Another environmental disaster…

Reuters announced “Seagrass losses reveal global coastal crisis“, lamenting:

Mounting loss of seagrass in the world’s oceans, vital for the survival of endangered marine life, commercial fisheries and the fight against climate change, reveals a major crisis in coastal ecosystems, a report says.

Crikey! It’s so important, it’s even vital for the fight against climate change. It’s VIG: Very Important Grass.

The story continued: “The study by Australian and American scientists found seagrass meadows were “among the most threatened ecosystems on earth” due to population growth, development, climate change and ecological degradation.”

Why have they used the non-scientific phrase “most threatened”? It’s clear they didn’t measure the level of threat, or they would have explained it. They are simply using hyperbole. The trouble is that when they do that, their science comes under question for their lack of objectivity.

It turns out to be an interesting report concerning marine changes over about 127 years, but it has a more general view, rather than being concerned precisely with global warming (climate change).

Northern Gateway toll road no picnic

  • Based on a letter sent to the NZ Transport Agency on 24th June, 2009.
  • Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, was a clear, sunny day in the East Coast Bays. In the afternoon I drove north with my wife and son to see the new motorway extension and have a nice picnic at Puhoi.

    There was moderate traffic and the drive through the lovely bush-clad hills was a pleasant experience. We passed beneath the gantry and saw the cameras that photograph each vehicle. What a technological marvel they are. The computer software recognises number plates on every kind of vehicle, from the front and the back, at all speeds, in all weather conditions and identifies the registered owners, then matches them up with one payment among thousands; all this without human intervention. Marvellous.

    Nice road, but to pay you must stop

    We spent a mere ten minutes driving along a section of motorway that took over four years to construct, emerging from the northern end of the twin tunnels at two self-service kiosks where one can pay the road toll of $2.00. Travelling north, the kiosks are on the other side of the road and we were unable to stop, but we noticed that only one kiosk was in use and some dozen people stood in the queue, so it was probably taking between five and ten minutes to pay. Paying the toll doubles the journey time. Isn’t technology helpful? Continue Reading →

    Lord Monckton gloomy about democracy

    Christopher Monckton, at the Science and Public Policy Institute, is despondent about the uses being made of the global warming “crisis”. He fumes about the supranational aspirations of the United Nations and speaks darkly of a “fledgling World Government”. I recommend you download the pdf and read him directly; it’s not only a demonstration of excellent writing but also illuminates the situation.

    Does he exaggerate in referring to international arrangements, through treaties, which aim to control our emissions of greenhouse gases, as “this constitutional monstrosity, [this] abnegation of life, this repudiation of liberty, this cancellation of the pursuit of happiness”? Continue Reading →

    Obama — more ignorant than we thought

    President Obama is charming, credible and he fronts well, but he just revealed some of what truly lies within. It was a disturbing insight and I hope his advisors can amend his ignorance.

    It was just last Tuesday — Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, was urging the House of Representatives to pass the Waxman-Markey bill, properly known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, when he let slip that he doesn’t know what carbon dioxide is. Continue Reading →

    Science loses out to hyperbole

    It’s the end of a long day and I lack inclination to read. Warren Meyer at Climate Skeptic has started looking at the Global Climate Change Impacts report released by the Obama administration amid much fanfare. Meyer’s first analysis looks interesting, since he has isolated some of the hyperbole and exaggeration in the report.

    Richard Treadgold

    Obama diminished by association

    President Obama has been promising firm action against global warming, his tone strengthening. Watch out! I think he’s serious… Right — now he’s done it!

    So the Obama administration releases a hard-hitting report on the effects of global warming in America today. It says Americans have been living with the heavy downpours, rising sea levels and blistering summer heat waves produced by man-made climate change for 30 years.

    Oh. Have they, really?

    Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel: “This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA.”

    Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder: “Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely…”

    “ So, to summarize: sentence one is not supported by the citations provided, which lead in both cases to selectively chosen non-peer reviewed sources, and the citations that are peer reviewed on this subject come to an opposite conclusion and are ignored.”

    Have a look at some contrary views to this major new report intended to form popular opinion from Climate Depot. Or this one from Climate Skeptic.

    A dreadful trend

    There was a recent post by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit that was difficult for some of us to understand. Fortunately, there’s an exposition of it at Climate Skeptic called “How to manufacture the trend you want” that makes it all clear. It’s regrettable, but please have a look.

    It has to do with rates of calcification in Great Barrier Reef coral growth over the past 400 years. On January 2, 2009, in Science, De’ath et al reported an ‘unprecedented’ decline. But it seems aimed more to alarm than inform us. They showed a graph to support their claims. Steve revealed a graph of a longer time series that tells quite a different story.

    Then we got to see the actual data followed by the deficiencies in the data; well, what a trend! It turned out that ‘unprecedented’ referred only to the last 153 years.

    Richard Treadgold

    Global thermostat — too good to be true?

    This is a stunning piece of work. Have a look. I hope to say more later.

    Who knew that the sun has increased its output by 30% since the far geological past, and yet the earth did not heat up as it did so? It’s called the Faint Early Sun Paradox and it was always a bit tricky to explain, until now…

    The stability of the earth’s temperature over time has been a long-standing climatological puzzle. The globe has maintained a temperature of ± ~ 3% (including ice ages) for at least the last half a billion years during which we can estimate the temperature. During the Holocene, temperatures have not varied by ±1%. And during the ice ages, the temperature was generally similarly stable as well.

    Willis Eschenbach has proposed a thermostat for the control of global temperature. His clear exposition of it has just appeared on Watts Up With That. Will it survive scrutiny? Read it through, have a think, let us know.

    Richard Treadgold

    Clouding the issue

    Clouds are the issue in more than one facet of global warming. Apart from causing rain, clouds have two important effects: cooling and warming. Dr Roy Spencer, one of few scientists studying clouds, has said that a sustained change in cloud cover of just 1%, up or down, can cause a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age.

    Cooling is achieved by reflecting back the heat from the sun; warming is done by keeping that heat in, like a blanket. I’m not an expert on clouds, but from my reading I’ve got the impression that low-level clouds usually cause cooling and high-level clouds usually keep the warmth in. I also think they might do both, at different times of the day.

    For example, low clouds at night keep things warm — a clear sky means a cold night — while low clouds during the day reduce temperatures. We’ve all experienced the sudden cooling as a cloud moves across the sun on a hot day.

    It’s a current and vexed question to discover just how these conflicting effects are influenced by increasing humidity, whether that acts to raise or to lower air temperatures and what the balance of the effects is around the world. As the global temperature rises (though I’m not suggesting that it is right now) more water evaporates. Where does the resulting water vapour go? What does it do? Are more clouds created, or fewer clouds? Do they warm or cool?

    This post on Watts Up With That introduces and enhances a recent post on Climate Audit describing strong negative cloud feedbacks found by the Climate Process Team on Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity.

    I especially like, as does Anthony Watts, the remarks of the first of Steve’s commenters, Willis Eschenbach:

    Cloud positive feedback is one of the most foolish and anti-common sense claims of the models.

    This is particularly true of cumulus and cumulonimbus, which increase with the temperature during the day, move huge amounts of energy from the surface aloft, reflect huge amounts of energy to space, and fade away and disappear at night.

    I love the stunning picture of cumulonimbus on WUWT and the clarifying diagrams he gives to help us understand. Who can fail to notice that a cloud is not simply a cloud, but an ever-changing expression of shifting forces?

    Richard Treadgold

    Nuclear-free, are we?

    We know of only one large, proven, dependable source of energy that won’t add to our emissions of greenhouse gases. It’s not just large — it’s monumental, and it could provide almost all of our energy needs for thousands of years.

    But to allow us to tap into this inconvenient solution, environmental activists must step aside. The Australian, venturing the other day where few mainstream media providers dare to go, ran some numbers courtesy of a rational climate scientist, who also reveals some of the outdated myths modern greenies still cling to.

    Is this relevant to New Zealand? Perhaps, for we, too, cling to a myth: that Parliament can actually ban from the nation the process of extracting energy from the stuff we’re made of. Nuclear-free: are we, indeed? I mean, how could we ever be? Anyone for a physics lesson?

    Now, anyone for legislating the value of pi?

    Richard Treadgold

    Nobody really wants a new climate treaty

    So, it’s official: the possibility of a replacement being hammered out for the Kyoto Treaty now appears remote.

    It will be “physically impossible” to have a detailed deal to tackle climate change by this December’s summit in Copenhagen, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said on Wednesday in Bonn.

    The “four tough nuts”, as he termed them, were proving extremely difficult to crack because, he said, the “delivery on four political essentials”, on which success in Copenhagen would depend, was turning out to be “impossible”. Continue Reading →

    Greenpeace alarmism unfounded

    Yesterday, Greenpeace set off a siren outside climate talks in Bonn, trying to stir governments negotiating a climate change treaty. They’re not moving fast enough to save the world. They need a hurry-up. Surprisingly, even New Zealand earned a mention.

    According to 7thSpace Interactive: “There is a group of countries who clearly have absolutely no intention of saving the planet from dangerous climate change,” said Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace International. “The US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada are acting as if there is no climate crisis at all, and are putting their own short term political self-interest ahead of this global emergency.”

    Of course, they’re trying to persuade us to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, which they claim contribute to dangerous warming. Such claims are quite unfounded. Continue Reading →

    Bester knows best, uh?

    The Herald let Denise Bester loose on us the other day. She made me feel I’d been mugged by a cuddly toy. Not rigorously scientific, just echoing allegations from the global warming orthodoxy, and so naively confident in proposing ineffective, feel-good solutions incapable of affecting the climate that she must have a vested interest in the solutions. Right at the end we find out she does. She sells them. Continue Reading →

    Set phasers on stun

    Spencer claims that climate sensitivity has been “grossly overestimated” because of confusion over cause and effect between cloud cover and temperature. All the computer models now wrongly treat cloud cover as a positive feedback, amplifying warming. But some clouds directly cause warming (a forcing) and are not the result of warming (a feedback). He gives details and says they’re having to fight to get it published. more…

    Positive feedback from water vapour

    New paper rips the global warming thread

        • by Richard Treadgold — based on an article published in Tool Magazine, March 2009.

    The voices urging us to “change the climate” are shrieking louder than ever. Perhaps they see themselves losing ground against the global cooling of the last seven years. Those sceptical of urgency are insulted more hatefully, science and reason are abandoned and society trembles at the talk of catastrophe.

    It’s the biggest alarm of all: the planet is threatened with destruction because of man-made warming. It couldn’t get any worse than that, could it? The whole planet? Wow!   Continue Reading →

    Our bogus carbon crimes

        • by Richard Treadgold – published in Tool Magazine, September 2008.

    download pdf (542 KB)…

    Once upon a time, street-corner zealots shouting “the end is nigh” and warning us to abandon our sins did it for religious reasons. These days, zealots shout the same message with the same warning about sinning, but they do it for climatic reasons. It’s going on for ever, isn’t it? Scare stories about the planet’s climatic doom proliferate endlessly and there are no signs of it letting up. If there’s light at the end of the tunnel it must be a train coming.

    So the government’s decided to change the climate. Probably just to shut everybody up. We’re all sick of hearing about it. The Greens say the ETS bill is too weak for them—although, hectoring us to change our ways, they seem more concerned with our lifestyles than the actual climate.

    And that’s the thing, isn’t it? There’s so much guilt around AGW (anthropogenic global warming)—we’re not just burning fossil fuels, we’re greedy and selfish—even criminally negligent!   Continue Reading →

    Brian Fallow’s ludicrous doubts

    The NZ Herald today carries Brian Fallow’s lament over a gap that’s arisen “between what the new Government is saying and what it is doing, with respect to the select committee review of the emissions trading scheme.

    He says that National believes that an ETS is the way to go, but the scheme has “some design flaws” and that’s fair enough. But look, he says, at the terms of reference for the select committee!

    It is the Act Party’s wish list “verbatim“, except for what he describes as “the ludicrous suggestion that the committee hear competing views on the science.”

    Why is it ludicrous, Brian? Continue Reading →

    Oxfam and ‘Planet Roulette’

    I just emailed Barry Coates, Executive Director of Oxfam New Zealand, thus:

    Dear Barry,

    Your article in the Herald today attracted my attention, since I am interested in the general topic of global warming, but I also experienced a certain (perhaps naive) surprise at Oxfam’s connection with global warming. Clearly you believe in the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming; I hope you don’t mind if I ask some questions about it.

    First, some facts seem to have come unstuck from reality. Continue Reading →

    This blog is your blog

    TV Works in writing today acknowledged our complaint. They have referred it to their Complaints Committee and say “a formal response will be forwarded to you” after the committee has considered it. Under the guidelines on the BSA web site, they have 20 working days to do this. Then we take it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority if their response is unsatisfactory. So probably nothing more will happen until January.

    If you missed it, you can see our letter of complaint on the CCG web site. You can also view the video of the original news story on the TV3 web site. Have a look — for anyone interested in journalism it’s alarming. For anyone interested in global warming it’s also alarming. It’s just generally alarming. Continue Reading →

    Twisting words bends nature out of shape

    A NZ Herald headline today blares “Oceans’ acidity threatening coral and mussel survival”, making us imagine reefs and shellfish beginning to fight for their lives. The article begins:

    Rising carbon dioxide levels are increasing acidity in the oceans faster than scientists thought, posing a greater threat to shell-forming creatures such as coral and mussels.

    An eight-year project in the Pacific has found that rising marine acid levels will challenge many organisms, because their shell-making chemistry is critically dependent on a less acidic, more alkaline environment.

    The study monitored seawater pH levels at the northeast Pacific island of Tatoosh off Washington state in the United States.

    Notice how the scope of this alarmist item contracts dramatically from “oceans” in the headline, to “the Pacific” in the second paragraph, to “an island” in the third paragraph. That’s an important point: the scientists haven’t been studying the whole ocean, just one bit of it.

    If a scientist claims to know what is happening in the whole ocean after studying a single island, should we award him a medal or just smile politely and agree to humour him? Continue Reading →

    Huge increase in the minuscule is still tiny

    Last Wednesday the NZ Herald tried to shame New Zealand into more grown-up climate behaviour.

    A body grandly known as the UN Climate Change Secretariat, a moniker which smoothly conveys an image of sponging up large amounts of cash for no earthly good, had just released figures showing “the growth in New Zealand’s emissions between 1990 and 2006 to be among the worst in the world’s industrialised nations.” Continue Reading →

    Dr Pachauri, you should desist

    Michael Duffy wrote yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald that the chairman of the IPCC gave an erroneous presentation. Others have commented on the IPCC’s increasingly discredited reputation. I did some research and posted the following comment on Dr Pachauri’s blog; so far it hasn’t been published:

    Dr Pachauri,

    In January you were quoted in The Guardian as saying you would “look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” Continue Reading →

    Shock! Horror! CO2 feeds us!

    Written for TOOL Magazine, August 2008

    Once upon a time, street-corner zealots shouting “the end is nigh” and warning us to abandon our sins did it for religious reasons. These days, zealots shout the same message with the same warning about sinning, but they do it for climatic reasons. Continue Reading →

    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 →

    Enough is enough

    It is beyond dispute that Kyoto, emission trading, the fart tax, carbon credits and climate change legislation contribute nothing to the productive goods and services of this country. All the money spent in these areas is totally unproductive. Furthermore it all comes out of the pockets of the taxpayer and ratepayer.

    Lawyers and accountants are setting up departments to advise on making money or saving money on these matters. Resource management consultants are in for their share too. Councils are appointing staff to ‘manage’ climate change and wringing their hands while removing yet more fleece from their ratepayers — Government bureacrats, too. Major companies are huddling together in meetings to work out how to persuade the government to load their climate change liabilities on to the taxpayer for a little while longer, reduce their liabilities, neutralize them or even make a profit out of the climate change scam.

    There is even an academic department being set up to ‘advise’ on climate change and thus add to the rort on the taxpayer.

    Vultures, all with their bloody heads buried in the carcase of the taxpayer. All these costs, for which there are no benefits whatever to the taxpayer, devolve on the taxpayer who, unknowingly, is paying lawyers and the like $300 per hour, $5 per minute or one dollar every twelve seconds, or more, which costs are finally paid in the increased cost of food, fuel and real goods and services.

    Enough is enough; is there a political party which has the courage to draw a line under this rort?

    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 →