industry for no improvement in the climate. Not that anyone would call cooling the climate an improvement.

18 Thoughts on “The Herald and someone’s crackers

  1. And those nasty noxious gases and particulates in China that make the haze – well, those things actually cause cooling.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 8:20 am said:

    >“climate science says extremes of all weather events are a consequence of global warming.”

    Maybe so. but NOT a consequence of MAN-MADE global warming if evidence for the latter returns a null hypothesis . Not provided by climate science so we have to provide the hypothesis ourselves from their criteria:

    “The theory of AGW/MMCC posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing.”

    No evidence of this from observations.

    [No! I will NOT stop gnawing this bone]

  3. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 8:49 am said:

    IPCC AR5 2.9.3 Global Mean Radiative Forcing by Emission Precursor

    Figure 2.21. Components of RF for emissions of principal gases, aerosols and aerosol precursors and other changes. Values represent RF in 2005 due to emissions and changes since 1750

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-3.html

    Firstly, CO2 “forcing” is in excess of 1.5 W.m-2. The TOA imbalance is only 0.6 W.m-2.

    Secondly, CO2 vs TSI (0.1+ W.m-2) is bogus in these terms.

    All IR absorbing particles in the atmosphere, if an effective forcing e.g. H2O, CO2, CH4, aerosols, etc, are a direct instantaneous TOA forcing at the speed of light but the magnitude of the forcing must build up over time.

    Solar forcing is indirect, via the ocean, over decades.

    This cannot, and never will be, a direct head-to–head apples-to-apples contest. And CO2 has already failed the test anyway.

  4. They are following Obama’s lead in deliberately confusing fine-particle air pollution and carbon dioxide–the US Supreme Court made the EPA rule the latter an air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, and Obama recently blamed his daughter’s asthma on carbon dioxide “emissions” (using this word has only helped them to fix carbon dioxide as a pollutant in the minds of their followers). Outlawing carbon dioxide as a pollutant is very much akin to the outlawing of Jews in Nazi Germany, and should tell anyone who remembers the years leading up to World War II that history is repeating itself. Only this time we don’t have a sane leader to tell the people, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Instead we have leaders who want to assert government as a player–THE player–i.e., who want to take control away from the “Big Monied Interests” (multinational businesses, the “Jews” of today in the eyes of the Insane Left) and take freedom away from everyone.

  5. mpcraig on June 29, 2015 at 9:09 am said:

    It’s hard to believe that in this day and age some still believe we can control the weather.

  6. Andy on June 29, 2015 at 9:44 am said:

    On the “carbon pollution” issue, I wonder how long it will be before tomato growers are banned from using “carbon pollution” to enhance the growth of their crops.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 11:11 am said:

    Harry’s nailed above – a deliberate conflation of a theoretical and unproven climate threat with actual but other-measured air pollution.

    This is bordering on criminally negligent and certainly socially irresponsible. If all the funds applied to the non-existent problem were applied to the actual problem, Beijing would not have an air pollution problem.

    And in Obama’s home country, air is cleaner now than in the height of unfiltered emissions. New flues emit in compliance with pollution regulations pertaining to actual pollution and retrofits do same.

    But to be an industry killer and socialist tool, a bogyman had to be invented.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 11:21 am said:

    >”But to be an industry killer and socialist tool, a bogyman had to be invented.”

    Worse, it is ece-socialism i.e.Marxism without the industry.

    As advocated by Pope Francis.

  9. Slightly off topic, but I had the rare pleasure recently when Gareth at HT and I actually agree on something, namely that ruminant methane is a different problem to CO2 because we are not increasing the stock of CH4 for a fixed herd size.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 11:30 am said:

    [Herald] >”climate science says [no it doesn’t] extremes of all weather events [even the coldest?] are a consequence of global warming [natural or man-made?].”

    This is insane. The Herald Editorial writer has lost his/her marbles.

    Yes, someone really is crackers at the Herald.

  11. So a settled period of cold weather from a large high, that extends temps down to -22 degC is “caused” by global warming

    Idiots

  12. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm said:

    >”cold weather from a large high, that extends temps down to -22 degC”

    Very cold air, from the Antarctic polar region, at a time (winter solstice) when the sun is furthest from our hemisphere.

    This, is “a consequence of global warming”?

    Idiots.

  13. Yet another Richard on June 29, 2015 at 1:52 pm said:

    How to make a worthwhile change? Let me count the ways.

    Stop buying Chinese made rubbish. That should help clean up the filthy Chinese air and we may once again have good quality NZ made goods again. I own NZ made shirts that are in better condition than most Chinese made ones I possess.

    The owners and workers at the “Herald” should demonstrate how to be good world citizens by keeping their total “carbon” emissions to 1000 kg/year (and include their spouse/dependents in the reduction to 1000 kg/year each). I’m sure us realists would cheer their efforts to save the world and follow in their footsteps once we have seen how easy it is to do. The reason for the 1000kg/year limit is because if every person limited their emissions to this level then the world would still put out six trillion kilogrammes of “carbon”/year. This is a huge number but just about doable.

  14. Andy on June 29, 2015 at 3:21 pm said:

    I’m not quite sure by we should stop buying goods from China or outside NZ. Even NZ merino brand “Icebreaker” is manufactured in China, and that is hardly rubbish.

  15. Mike Jowsey on June 30, 2015 at 5:15 pm said:

    Picking up on ‘Yet Another Richard’s point, I reckon the Herald should stop printing newspapers. That would be a good start in the country’s CO2 emission reductions.

  16. trevor collins on July 5, 2015 at 4:52 pm said:

    I would not trust the Editor Shayne Currie, as far as I could throw him!! I advised him the other day, that New York was to be under water, June 2015, as predicted by James Hansen.. and the arctic sea ice will all disappear by the end of this year, 2015, as predicted by the UK’s leading climate scientist, the leading computer modeller in the ‘world’..

  17. Richard Treadgold on July 5, 2015 at 6:32 pm said:

    Trevor Collins,

    Well, fair enough, but to give the editor his due, if he hasn’t studied climate science as much as you have, he won’t have the same understanding of it, will he? With that said, the failed predictions you cite are very significant, and we should hear more of them. Please write more.

  18. Alexander K on July 6, 2015 at 2:54 pm said:

    ANYTHING Aunty Herald prints should be subject to scepticism at the very least and she is the principal reason I stopped buying newspapers some years ago.
    I now read a selection of newspapers on line every day – the Horrid is not one of them!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation