Greens blame “climate change” for Dunedin floods

Dunedin flood June 2015

Dunedin flooding. Apparently all our own work (click to exaggerate, I mean enlarge) – © 2015 Twitter

How predictable of them

When I saw this in my inbox after dinner, I couldn’t ignore it. Who cares about sleep (but thanks, Len).

The Dunedin flood is a result of climate change and the Government’s “inaction” on the issue, the Green Party says.

“The flooding in Dunedin highlights that the National Government needs to stop being the problem and start being part of the solution on climate change,” Green Party local government spokesperson Eugenie Sage said. “Since National came to power in 2008, New Zealand’s net emissions have increased by 13 percent; the scientific consensus is that increasing emissions will cause more extreme weather events.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) editor Professor Blair Fitzharris has said that, as global warming continues, Dunedin is likely to face more extreme rainfall events like those seen yesterday. He warned low-lying, densely-populated areas, coastal communities and major transport infrastructure including Dunedin airport will be particularly at risk from storm damage.

“Last month it was Wellington. Yesterday it was Dunedin. What region will suffer next from a lack of strong, cross-party leadership on the climate?” asked Ms Sage. [emphasis added]

Source: National News | TVNZ – h/t Len Mills

The Green Party gives us no science but they sure do some brainwashing as they try to turn natural climate variability into a political issue.

“The Dunedin flood is a result of climate change,” says Ms Sage. But only wild-eyed activists claim a particular weather event was caused by climate change. The way human activities may change the global climate is by a tiny warming we can only guess at—we don’t slow down the wind, alter ocean currents, shift the jet stream, stop the rain falling, create glaciers or exert any other detectable climatic influence of global significance.

Green Party doesn’t know – nobody does

But the matter is simpler than that. The globe hasn’t warmed for 20 years. Of a certainty, non-existent global warming didn’t cause yesterday’s flooding in Dunedin. The Green Party is wrong to imply that we caused it.

Then she confidently links New Zealand’s emissions with increased extreme weather events in general, even though the UN’s expert panel on climate change says it cannot be sure what will happen. Some extreme events might increase, some decrease, and many might go either way. The IPCC doesn’t know, but the Green Party does? I don’t think so.

New Zealand’s emissions are only 0.2% of global human emissions, which means the climate doesn’t know we’re here.

IPCC doesn’t know if floods will increase or decrease

Clearly, the Green Party’s local government spokeswoman doesn’t understand climate change. She really should glance through the IPCC report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (pdf, 43.4 MB) and pick up a few facts. The report was published in 2012. From the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) (pdf, 11.8 MB), published in 2011, we get the following sobering passages that are pertinent to the Greens’ comments on the Dunedin flood. [interesting parts highlighted]

There is medium confidence (based on physical reasoning) that projected increases in heavy rainfall would contribute to increases in local flooding, in some catchments or regions.

There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends.

There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation on the global scale.

The IPCC expresses high confidence in nothing. Anyone spouting warnings based on these tepid assertions won’t get any help from the IPCC if things don’t turn out right, I mean wrong. Well, if things don’t turn out as predicted.

Eugenie Sage says “the scientific consensus is that increasing emissions will cause more extreme weather events” because she doesn’t know the truth. If it’s not true, it’s propaganda.

The remedy for propaganda is the truth: gently, accurately and firmly asserted.

Good luck, you all.

Views: 79

33 Thoughts on “Greens blame “climate change” for Dunedin floods

  1. Ron on 05/06/2015 at 12:34 am said:

    A quick search came up with this fascinating site of extreme NZ rainfall data

    It does make the obligatory incantation in the introduction “As global warming brings more extreme and more frequent floods,….”) but states:

    22 Apr 1923 Dunedin 230mm in 24 hours
    19-20 Mar 1929 Ross Creek (Dunedin outskirts) 279mm in 24 hours
    yesterday was 175mm in 24 hours

    The ODT said it was double the previous record for a full day since records began ….. in 2006! (which actually referred to recording of rainfall in the city centre rather than Musselburgh)

    • Richard Treadgold on 05/06/2015 at 12:37 am said:

      Nice find, Ron, thanks. I’ve not heard of the site but I’ll take a look.

