Spawn of Kyoto threatens liberty

The United Nation’s recent Every despot’s ancient plan to install a worldwide, non-elected government is making progress.

It has only a primitive shape, but possesses all the pieces it needs to become a universal government. In other words, it may be small, but it’s perfectly formed.

So far, the United Nations-led battle to save the climate has damaged only science (which is bad enough). But now it threatens freedom itself. Make no mistake, if this treaty gets through, our international dealings will never be the same again and our liberty within the nation will be circumscribed in unforeseen ways.

The new bureaucracy will be agreed by every country in the world (almost)—all going well—in Paris in December.

This replacement of the Kyoto Treaty, which will control our dangerous efflux of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (which has steadfastly declined to warm despite 20 years of our highest emissions ever), has been the heart’s desire of leaders of the United Nations for a long time.

Here at the Climate Conversation Group we have spent the last nine years studying climate science and discovering all kinds of mistakes, yea, even deceitfulnesses, in climate science generally and the IPCC reports in particular, so it must be said that this proposed treaty looks to enshrine the worst of bad climate science into a kind of international law.

The treaty would also take bad scientific practices—such as not reporting contrary results—and set them in concrete.

Worst of all, of course, would be the loss of liberty. At first, it will be expressed kindly, with much emphasis on ‘transparency’, setting up systems that are ‘non-confrontational’ and ‘non-judicial’ and highlighting how helpful their Office of Climate Compliance will be. You can see all these words in the draft. Only later, when functions other than ‘climate control’ are added to the new bureaucracy, will the gloves come off: for the ‘convenience’, and ‘don’t you want everyone to be safe?’ and ‘we’ll only catch the guilty’, and ‘if you’re innocent, you have nothing to worry about’, and ‘think of the children’.

Then we will find UN ‘inspectors’ accompanied by teams of (armed?) ‘enforcers’ entering our sovereign territory without permission to go anywhere and do anything. At first, entirely lawful; afterwards, merely pragmatic. You’re in the way, they push you aside.

Oh, it has moved so glacially to this point. Every move gentle, well justified and convenient for safety and justice. But so it begins.

Remember, you can’t even vote them out of office!

You can get the text of the draft agreement from the UNFCCC web site (look for ‘negotiating text’ in the centre of the page) and of course there’s a lot of work still needed to get 194 countries, I think it is, to agree to every word of it.

It remains my firm expectation that the task will be beyond them. Examples of countries failing to agree on significant matters are legion—just look at whaling or access to natural resources in the Arctic. Or people-smuggling, drug smuggling, protection of forests, reduction of greenhouse gases…

The ‘negotiating text’ contains quite interesting words, as follows:

  1. “Mother Earth” occurs on pp. 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13. (h/t Richard Cumming.)
  2. “Enforce/ment” occurs on pp. 79, 80 and 81
  3. “Compliance” occurs on pp. 61, 62, 64, 78-81 and 83.
  4. “Sanction/s” occurs on p. 80.

There’s no need to panic, because nothing within [square brackets] has been agreed, and you can see from the strong differences between some of the alternatives that considerable compromise will be necessary to obtain agreement. This gives me cause for optimism because compromise is what countries find difficult. Talking, easy; compromise, very hard.

So we need to learn what’s in this paper, widely distribute it and remain positive.

Get the negotiating text here (pdf, 805 KB)

Visits: 772

60 Thoughts on “Spawn of Kyoto threatens liberty

  1. Andy on 16/02/2015 at 1:37 pm said:

    Just in time, we can “share the love”

    and “tackle climate change” if we all give each other a group hug


  2. Andy on 16/02/2015 at 1:52 pm said:

    There is also a “schools pack” that enables teachers to indoctrinate kids

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2015 at 2:13 pm said:

    ‘Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally’

    Alan Caruba takes this up:

    Figueres was wrong. The objective of the 1917 Communist revolution that began in Russia and Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” (1958-1961) was the same that is now being openly embraced by the United Nations in 2015. The result of both was the death of millions.

    Humanity is under attack from an Islam that intends to impose its barbaric seventh century Sharia law and from the environmental movement’s intention to end capitalism and replace it with the income distribution central to Communism.

    Both spell a terrible future for the people of the world.

    # # #

    It’s the “replace it with” that’s problematic to me. I’m still waiting for what the UN is going to replace international shipping and aviation with.

    From where I sit right now I can see 2 huge cruise ships berthed at Port of Tauranga (3 the other day). One is the Dawn Princess (“The Love Boat”):

    Guest Capacity: 1,998 lower berths
    Number of Crew: 924

    In about 6 or 7 weeks time the cruise berth will be taken by a procession of reefers taking the kiwifruit export crop to market through to around October. After that cruise ships come back to the north berth again.

    What exactly is the UN going to replace these 2 economic activities with – basket weaving?

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 16/02/2015 at 3:25 pm said:

    Re aviation and maritime transport.

    Here’s the objective:

    23 bis. [In meeting the 2 °C objective, Parties agree on the need for global sectoral emission reduction targets for international aviation and maritime transport and on the need for all Parties to work through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop global policy frameworks to achieve these targets].

    But here’s the ulterior motive:

    47.5 Option (a): Diverse sources, including private sources, engaged in the provision of financing for adaptation, with public finance to constitute the key instrument in increasing support for adaptation:
    a. Identification of sources and prioritization of public funding, as well as increase of private sector financial contributions for adaptation;
    b. Encourage the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization to develop a levy scheme to provide financial support for the Adaptation Fund.
    c. In establishing the levy scheme, ICAO and IMO are encouraged to take into consideration the needs of developing countries, particularly the LDCs, SIDS and countries in Africa heavily reliant on tourism and international transport of traded goods.

    # # #

    The UN wants to clip every tourist ticket and take a cut of the trade transport action so the bureaucratic monolith can be supported and be seen to be the benevolent provider when some of it trickles down to their socialist targets. That should meet “the 2 °C” objective, as it is disguised.

    And apparently “the needs of developing countries” “heavily reliant on tourism and international transport of traded goods” are exempt from “the 2 °C” objective. Going to make defining the shipping and aviation borders a bureaucratic nightmare. No wait a bureaucratic opportunity for the UN. Now it makes sense.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on 19/02/2015 at 9:02 am said:

    ‘The UN Climate End Game’

    by David Archibald, February 18, 2015

    “Everybody Wants To Rule The World” was a 1985 song by Tears For Fears. Now in 2015, a number of parties are doing their best to that end – ISIS in the Middle East, Russia chewing up the Ukraine, China in the East and South China Seas and the UN Climate Change Commission. A draft document out of Geneva gives details of the UN plan to rule the world.

    [……Body of essay around – Animal Farm was supposed to be a cautionary tale about communism. The UN has taken “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” and turned into “All countries are common but some are more differentiated than others.”…….”]

    So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.

    Megalomania Inc.

  6. Alexander+K on 19/02/2015 at 10:13 am said:

    Killing this nonsense is almost impossible as there are too many ‘servants of the public’ who are anything but slurping from this trough. We can look forward to fighting this out for decades to come, sadly.
    I suspect the fight will be going on long after I am dead and gone!

  7. Andy on 19/02/2015 at 5:53 pm said:

    I guess we’ll either get hit by ISIS, the UN agenda, Russia, or Iran sending a nuke to Israel.

    Anyway, we finally got some rain today in drought stricken South Canterbury
    Thanks for small mercies

  8. Andy on 20/02/2015 at 7:27 am said:

    Time to call out the Deniers.

    Find them, name them, shame them

    Signed, the President of the USA

  9. Alexander+K on 25/02/2015 at 2:00 pm said:

    I am very interested in the news that Rajenda Pachauri has resigned from his position/s at the IPCC. For a good take on this, see Josh on Bishop Hill. Some female colleagues of Patchy’s have made complaints about Patchy’s habit of making unwanted advances of a sexual nature at/to said femail colleagues. The original story on Indian newspaper websites went AWOL, but his actions are now out in the open. Seems many members of the ‘Old Boy Network’ is nastier than many of us realised.
    Yuk and double-yuk!!

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 25/02/2015 at 6:17 pm said:

    [Donna Laframboise] – “The resignation letter of the IPCC chairman is a two-page love letter to himself”

  11. Andy on 25/02/2015 at 10:29 pm said:

    Mark Steyn has a certain comedy timing and superb sense of irony in the backdrop of Pachy and M Mann defamation cases

  12. Andy on 26/02/2015 at 9:52 am said:

    Whilst Patchi resigns over sexual misconduct, the usual suspects gang up on Willie Soon and Roger Pielke Jnr.

    They must be getting really desperate.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2015 at 10:12 am said:

    And Lindzen we know for sure now, see the bottom of the USA thread and direct link here:

    Rep. Grijalva has a “community organizer” background (just like Obama) and links to the Communist Party USA. The other letter targets, apart from Soon, appear to be:

    Lindzen, Pielke Jnr, Hayward, Legates, Curry, Christy, and Balling.


    ‘Barack Obama Goes Full Stalin’

    CFACT puts it this way (referring to the Steven Goddard post above):

    “No Dissent Allowed: Obama’s political org. announces a ‘team’ that is going to ‘call out climate deniers’ ”

    And yes, there it is. The ORGANIZING FOR ACTION logo and email from contact Ivan Frishberg:

    Subject: Put climate change deniers on notice

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2015 at 10:34 am said:

    The witch hunt erupted in response to the Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs paper:

    ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’

    Must have hit a raw nerve.

    Greenpeace went after David Legates at the University of Delaware, got nuthin:

    ‘Climate Wars At The University of Delaware: Guest Post by Jan H. Blits’

    Given the imbecilic rants driven by complete ignorance of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s contractual arrangements with their funding providers for Soon’s work (“secret” and “Big Oil”, even though SAO takes 40% as is usual and Big Oil not so big), I don’t think we’ll see an intelligent critique of the offending paper.

    Not much to pick at anyway when it’s “irreducibly simple”.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 26/02/2015 at 11:10 am said:

    >”even though SAO takes 40% as is usual”

    Nope, SAO takes MORE THAN 50% confirmed in this hit-piece:

    “Mr. Alcock [SAO] confirmed through a spokeswoman that the donors disclosed by Greenpeace had provided Mr. Soon and the Smithsonian with a total of $1.2-million over a period of 10 years. He also confirmed that, under standard observatory procedures, less than half of that amount was passed through to Mr. Soon as salary. Most was kept by the Smithsonian to cover facility operating costs.

    Most Smithsonian researchers receive their compensation through such “soft money” payments rather than a salary from the institution, Mr. Kress said. But unlike Mr. Soon, most of those at the observatory draw funding heavily from government sources, such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation, which in turn rely on peer-reviewed award processes.

    In a typical year, the Smithsonian observatory receives about $95-million in grant support, said Mr. Alcock’s spokeswoman, Christine Pulliam. “Only a small fraction of 1 percent of that figure comes from corporate sources,” she said.”

    # # #

    Strange how exactly the same currency, greenbacks from govt (truckload) and greenbacks from corporates (trickle), taken by the same institution, have such an uneven influence on scientific outcomes.

  16. Andy on 26/02/2015 at 11:37 am said:

    John Cook of Queensland University and SkS is providing an online course in “climate denial” which will put us in touch with leading experts in the field such as Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes

    Even Lewandowsky makes an appearance, the man who has people aged 32,000 years old in his surveys

    Quality stuff, I am sure

  17. Andy on 27/02/2015 at 9:06 am said:

    With regard to the 101 “climate denial” course on offer, i wonder if this would be the first University course where students are not permitted to ask questions?

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 9:28 am said:

    You’ve got to laugh:

    ‘Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air for first time’

    “Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”

    Read more:

    So the “all sources” forcing over 2000 – 2011 at only TWO sites is 2 W.m-2. Only 10% of which, 0.2 W.m-2, is CO2. This is LESS than the IPCC’s forcing expression dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) which for the period works out to 0.31.

    It is already known from previous studies (numerous) of SURFRAD, BSRN, and ARM that the forcings are much greater than CO2 all over the world and even different sign. It is already known that the CO2 component of DLR in the US Standard Atmosphere 1976 is 6 W.m-2. Now, apparently, it MIGHT be 6.8 at these two sites depending on what happened prior to 2000. Whoop-de-doo. DLR can be around 400 W.m-2 in the tropics. What is a piddling 0.2 per decade going to do? And what did the 2 per decade do?

    Now correlating temperature. No corresponding OLR study. Nothing new and rather underwhelming.

    >”to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.”

    This has to be an early April fools joke, surely. Either that or they’ve just made a fool of the entire CO2-centric climate science paradigm by hyping this in the media and highlighting the ridiculousness of it all for anyone who can join the dots can see.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 9:53 am said:

    The AP/Daily Mail article above is insane and self contradictory:

    >”The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.”

    Yes, piddling. A fraction of the total forcing.

    >”Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.
    In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun’s radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said. ”

    Huh? The study showed that over the period of study (only 11 yrs, 2000 – 2010) that much greater factors OTHER THAN CO2 were acting i.e. clouds and water vapour. Exactly contrary to Feldman. And solar change is on a centennial/millennial scale – not one decade.

    >”Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.”

    The study doesn’t even address temperature.

    >” ‘The data say what the data say,’ Feldman said. ‘They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.’ ”

    Actually it shows nothing of the sort because there’s no OLR study.

    >”The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock.”

    Expected because all this is already known, nothing new. But It is ONLY TWO SITES out of the entire planetary surface. Other sites show similar, others show totally different forcings. CO2 might be the same or similar but it is obviously negligible. That’s the gravity of this.

    And what they fail to note is that solar forcing has reduced by in excess of 0.38 W.m-2 since 1986 and is continuing to reduce. That reduction will probably increase in the coming years i.e. less energy in = less energy in. Period.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 10:02 am said:

    Even more insipid at SFGATE:

    ‘Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit’

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 10:30 am said:

    Many links to relevant studies prior to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley study above can be found in comments under Robin Pittwood’s post ‘An Empirical Look at Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect’. Unfortunately Robin’s blog has lapsed but here is the cached post and comments:

  22. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 10:52 am said:

    ‘Why a new paper does not provide evidence of an increased CO2 greenhouse effect’

    The Hockey Schtick, Thursday, February 26, 2015

    A new paper published in Nature claims to be the “first direct observation of CO2’s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface” from 2000 to 2010.

    However, there are multiple fundamental problems with the claim including:


    2. Secondly, the authors claim CO2 was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface compared to the start (over a period of one decade).

    However, per the (debunked) IPCC formula, the rise in CO2 from 369.52 ppm in 2000 to 389.85 ppm in 2010 “would” have “trapped”

    5.35*ln(389.85/369.52) or 0.29 W/m2

    Thus even if one believes the IPCC formula and this new paper’s assumptions (including extensive computer modeling in the new paper), the IPCC formula exaggerates CO2 surface radiative forcing by 45% over the observations.

    # # #

    I said 0.31 above because I thought the study was 2000 – 2011, not 2010.

  23. Alexander+K on 27/02/2015 at 3:13 pm said:

    Sorry to go OT, but a little Smithsonian history for those interested in early aviation.
    The Wright Bros Aircraft, the one that was only seen doing what Wilbur and Orville said it did years afterward, despite the field at Kittyhawk being adjacent to a small-gauge public railroad (we would probably call it a tram in NZ) that ran frequently and regularly every weekday.
    To keep their aircraft safe during and after WWI (it had been demonstrated in Europe,) it was given to the Smithsonian to display in perpetuity on the condition that the Smithsonian had to declare that the Wright Flyer was the first heavier-than-air craft ever to be seen to fly, despite other American and Europeans producing actual publicly-demonstrated flying machines prior to Wilbur and Orville’s efforts. Because the brothers had established themselves as official American Icons and the Smithsonian had garnered considerable funds and kudos from the brothers’ bequest, any competing claim was fought off vigorously by the Smithsonian.
    It seems that the August Smithsonian is not quite as ethically pure as it pretends to be.
    It’s a little sad that Temuka man Richard Pearse’s aircraft was never publicly demonstrated, even though it was said to have flown some months before Wilbur and Orville made their announcements. Having seen vids of the Pearse replica flying, I am impressed at the originality and quality of Pearse’s very original design and build.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 5:04 pm said:

    Interesting Alexander. I’ve been to the part of the Smithsonian Museum where the Wright Bros plane is displayed. It’s a very tall hall where craft are suspended ranging from Wright Bros to jets, space craft and moon landers. Impressive, and only in America.

    But I’m not convinced that was the first to fly either. But they were certainly first in the PR race as you say though.

    The story that’s come out recently is that on the US side of the space race they had to model the atmosphere from surface to TOA 100,000 km up in order to launch and retrieve craft. The first exercise was eventually completed in 1963 I think, and revised 1976. CO2 and methane were, and still are, neglected as being inconsequential. No recourse was made to radiative physics either. It’s little different to the meteorological weather models. the entire 33K greenhouse effect is entirely explained by the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory and the ‘greenhouse equation.’ See compendium here:

  25. Richard C (NZ) on 27/02/2015 at 6:29 pm said:

    [Anthony Watts] – “From the “this ought to shut up the “Skydragon slayers” department. Despite sophomoric claims that I’m a “denier”, I’ve never disputed that CO2 has a role in warming via retardation of IR transfer from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.”

    Hook, line, and sinker. Watts, a Luke-warmer as evidenced above, proves himself as gullible as the average warmist. The Berkeley Lab/UC study did NOT address OLR “retardation” at TOA (i.e. above the study sites), neither did it address “warming” i.e. temperature at either of the sites.

    I think the “Skydragon slayers” department will appreciate this from Watts (to say the least). Grist to the mill, in other words.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2015 at 9:23 am said:

    Hilarious. Tallbloke on the Berkeley Lab/UC paper:

    ‘New result shows CO2 has almost no effect on temperature’

    Posted: February 26, 2015 by tallbloke


    Wow!. So the amplification theory which says increasing CO2 will cause an increase in water vapour and raise temperatures must be true then, since that’s the only way greenhouse theorists can get increasing CO2 to do anything exciting. Lets take a look at state-wide temperature in Alaska, including the 2000-2011 period to empirically confirm this.

    Alaska Statewide Temperature Anomalies

    Oh. The temperature fell by around 4 degrees Centigrade during the 2000-2011 period! So maybe the trend from clouds and water vapour was a downward trend not an upward one? But if there was less longwave downward cloud radiative forcing, that would be because there was less cloud, which would mean there were more sunshine hours. That would have raised temperatures. On the other hand, if the reduced cloud were during winter, when the Sun is weak or absent, that would allow more outgoing longwave radiation to escape, causing surface cooling.

    Either way, what the study shows, is that increasing CO2 has had very little effect on water vapour levels or near surface air temperature in Alaska, and is easily overcome by natural variability.


    The CO2 driven climate theorists are completely unable to hindcast climatic change back thousands of years like this [see simple solar system harmonic resonance model in post], so the challenge for them is to justify their certainty. MET Office scientist Richard Betts told me on twitter yesterday that they are only claiming that CO2 took over as the dominant climate forcing in recent decades. That sounds like special pleading for a failed theory to me.

  27. Andy on 28/02/2015 at 10:41 am said:

    It is a concern that Roger Pielke Jr is packing up his climate work. He seemed one of the honest guys on the warming side.

    I guess telling the truth doesn’t get you very far in this world

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 28/02/2015 at 12:30 pm said:

    Temporarily silenced doesn’t necessarily mean permanently silenced Andy. I bet he will be keeping up with the scientific play even though he’s keeping his academic head down. But yes, shame he won’t be publishing on it.

    The Democrat witch hunt is starting to backfire. Even Mann and the AMS are expressing disquiet. Also:

    ‘Senate EPW Republicans Take a Stand for Academic Freedom’ [Press Release]

  29. Alexander+K on 01/03/2015 at 2:01 pm said:

    It’s always sad when bile and BS trumps science and reason, but that appears to happen lots in the Obamaworld.

  30. Andy on 06/03/2015 at 9:55 am said:

    Apparently the Dom Post have published an article on why we should be sceptical about climate change, penned by Bryan Leyland and Bob Carter
    Hat tip to Hot Topic

  31. Andy on 06/03/2015 at 2:48 pm said:

    I think it is great that Hot Topic have something to talk about again.
    I was accused of being the downfall of the blog after “taking over” and apparently putting off other commenters

    Now that the “cranks” have got a piece published in the DomPost, they can strut around tut-tutting and write letters to the editor demanding that the paper apologise for confusing the public with this denialist nonsense


  32. Richard Treadgold on 06/03/2015 at 3:29 pm said:


    they can strut around tut-tutting and write letters to the editor demanding that the paper apologise for confusing the public

    You and I must write our own letters to the editor complimenting them on publishing Carter & Leyland.

    Anyone else who supports them can write, too.

  33. Andy on 06/03/2015 at 4:10 pm said:

    Indeed, but we need to reach out to these kind climate warriors who reach out to the great unwashed who don’t understand science and are too thick to figure it out.

    It works like this:

    Obama says what the science is supposed to say.
    His henchmen go on a lynch mob and weed out people to disagree with him, which includes those like Pielke Jr that are just agreeing with the IPCC.

    We need to explain to the Dom Post editors that this is how it works. The leader of the free world has stated it so.

  34. Richard Treadgold on 06/03/2015 at 4:28 pm said:

    I think I can spot where you changed the topic on me there. It was when you mentioned ‘Obama’.

  35. Andy on 06/03/2015 at 4:40 pm said:

    Not really

    One can live with NGOs and activists distorting science to some degree. When the President of the USA jumps on the same bandwagon, it gets a little worrying

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2015 at 8:41 am said:

    >”When the President of the USA jumps on the same bandwagon, it gets a little worrying”

    And now the Pope, or in this case, the “Holy See”:

    ‘Holy See UN envoy: Climate change impacts everyone’

    (Full text of Archbishop Tomasi’s address to the UN)


    “There is increased evidence that the poorest people in the more vulnerable countries will bear most of the burden of adapting to climate change consequences which they had almost no role in creating[1]”

    [1] As pointed out by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “In the Netherlands, people are investing in homes that can float on water. The Swiss Alpine ski industry is investing in artificial snow-making machines,” but “[i]n the Horn of Africa, ‘adaptation’ means that women and young girls walk further to collect water.” In the Ganges and Mekong Deltas, “people are erecting bamboo flood shelters on stilts” and “planting mangroves to protect themselves against storm surges.”

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2015 at 8:57 am said:

    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy sparred over climate change statistics and requested funding for the EPA. (YouTube: Senator Sessions)

    Regarding Sessions’s question on whether climate models have overestimated global warming since the late 1990s [bogus Wash Post link omitted], McCarthy responded at first that she disagreed. But later she added that she couldn’t give a better answer right away because she didn’t know which specific models Sessions was referencing.

    Sessions declared victory: “This is a stunning development: that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who should know more than anybody else in the world, who’s imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to prevent this climate — temperature increase, doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2015 at 9:18 am said:

    ‘EPA Chief Gina McCarthy Can’t Answer Climate Questions’

    Investors Business Daily, Editorials.

    Climate Change: Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can’t answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn’t know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.

    If the science of climate change was “settled,” you’d think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.

    But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn’t help her case.

    One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.

    “Let me ask you this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. “There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”

    The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:

    Amazing ignorance from Gina McCarthy. Zealotry aside, reminds me of Jan Wright.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 07/03/2015 at 12:58 pm said:

    @Andy, that Breitbart essay by Dr. Christopher Essex pulls it all together in way I haven’t seen before. Very perceptive.

    I especially liked the logic of scientific sin and the introduction of Nullius in Verba. The latter completely lost on the faithful, unfortunately.

  40. Andy on 07/03/2015 at 4:20 pm said:

    Yes the Essex piece is very well written and to the point.

  41. Andy on 07/03/2015 at 6:59 pm said:

    As an example of the global stupidity that surrounds us, Herr Thomas of Hot Topic show me a graph of CO2 concentrations as “proof” that Co2 is a major driver of climate

    Herr Thomas struggles putting together an English sentence (climate change is a “wired and wicket” problem) despite working as a school teacher in NZ.

    yet this clown parades me as some kind of idiot because I don’t understand his logical reasoning

    Society is rapidly disappearing up its own backside. Is there anyone who is capable of logical reasoning?

    On Kim Hill’s radio NZ show today, there was some guy saying that the ski industry in NZ is doomed because of “climate change”, but they can still make artificial snow because it is “still cold”

    Needless to say, this piece of weapons grade stupidity went completely unchallenged.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 08/03/2015 at 9:39 am said:

    >”a graph of CO2 concentrations as “proof” that Co2 is a major driver of climate”

    Did it include the MWP?

    I read somewhere recently that Richard Betts is now claiming CO2 has only become the driver since mid-20th C. Or words to that effect.

  43. Andy on 08/03/2015 at 10:37 am said:

    The argument goes like this.
    x causes y.

    Proof. Here is a graph of x


  44. Andy on 09/03/2015 at 2:03 pm said:

    The Guardian is going all out to commitment on climate change.

    I like this tweet from its editor, suitably trolled by James Delingpole

  45. Andy on 09/03/2015 at 4:28 pm said:

    I love watching the perpetually offended at Hot Topic tut-tutting about how dreadful the Dom Post is. A week ago someone was complaining that I had taken over the blog because no one else commented there any more, and it was all my fault.

    Now the Victorian “grande dammes” can mince about muttering how utterly dreadful it is that these awful people can even be given the time of day, never mind a column in the paper


  46. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 8:48 am said:

    David Wratt has a rather limp right-of-reply in the Dom (although I thought Carter/Leyland were a bit limp too, which Wratt alludes too) :

    A lot of the peripheral and almost irrelevant stuff, no science i.e. no citations, just hand-waving, avoids the critical issues e.g. the absence of an observed enhanced greenhouse effect and the models/observations divergence.

    This is problematic (and contrary to predictions – belatedly):

    [1] “The long-term warming trend shows intermittent ups and downs due to natural variations in the exchange of heat with the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and fluctuations in energy from the sun. So periods of slower atmospheric warming are expected from time to time, followed by periods of faster warming.”

    As is this:

    [7] “A substantial contribution to the observed increase in average global surface temperature since the mid-20th century has come from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no other plausible way to explain the observed changes. This differs from conditions during the “medieval warm period”, when some regions were as warm as in the mid-to-late 20th century, but the warm periods did not occur coherently across the globe. For the Northern Hemisphere as a whole, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period in at least the last 1400 years. ”

    Easily shredded.

    But what about radiative heat transfer? Isn’t THAT what “anthropogenic” global warming is ALL about?

    About the only climate scientist in NZ I can think of qualified to speak on that is Dave Frame (Physics). I don’t think David Wratt will have a clue when the debate inevitably turns to applied heat, as it must. And I suspect Dave Frame isn’t up to speed on radiative heating effects either but at least he knows the fundamentals (one would hope). His silence is deafening I note.

  47. Andy on 10/03/2015 at 9:00 am said:

    So Wratt claims that a “substantial” contribution to the warming since 1950 is due to CO2 emissions. Does he have an explanation for the previous periods of warming, of similar magnitude, for the early 1900s and late 1800s?

  48. Richard Treadgold on 10/03/2015 at 9:07 am said:


    Does he have an explanation for the previous periods of warming, of similar magnitude, for the early 1900s and late 1800s?

    There are holes in the AGW story everywhere; 97% of climate sceptics say so.

  49. Richard Treadgold on 10/03/2015 at 9:13 am said:


    But what about radiative heat transfer? Isn’t THAT what “anthropogenic” global warming is ALL about?

    Yes, and we should be beating this drum constantly. For, if our emissions to the atmosphere cannot be shown to have a substantial warming effect, then we cannot be responsible for any warming whatsoever. So forget problems with glaciers, polar bears, sea ice, coral reefs, drowning atolls, droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, climate vengeance, er, sorry, climate justice, poleward migration of species, annual IPCC junkets and the wide-mouth frog—if we’re not warming the climate, these things are entirely natural.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 9:19 am said:

    Yes Andy, too easy. Wratt wouldn’t last long in a sceptic blog thread.

    I’m continually amused by the warming since 1950 attribution – all 2 decades of it. As evidenced by IPCC AR5 SPM Fig 1:

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 9:28 am said:

    RT >”So forget…….polar bears…….”

    Exactly. Especially polar bears. They are NOT a credible metric to measure the validity, or not, of the AGW hypothesis, as compared to say outgoing longwave radiation.

    I don’t know why Carter/Leyland even discussed polar bears. They’re a Greenpeace meme – a distraction.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 9:40 am said:

    ‘Dr. Soon’s latest paper on natural climate variability published in Nature Geoscience’

    The Hockey Schtick, March 9, 2015

    A paper published today in the journal Nature Geoscience studies changes in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age. The paper is co-authored by skeptics Willie Soon and Robert M. Carter, and is yet another example of the high quality, peer-reviewed work on natural climate variability and potential solar-climate relationships being published in highly respected journals by CAGW skeptics such as Dr. Soon.

    Unable to attack on a scientific basis anything Dr. Soon has published in peer-reviewed journals, smear-mongerer Gavin Schmidt of NASA/GISS instead told the NYT, “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” Schmidt thus claims it is “pointless” to study natural variability, solar-climate relationships, and hundreds of potential solar amplification mechanisms published in the peer-reviewed literature, effectively because Schmidt & his falsified climate models have already made their mind up that man-made CO2 is the climate control knob & the sun plays a “pointless” role in climate.

    See paper >>>>>

    Ouch! Right on cue.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 10:08 am said:

    Something for David Wratt to mull over:

    Fred Singer: “Successive IPCC summaries have claimed increasing certainty [from 50% in 1996, rising to >95% in 2013] about a human cause of global warming — even as the disparity between observations and IPCC models continues to grow year by year –now for more than 18 years.”

    Graphed by Roy Spencer:

  54. Andy on 10/03/2015 at 11:20 am said:

    It seems odd that the big guns (Wratt, Reisinger and Renwick) are wheeled out to rebut the Carter/Leyland piece.

    I thought we were told that Carter and Leyland (and their ilk, ahem) are “cranks” who exist on the margins of society who also believe the moon landings were faked and that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Why would we expect a high-level government response to this?

    As a response, I think Carter and Leyland should play the Netanyahu card and spend half their response, (if they get one) obsequiously thanking Wratt et al and congratulate them on how they have helped the scientific cause (before sticking the knife in, every so subtly)

  55. Andy on 10/03/2015 at 3:04 pm said:

    I am quite excited to hear that the loss making Guardian newspaper is no longer going to report on climate science, because it is “settled” and therefore the only sensible thing to do about it is talk about what to do about “it”

    I wonder if we can expect an ISIS style purge of the universities around the world. There is clearly no need to study a science that is “finished”, so what are all these PhD students, Post docs, Professors and other hangers on doing? Sharpening their pencils?

    They should be dragged out into the paddy fields to toil under the midday sun, “taking action” on the climate

    They can join the rest of us serfs who will slave away without mechanical assistance, paying our taxes to the Prophets Gore and Hansen

    Allah Akbah!

  56. Richard C (NZ) on 10/03/2015 at 6:00 pm said:

    The Guardian can now free up some column space for sport.

    Or maybe not. England came second to Bangladesh in Adelaide yesterday.

    Perhaps they could simulate some readership instead – works for climate science..

  57. Andy on 10/03/2015 at 7:02 pm said:

    I’m not sure if The Guardian have given up discussing “the science”, or maybe their latest offering ins’t science

    This is unclear

    Rhetorical question of course. The article is based on CMIP5 model output

  58. Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2015 at 8:10 am said:

    The CMIP5 graph from the article and paper neglects actual rate of change this century:×344.png

    Roughly equates to the 0.0 anomaly line.

  59. Andy on 11/03/2015 at 8:34 am said:

    The actual rates are irrelevant. We have “moved on” (according to The Guardian)

    The “sceptics and deniers” can discuss the science, but the Guardian has decided to only discuss what to do about “it”

    One consolation is that only Guardian Readers read the Guardian.
    Bit of an in-joke there

  60. Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2015 at 9:05 am said:

    If we “move on” to 2020, as in the paper and the Guardianesque outlook, do we age accordingly or do we retain our current ages notched up in 2015?

    For reasons I wont discuss here, this is a very important matter I’d like clarified before reframing my mindset.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation