Water neutrality means death

21 August 2008 – Is this the real motive of environmentalism — shame at our existence? Brendan O’Neill – Spiked, tells us that after the eco-footprint and the carbon footprint, now we have the ‘water footprint’. We’re told to be ‘conscious’ (which is a PC word for feeling guilty) of how much water we splash on our faces or flush down the toilet. If only the matter rested there… more…

NZ sustainable energy supplies surprise

download pdf (92 KB)…

by Gary Kendall, Engineer
This paper examines the practicality of replacing base-load power generation in New Zealand with renewable resources, including hydro, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal. It reveals, surprisingly, that introducing significant numbers of electric cars would seriously strain our present power supply. If you’ve heard about the government’s desire to restrict thermal power generation to mitigate climate change, you should read this paper.   pdf (92KB)…

The chilling costs of climate catastrophism

• by Ray Evans – Quadrant Magazine
From the cost of ‘carbon’ to the cost of living to the price of freedom, there’s much at stake should we lose the fight for the air we breathe. It could be called the Battle for Middle Earth. Here’s an opus — a wide-ranging, informative Australian perspective from the secretary of The Lavoisier Group. Get a coffee, find a chair and settle down for a while. more…

Why pick on carbon dioxide?

Environmentalists have educated society first to notice, then to condemn and finally to clean up pollution of air, water and land. But now activists focus on carbon dioxide because it warms the planet. We have been induced to fear what we actually prefer.

Improvements have been achieved over many decades, and it is wonderful that, for example, the United States pollutes a lot less than it used to, has a greater area in forests now than at the end of the 19th century and enjoys cleaner rivers, like many of the developed nations, including New Zealand. Continue Reading →

Oh God, the environment, God the developing world!

Following the virtual demise of traditional Western religion, the newly-instituted worship of “the environment” has spread and flourished. Commentators point out how many things are done and called for in the name of the environment, as were once done and called for in the name of God.

Nothing has changed except the name of the deity. We brook no argument against our deity, nor questioning; we demand blind obedience, for fear of public obloquy. We still call upon people to consider, to fret, to act and to pay handsomely in the name of the deity—just the projects differ. Where once it was a fine new cathedral in Coventry or the Swansea city square statuary, now we want action on poverty or global warming.

And there’s an even newer deity: it’s the “developing world”. Continue Reading →

We’re too cold to fight global warming

Global warming adherents warn of a global temperature rise, saying it will be deadly in various ways.

Many of us have questioned the reasoning behind the warning, saying (among other things) that, since we prefer to holiday in warm climates, we prefer the summer to the winter, we grow more crops where it’s warm and one finds more living creatures in the tropics than the polar regions, it goes without saying that living things prefer a slightly higher temperature.

So we have been asking what, exactly, is wrong with a little warming? Continue Reading →

The end of consensus

Dr Naomi Oreskes, in a 2004 essay in Science, claimed that of 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, 75% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, that human activities are affecting the global climate by contributing to warming (admittedly a mild definition of climate change), while none directly dissented from it. Oreskes has been widely quoted in support of the “consensus” among scientists that the science is settled.

If a consensus truly existed then, it certainly does not now. Continue Reading →

A diet of catastrophe

I frequently encounter thinking people who are concerned that our daily media seem to proffer a diet rich in climate alarmism, but how true really is that impression?

I decided to conduct an informal survey of the online NZ Herald. I found 9 articles over the last 6 months in which the word “catastrophe” or its derivatives appeared in conjunction with the words “global warming” a total of 9 times, which is one alarming article every 2.8 weeks. There were 62 results in all, dating back 7 years, for an overall frequency of one article about every six weeks. Some instances might well have been humorous, tongue-in-cheek or sceptical; one should read them all to find out. This study ignores the broadcast media, which are likewise loaded with references to “fighting climate change” and similar but are harder to review.

I don’t think the Herald is very different from other media. If you add to this newspaper the potential stories on numerous radio stations, television channels, several times a day, and other print media, it’s undeniable that our daily media is full of alarmism. It’s no wonder that we’re worried—we’re being advised to worry! Oddly, I’ve heard some people say “nobody talks about catastrophe”. They are, perforce, deniers. Continue Reading →

Tax on Carbon Dioxide approved for Bay Area

A controversial new tax on CO2 emissions has just been set by the Air Quality Management board. Companies are to measure and report their own emissions. Businesses say out-of-area firms get an instant advantage over them. Once again, California leads the charge into radical action. Read the original story and see local comment on the new tax at Watts Up With That.

Consensus (not again!) and very uncertain models

In an editorial on 14 May, Nature calls on governments to “work together to build the supercomputers needed for future predictions that can capture the detail required to inform policy.”

They’re talking about the approximately fifteen detailed computer models developed by teams around the world in a continuing attempt to better understand earth’s complex climate. The modellers want access to supercomputers to help improve their predictions. Fair enough. Everybody wants bigger toys.

But along the way, this prestigious weekly manages some breathtaking assertions that deserve closer attention. Continue Reading →

Who is going to pay?

So CO2 is now a polluting gas. Does nobody have any elementary science knowledge? Dr Muriel Newman lambasts the Commissioner for the Environment for stupidly declaring CO2 a pollutant. But the campaign against carbon dioxide originates with the IPCC, who breaches its own rules, ignores accepted scientific procedure and whose objective when set up was to find evidence of human interference in the climate. With all those bureaucrats employed for that single purpose, there was never much chance of not finding evidence, was there? more…

The Great Global Warming Swindle—see it on Prime TV, Sunday, June 1st!

Movie scene
The movie The Great Global Warming Swindle will screen on:
Prime TV
on Sunday, 1 June
at 8.30 pm

Afterwards will be an hour of discussion, with climate realists being represented by Leighton Smith, of NewsTalkZB, and Dr Willem de Lange, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato. Continue Reading →

Arctic Fairy Tale

The polar bear is now a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. It’s a major victory for environmentalists, who have been looking for a legal back door to limit carbon-dioxide emissions, but Roy Spencer reflects on what else it might mean. Will the bears now be saved? Did they ever need saving? What about freedom and prosperity? more…

NZ’s ETS and NIWA’s veracity

Fran O’Sullivan, writing in the NZ Herald a few days ago, summarised objections to the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the difficulties Labour faces in getting some kind of political consensus together in time to pass some legislation before the election.

I was interested in her conclusion—in passing, though apparently sincere, that:

“New Zealand does need to address climate change issues. But not in a lopsided fashion where ordinary folk—and smaller businesses—feel the brunt first.”

I applaud her concern for “ordinary folk” and their economic difficulties, but the more important question must be: why must we address climate change issues? Continue Reading →

Just tell me the blasted temperature!

It’s a simple question: “What is the temperature of the earth?” But for those who live here it has no simple answer, nor ever will have—only approximations. For it not only depends on where you put the thermometer, but also, apparently, on who interprets it. For if you own the dataset, you can reduce older temperatures and increase recent ones, just as NASA has been doing, and give the impression of greater warming. Naughty, naughty. more…

NOAA modernises US weather recording stations

This is great news. Have they “statistically corrected” the poorly-sited stations’ data? If the data’s been fixed, why move the stations? Are they still ignoring a documented warm bias? Read NOAA’s press release—they say that a global monitoring network “protects” the planet. They don’t reveal how. more…

Climate change—has it been cancelled?

Prof. Bob Carter on NZone Tonight

A cool-headed Kiwi scientist talks about the global warming hysteria. A palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist with a deep knowledge of prehistoric climate, he’s ideally placed to advise us on the modern climate and its changes. The hot-heads need to hear Bob’s rational tone; those in power need to hear the facts—we could all benefit from listening to him. more…

Taxing the very air we breathe

New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)—will it reduce global warming?

We breathe carbon dioxide and without it we would die. Growers routinely add it to greenhouses (four times the normal level) to make the plants grow better. Forests are growing measurably faster as the level of atmospheric CO2 climbs.

But human emissions of CO2 are allegedly warming the planet. Inducing a sense of guilt for driving a car or turning the lights on hasn’t reduced emissions. An alternative way to force emissions down is to create emission licences (or carbon credits) and then buy and sell them to each other. Entrepreneurs love it. New Zealand is setting up such a scheme right now. Continue Reading →

Unending global warming hyperbole finally too much

References in the news media to global warming and its dire consequences are frequently inexact, unbalanced and unnecessarily alarming—sometimes even wrong. Their endless repetition is tiresome. Also they are dangerous, in that people disinclined to check for themselves will inevitably start to believe them. New Zealanders deserve better. Continue Reading →

Tourism to be Ravaged by Global Warming?

The Editor,
NZ Herald.
4 January, 2008.

Dear Sir,

Is our hard-won tourism industry to be ravaged by global warming?

No, not by rising sea levels, but by imposts to “offset” the “carbon footprints” of the growing numbers of our visitors? Let us hope that cool heads examine the matter carefully before hasty action spoils anything.

According to research from the University of Otago published in the NZ Herald today, visiting tourists’ CO2 emissions equal those from all our coal, gas and oil-fired electricity generators combined. Continue Reading →

No more global warming?

It’s been repeated so often that by now we take it for granted. The world’s climate is warming up and is starting to produce bad consequences which will worsen.

We’re told sea levels are rising, icecaps are melting, glaciers are disappearing and storms are intensifying. Polar bears are at risk because the ice they know and love is shrinking, tropical diseases are about to spread everywhere and we’ll soon be growing coconuts in Bluff.

Get ready for shorter ski seasons and be very cautious about buying seaside property. Continue Reading →

The hockey stick

Here’s a story you haven’t heard, and you should have. An analyst, working for the government, uses computers to crunch numbers and find the truth. Let’s call him “Mann.” The trouble with Mann is, he has an ideology. He knows what he wants his results to be. more…