  2. Peter Yates on 05/06/2015 at 3:13 am said:

    There are photos of the 1923 and 1927 floods here :-
    April 1923, Anzac Avenue, Central/North Dunedin :
    13 May 1923, Leith over-flowing at HarbourTerrace, North Dunedin :
    1927, South Dunedin :
    In 1927 South Dunedin was mostly farmland. This is what the recent flooding would look like without the roads, buildings, and storm water pumps.

    I guess being in the 1920’s they were not caused by climate change, or global warming for that matter! 😉

  3. Andy on 15/06/2015 at 4:22 pm said:

    All new legislation would be subject to a “climate change test” if a Green Party bill is passed.

    New Green Party co-leader James Shaw announced a members bill on Sunday, which would require official documents assessing the impact of new legislation to include a section about the impact on the environment.

    The Climate Impact Disclosure Statement Bill will require all new legislation introduced to Parliament to be accompanied by a Climate Impact Disclosure Statement that “outlines what impact, if any, the new legislation would be likely to have on New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions”.

    Every new law?

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 4:40 pm said:

    Every new law?

    Yes. Like ANY amendment to ALL of these (not just the 2 you might think):

    Resource Management Act 1991
    Companies Act 1993
    Crimes Act 1961
    Employment Relations Act 2000
    Income Tax Act 2007
    Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
    Privacy Act 1993
    High Court Rules
    Building Act 2004
    Residential Tenancies Act 1986

    And moving on to………

    Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009

    Followed by stuff like……..

    Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Class Exemptions) Notice 2014

    It’s all about climate change Andy.

  5. Andy on 15/06/2015 at 5:15 pm said:

    Today is the 800th anniversary of the signing on Magna Carta, a document which gave people the rights to limit the scope of government

    Seems appropriate on this thread

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 6:17 pm said:

    ‘Huge waves smash Wellington rubberneckers amid fears for coastal roads’ survival’

    The capital’s mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, told Fairfax Media this morning that Wellington’s south coast roads were under increasing threat of large swells because of global warming.

    [Also on TV1 News interview]


  7. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 6:37 pm said:

    So immediately after TV1 had Celia Wade-Brown prattling about “increasing threat of large swells because of global warming” at Wellington, weather presenter Dan Corbett was on repeating “cold air” over and over for the timeframe covering the actual large swells presently occurring at Wellington.

    High for Wellington 10, low 5.

    Actual cold air => actual large swells
    Warm air threat => large swells threat

    The warming threat seems somewhat redundant to me.

  8. Andy on 15/06/2015 at 7:14 pm said:

    The guy from NIWA was claiming that there is a trend of increasing wave height in NZ
    Is there any evidence to back this up?

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 7:21 pm said:

    And on warming and drought from the respective iconic poster zones – the “rapidly warming Arctic” and the “Western Drought”:

    ‘Record Cold In Southwest Greenland Continues’

    Southwest Greenland is having their coldest year on record [Nuuk, 240 km south of the Arctic Circle]
    This is due to very cold water in the North Atlantic


    ‘Eight Weeks Since Huffington Post Announced The End Of Western [US] Water’

    Massive rainfall floods streets throughout Denver metro area.
    Much of the Southwest and Great Plains are much wetter than normal.

    # # #

    I don’t know how the warmies keep their heads straight with all this conflicting climate change going on, let alone their stories.

  10. Andy on 15/06/2015 at 7:21 pm said:

    Lyall Bay in Wellington points due south and gets hammered by any storm in the area.
    What has “climate change” got to do with this?

    Furthermore, if NIWA are so concerned, why is their office at sea level in Evans Bay?

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 7:48 pm said:

    >”Is there any evidence to back this up?” [guy from NIWA was claiming that there is a trend of increasing wave height in NZ]

    Not for NZ specifically, just modeling and no mention of trends:

    “Very little monitoring of wave conditions has been carried out around New Zealand. Consequently, to assess wave climate and derive probabilities of extreme wave conditions, use is made of computer models to hindcast wave conditions from past wind conditions over a sufficient period of time (decades).”

    But globally yes there is observational satellite evidence:

    ‘Wind and waves getting stronger and bigger’

    NZ Herald, Jun 11, 2011

    According to a major study undertaken by researchers at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, oceanic wind speeds and wave heights have increased significantly over the last quarter of a century.
    The researchers analysed satellite data over a 23-year period from 1985 to 2008.

    “We found a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height over this period.

    “The rate of increase for extreme events was most significant.”

    The data showed that wind speeds over the majority of the world’s oceans increased by 0.25 to 0.5 per cent every year.

    However, when it came to extremely high winds, the speed increased by a yearly average of 0.75 per cent.

    The global increase in wave height was also most significant for extreme waves. The largest 1 per cent increased by an average of 0.5 per cent every year.

    But in some parts of the ocean, extreme waves increased by up to 1 per cent per annum.

    To put that in perspective, Professor Babanin uses the example of wave heights studied off one of Australia’s roughest coasts.

    “Today, the average height of the top 1 per cent of waves off south-west Australia’s coastline is around six metres. That’s over one metre higher than in 1985.”

    It was, according to Professor Young, the researchers’ access to satellite data that allowed them to conduct such a comprehensive study.

    “Previous attempts to investigate global trends in oceanic wind speed and wave height have relied on visual observations, point measurements or numerical modelling. Due to these limitations, researchers have only been able to examine changes to wind speed and wave height on a regional basis.

    “However, our study used recently developed satellite altimeter data sets, which enabled us to investigate trends on a global scale.”

    # # #

    Effect, but no mention of a cause mechanism. Problematic in respect to extremes in “some parts of the ocean”.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 8:25 pm said:

    >”Effect, but no mention of a cause mechanism”

    Might be the apocalypse on the way, “the seas and the waves roaring” is Jesus Christ’s Olivet prophecy e.g. Luke 21:25&26 KJV:

    “25 And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars: and on earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and expectation of those things that are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

    The Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads:

    25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; 26 Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved;

    So how will the Pope’s encyclical deal with this (if at all):

    Attribute to man’s evil fossil fuel emissions; or,
    Attribute to divine plan?

    Something of a dilemma for this “Green Pope” – Gaia or God. But I’m sure he’ll come up with something to satisfy adherents on both sides, as an adept politician would do.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 9:45 pm said:

    >”Effect, but no mention of a cause mechanism”

    The article does allude to something (not sure what):

    ……….as Professor Young explains, winds and waves control “the flux of energy” from the atmosphere to the ocean. “Therefore, understanding whether their parameters are changing on a global scale is very important.”

    I think this is back to front and inside out i.e. wrong (perhaps the reporter misconstrued), should be:

    “the flux of [atmospheric] energy” controls winds and waves.

    In other words the energy flux is not primarily atmosphere to ocean, it is primarily bulk horizontal fluid motion in the atmosphere i.e. advection, from Wiki:

    “In physics, engineering, and earth sciences, advection is a transport mechanism of a substance or conserved property by a fluid due to the fluid’s bulk motion.”

    Advection is a natural phenomenon. It is only at the atmosphere-ocean interface that the horizontal bulk air fluid motion transfers some energy to the ocean surface in the form of horizontal waves.

    So the question is: what drives atmospheric advection?

    ‘Advection: transport of something from one region to another’

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

    The term advection refers to the transport of something from one region to another. Meteorologists are most interested in the advection of variables like temperature, moisture and vorticity. Assessing advection on weather maps is dependent upon two factors; 1) the strength of the wind and 2) the angle of the wind relative to the lines of equal value (isolines) of the variable being advected. The strongest advection occurs when the winds are oriented perpendicular (at 90 degrees) relative to the isolines. No advection occurs if the winds are parallel to the isolines.


    The last 2 sentences provide the answer.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 10:41 pm said:

    >”The largest 1 per cent increased by an average of 0.5 per cent every year”

    Without the graphed data we don’t know if it is actually essentially linear. Remember this is climate science, there could be non-linear fluctuations all over the shop resulting in a factoral change of 0.115 over 23 years (23 x 0.005) but not necessarily linear in nature.

    The example of the top 1 per cent of waves off south-west Australia (six metres……..over one metre higher than in 1985) is a factoral change of a little over 0.2 over 23 years, or 0.0087 or 0.87% per year but so what? The chances of that exact change occurring each year are exceedingly slim and I doubt very much they did.

    I suspect the data is anything but linear either globally or regionally. Just one spike or shift can distort a linear trend (think ’98 El Nino and temperature). What was the average wave height 1985 – 1994 compared to the average of 1999 – 2008 for example? And then compared to the middle period 1992 – 2001? What is the profile of a curve trend?

    Things are not always what climate science would like them to seem to be.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on 15/06/2015 at 11:49 pm said:

    >”Without the graphed data we don’t know if it is actually essentially linear”
    >”I suspect the data is anything but linear either globally or regionally”

    The paper can be accessed via Google Scholar (search the title):

    Global trends in wind speed and wave height
    IR Young, S Zieger, AV Babanin – Science, 2011 –

    The paper states (page 4 and 5 pdf):

    The present analysis is aimed at determining
    whether there is a linear trend over the period
    of the observations (approximately 23 years).
    It does not necessarily follow that the observed
    trends are a result of, for instance, global warming.
    Indeed, interannual-to-decadal variations of
    the high-latitude wind belts have been observed,
    and Hemer et al. (28) have shown that the wave
    climate in the Southern Hemisphere is influenced
    by the Southern Annular Mode. A regression analysis
    between the monthly mean altimeter significant
    wave height and the Southern Annual Mode <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [SAM again Andy]
    Index showed a weak correlation, with a correlation
    coefficient up to 0.4 across large areas of the
    Southern Ocean. Similar interannual variations
    have also been shown to be correlated with wave
    heights in the North Atlantic (5, 10, 11, 13, 14).
    Hence, it is highly likely that such long-term
    oscillations will significantly influence the global
    ocean wind and wave climate. Because the
    present data set is only two decades long, it is
    not possible to distinguish between a steadily
    increasing or accelerating trend, which could
    be extrapolated into the future, or simply the upward
    portion of a multidecadal oscillation. Only
    a longer data set will be able to separate these

    The present analysis does, however, indicate
    that over the past two decades there has been a
    consistent trend toward increasing wind speeds.
    For wave height, the results are more complex,
    with no clear statistically significant trend for
    mean monthly values. At more extreme conditions,
    there is a clear statistically significant trend
    of increasing wave height at high latitudes and
    more neutral conditions in equatorial regions.

    No time series graphs to determine linear nature or not but there are spatial plots of trends and a table of trends, viz:

    Fig. 1. Color contour plots of mean trend (percent per year). Wind speed is shown at the top and wave height at the bottom. Points that are statistically significant according to the Seasonal Kendall test are shown with dots.

    New Zealand has both slightly positive and slightly negative wave height trends so the guy from NIWA has no evidence to support his contention with respect to New Zealand. And globally only high latitudes exhibit the trend if global is what he was referring to rather than New Zealand.


    Table 1. Comparison of trend estimates for buoy and altimeter data. The top panel shows wind speed and
    the bottom panel shows wave height, with the locations grouped by geographic region. Bold values are
    statistically significant at the 95% level (bold and underscored) and at the 90% level (bold) where two
    significance tests were passed (the normal distribution and the homogeneity test) (SOM).

    The altimeter (satellite) and buoy trends differ markedly, even in sign. As do the regions listed. As do the mean and percentiles listed.

    # # #

    Increased wind speed trends are quite pronounced almost everywhere but wave height has no mean global consistency whatsoever. Yes in the higher latitudes at 99th percentile but only south of Australia and across the Southern Ocean in the mean. The paper is much more equivocal, and scientifically honest, than the commentaries on it.

  16. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 8:32 am said:

    So, to summarise, the TVOne News mentioned “climate change” several times, yet the only actual scientist from NIWA who was interviewed cited an unnamed study that waves were getting bigger (by an unspecified amount, in the piece)

    Even Simon Dallow weighed in with his “opinion” that the storm in Wellington was partially attributed to “climate change” (whatever that is)

    News anchors used to be impartial.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 9:12 am said:

    >”Simon Dallow weighed in”

    Yes I just caught that little snippet too. I think his exact words were “climate change is a factor”.

    BTW, the direct link to the wave height paper quoted above is here (omitted on-the-fly previously):

    Global trends in wind speed and wave height
    IR Young, S Zieger, AV Babanin – Science, 2011

    Wellington has a slightly negative trend (light blue) in Fig 1.

    Simon Dallow – wrong.
    Celia Wade-Brown – wrong.
    NIWA guy – wrong.

    According to the scientific literature anyway, but then who reads that other then deniers?

  18. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 9:22 am said:

    Willem de Lange had his say on Radio NZ

    which the usual suspects were furiously tweeting their disapproval of

  19. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 10:28 am said:

    *Phew*, thankfully de Lange’s “nonsense” has been rebutted by a “real” climate scientist James Renwick who says that

    People may need to abandon coastal properties within a generation because of extreme weather events, a Victoria University climate change scientist says

    Presumably Wellington are planning to relocate the airport and NIWA are planning to move away from Evans Bay, or maybe I’m missing something here.

    Meanwhile, in sunny Brighton, it was a lovely morning for a run on the beach with the dog, and not a sign of extreme weather at all.

    Extreme weather just washes up more sticks, anyway, so she thinks it is great!

  20. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 10:37 am said:

    Summarising the morning report piece above, greater storm surges are driven partly by sea level rise (1.5 mm/ year) and greater wave heights as modelled by NIWA with sketchy physical data

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 10:42 am said:

    From NIWA webpage:

    ‘New Zealand surrounded by the biggest waves on the planet’

    1 June 2011

    New Zealand is bang in the middle of the biggest and wildest waters on the planet: the Southern Ocean. Many of New Zealand’s coasts and coastal communities are already facing the impact of rising sea levels.
    Will the future see even bigger storms and waves, putting our increasingly intensive development of coastal areas dramatically at risk?

    Faced with this scenario, NIWA scientists are using special modelling techniques to build a long record of wave conditions from which they can predict future wave conditions.


    In the first stage of the research, a 45-year long hindcast of wave conditions around New Zealand was created using a numerical model. The model takes wind data from the European Centre for Medium ange Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), one of the main agencies for weather forecasting around the globe, and from this it can simulate waves over the long timescales the scientists need.

    The resulting wave statistics have been tested for accuracy and calibrated by comparison with satellite data and with records from a global set of wave buoys.


    In the next stage of the research, the NIWA scientists will go from using inputs from the European Centre for Medium range Weather Forecasts weather model, to using the results of climate models capable of projecting the effects of different greenhouse gas emission scenarios on winds and sea level pressure.

    Climate model inputs will be used to drive wave and storm-surge models simulating the past, so the models can be tested.

    Having run all of their checks, the scientists will begin the third stage of the research. Simulations for the period 2070-2100 will be used to investigate projections of future wave and storm surge climates. Projections will be made for different greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

    When completed, this information will be available to everyone through a new web-based system. The science will be completed in 2012.

    This research is funded by Ministry of Science and Innovation (MSI).

    For comment, contact:

    Richard Gorman
    NIWA scientist
    Tel: 07 856 1736
    Mob: 021 074 7490

    “Projections …..made for different greenhouse gas emission scenarios” are “science” apparently.

    No reference to the 23 yr satellite and wave buoy study of Young, Zieger, and Babanin (2011) who found waves around New Zealand effectively trendless over 1985 – 2008 (either slightly positive or negative – see Fig 1).

    No pointer to the “information ………available to everyone through a new web-based system”. The web work might take longer than the “science”, or it’s done and not linked on the page (odd). Either that or it’s all same ‘ol same ‘il, and not at all alarming.

    Perhaps Richard Gorman can elaborate.

  22. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 10:44 am said:

    NigelJ at Hot Topic is suggesting that de Lange be sacked.

    On what grounds?

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 11:22 am said:

    NIWA’s wave projection project was being promised in 2010:

    ‘Wave and storm-surge projections (WASP)’

    Published: 1 October 2010
    NIWA contacts:
    Dr Scott Stephens,
    Dr Rob Bell,
    Dr Emily Lane

    NIWA is working on an MSI (formerly FRST)-funded project to produce a model, validated by 40 years of historic data, to project future wave and storm surges off the coast for two climate change scenarios.

    This will be at a nationally consistent scale around New Zealand and will help decision makers plan for future hazards. We intend to make the results available in an online tool, and are looking for feedback about what people want from this.

    I can’t find WASP on NIWA’s Tools and resources page but there is this:

    ‘Coasts and Oceans tools and resources’

    Canterbury wave conditions
    NIWA runs a computer model which simulates wave heights across the Canterbury continental shelf and along the coast.

    NIWA offers a more advanced wave forecast for the Southwest Pacific and Southern Ocean as a commercial service, contact Richard Gorman for further information.

    For the Canterbury model, [continues]

    # # #

    OK, so WASP is a commercial service from NIWA based on “Projections …..made for different greenhouse gas emission scenarios”.

    I wouldn’t pay for this rubbish and I wonder if anyone has been silly enough to. Young et al (2011) state:

    “It does not necessarily follow that the observed
    trends are a result of, for instance, global warming.
    Indeed, interannual-to-decadal variations of
    the high-latitude wind belts have been observed,
    and Hemer et al. (28) have shown that the wave
    climate in the Southern Hemisphere is influenced
    by the Southern Annular Mode.”

    Yes NIWA, “it does not necessarily follow” that your GHG emissions-based wave projections are valid and fit for purpose, i.e. of commercial quality.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 1:16 pm said:

    Thomas June 15, 2015 at 5:24 pm [Hot Topic]

    “De Lange completely denies the Elephant in the discussion: What will happen to our coast with regards to storm surges and erosion is the sea will rise during this century and the next to come.
    As reported, a 5m sea level rise caused by climate change is now inevitable and we may well see 1m or more by the end of this century already.”

    Heh, some elephant. A pink hallucination I’m thinking.

    Wellington Harbour historical PSMSL trend 1945 – 2013 inclusive (7 decades, includes 1990 IPCC projection start note) : 25.2 mm/decade.

    25.2 x 11 decades = 0.28m 1990 – 2100.

    That’s an elephant 1/4 the size of Thomas’s. And nobody noticed the 0.18m baby elephant in the room over the last 7 decades.

  25. Richard Treadgold on 16/06/2015 at 2:50 pm said:


    NigelJ at Hot Topic is suggesting that de Lange be sacked.

    It has been about five years since I was banned from Hot Topic but after reading your excellent reports about Willem de Lange and the other comments on sea level rise just now I finally signed on again to reply to NigelJ thus: “So how would you refute his analysis?”

    We should know in a few hours whether Gareth allows it to be published.

  26. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 5:44 pm said:

    Sorry O/T again but Mark Steyn has outdone himself in his latest rip-snorter

    He gets stuck into just about everyone in the news this week AND manages to insult Michael Mann again, whilst still having a pending lawsuit for defamation.

    Absolutely outstanding!

  27. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 7:14 pm said:

    >”Something of a dilemma for this “Green Pope” – Gaia or God”

    Pope’s Leaked Encyclical: Pope goes Gaia… Mother Earth, brother sun, sister moon… oh my.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on 16/06/2015 at 7:31 pm said:

    Pope’s Leaked Encyclical: CO2 emissions are apparently a ‘despotic anthropocentrism.’

    Pope’s Leaked Encyclical: Pope says God wants a regulatory system to preserve God’s dreams for the planet. Oh boy…

    From Tom Nelson’s Twitter feed:

  29. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 8:34 pm said:

    The Pope was also claiming that the world was overpopulated the other day.

    My irony meter was redlining hearing that from the Catholic Church.

  30. Andy on 16/06/2015 at 9:06 pm said:

    Note that the leftists who support AGW orthodoxy, usually atheist (as they do, following the religion of Marxism) are now jumping on this Pope bandwagon.

    It’s great when you can just make it up as you go along and hold contradictory views at the same time…

  31. Andy on 17/06/2015 at 8:34 am said:

    I see that RT’s comment at Hot Topic has been curtly dismissed.

    Willem de Lange is an expert on coastal erosion amongst other things. Is the fact that he didn’t parrot the politically correct mantra yet preferred to focus on his own findings a sackable offence?

    In a sane world, the answer would clearly be no, but we don’t live in a sane world anymore. Tim Hunt FRS and Nobel Prize winner got sacked from all his positions for cracking a rather lame joke about women in labs.
    In Canada, you can be fined $10,000 and fired from your job for making comments in favour of traditional (vs same sex) marriage
    In Sweden, a man was given a suspended prison sentence for making the observation that the rape crisis in that country may have something to do with the massive immigration from countries where women are treated as second class citizens (the sentence was non-custodial because it was a first offence. Don’t try that again pal)

    We should be thankful for Mark Steyn for doubling down on Michael Mann in his campaign for free speech, which our rights for are being eroded at a more alarming rate than the coastlines.

  32. Andy on 18/06/2015 at 11:26 am said:

    If you listen to the podcast from Will de Lange on the storm events, he makes some quite interesting observations.

    i.e that the coastal storms occur in clusters that seem to have no correlation with any climatic trends that they can discern

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation