Listen to us: we control the weather – listen

A conference is under way in Auckland. The Climate Change and Business Conference has brought together the great and the good from New Zealand and overseas. Yesterday and today, these fine people are lending their personal dignity to the completely senseless notion that we control the weather.

Propaganda doesn’t come in any more blatant form than this, when an idea of no value is propagated by eminent speakers. But is anyone listening?

There are scientists, diplomats,  academics, public policy experts, journalists and others striving to save the world from catastrophic man-made warming. Though it hasn’t really been warming and the only sign of catastrophe comes from unverified climate models claiming to predict the weather in a hundred years.

They are right this minute discussing how our key trading partners are responding to the Paris climate treaty, how national targets are being set, what the policy responses are, the economic tools being developed or implemented, the implications of these for national and international markets, and where new business opportunities are likely to arise.

They’re treating it quite seriously. So it strikes me as extremely odd to find, in their programme posted online, that they’ve completely misconstrued the meaning of the Paris climate treaty.

They describe COP 21 as “setting a new global mandate” to “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions” to ensure “global temperature does not get above 2 degrees Celsius”. They say the agreement “has created a new paradigm” that “will require changed practices” at the global, country and local levels. The conference will help to explain “the evolving rules framework arising from the Paris agreement” and the likely implications for New Zealand.

But none of these things are necessary because they’ve read too much into the treaty. The Paris agreement requires nothing from the signatories. If countries implement more of their planned emission reductions they will incur expenditure that will achieve precisely no change in the weather, because the total amount of man-made warming over the last hundred years, according to the IPCC’s best guess, is about half a degree, and that’s too small for any noticeable effect on the weather.

Notalotofpeopleknowthat examined the Paris agreement and identified what countries had actually agreed to in order to save the world. They agreed to just two things:

  1. Submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (stating their emissions reduction target) every five years.
  2. Provide a GHG stocktake every five years, commencing in 2023.

Which won’t save the world and, as Paul Homewood notes, even those undemanding tasks are not binding, since there’s no provision to fine or otherwise punish any country that fails to meet its targets. A paper tiger, this treaty.

The worthies now sitting in Auckland earnestly considering how cities and companies will meet their “duty” to change the weather really ought to put their time to better use. Just doing their homework would be a damn good start. If they had noticed the emptiness in the heart of the treaty and therefore the uselessness of pulling it apart to guide policy, how many of them would still brazenly have splurged their organization’s funds on tickets to Auckland?

Is anyone listening?

— h/t Andy Scrase

Leave a Reply

178 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)

>”just like the gregarious locust”

Had to look THAT up.

Scholarly articles was helpful … pheromone system of adult gregarious desert locust- ‎Torto – Cited by 102

Dennis N Horne

Folks say Maggy’s gone smelly
I’d say not on your nelly
No longer troubled with menses
She’ll come to her senses
Teaching climate science on the telly


I need to check my underwear daily for signs of “climate science denial”
I hope it washes out.

Richard C (NZ)

The Oracles of Warmer World

Schneider’s case, most untoward
We need more scary stories, Stephen cried
Between us all let’s save the world
But then he died

Mann’s hockey stick was all the rage
We’re doomed, that Yamal tree implied
Now just a ghost of bygone age
Turns out he’d lied

Dirty Dennis joined the The Cause
Warner Warmer ever Warmer, he implored,
Insistent always despite the pause
At least he’s tried

And so on……….

Richard C (NZ)

Oracle – In classical antiquity, an oracle was a person or agency considered to provide wise and insightful counsel or prophetic predictions or precognition of the future, inspired by the gods. As such it is a form of divination.

Richard C (NZ)

Alzheimer’s is great for Warmies, every day is warmer and they meet so many new people.

Dennis N Horne

There was an old denier called Richard C
Said warming stopped for a cuppa tea
Unfortunately for him
He was rather dim
Flooding sent him back up his tree

Richard C (NZ)

SuperMandia – The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”

Michael E Mann’s hero

Richard C (NZ)

Dennis, the Global Warming Grinch

The Grinch: [shouts] Hello?

Echo: Hello.

The Grinch: How are you?

Echo: How are you?

The Grinch: I asked you first.

Echo: I asked you first.

The Grinch: Oh right, that’s REALLY mature, saying exactly what I say.

Echo: …Saying exactly what I say.

The Grinch: I’m an idiot!

Echo: You’re an idiot!

The Grinch: [whispering] Alright fine! I’m not talking to you anymore! In fact, I’m going to whisper! So that by the time my voice reverbarates off the walls, and gets back to me, I won’t be able to hear it.


Echo: You’re an idiot!

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…

Barman: “Why the long pause?”
Climate Scientist:

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Scientist: (sobs)

Richard C (NZ)

Dennis walked into a bar, and said “Ouch!”

Dennis N Horne

Poor old Richard C’s
Mind we need appease
Taken leave of his senses
ECT soon commences
Doctor, if you please

Dennis N Horne

Richard C set the bar too low
About the height of a little po
Over it he did trip
What a silly willy drip
Causing it to overflow


Interesting article from Bob Tisdale (more interesting than Dennis’ retarded, Baldrick-like poetry anyway):

Dennis N Horne

Magoof. Always on the lookout for crap science… Climate scientists published a paper debunking Ted Cruz Earth’s atmosphere is warming faster and more in line with models than Ted Cruz and his witnesses argued Former Republican U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz speaks during the third night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. John Abraham. Friday 14 October 2016 A new study has just appeared in the Journal of Climate which deals with an issue commonly raised by those who deny that human-caused climate change is a serious risk. As I have written many times, we know humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change. We know this for many reasons. First, we know that certain gases trap heat; this fact is indisputable. Second, we know that humans have significantly increased the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Again, this is indisputable. Third, we know the Earth is warming (again indisputable). We know the Earth warms because we are actually measuring the warming rate in multiple different ways. Those measurements are in good agreement with each other. Of course there is other evidence too. For instance, ice loss across the… Read more »

Dennis N Horne

Divergence between Bob Tisdale and Proper Analysis
Posted on October 14, 2016

Bob Tisdale has a new post at WUWT about a supposed “divergence” between temperature at Earth’s surface and in the lower troposphere.

Maggy Wassilieff

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, dear boy:

All Tamino has done to claim Tisdale is wrong is ignore the empirical data – much like you do with the IPCC’s data dear boy.

Re: Santer, Meers, et al – they make a few adjustments to the data here, make a few adjustments to the data here and, HEY PRESTO, the desired result. So called ‘scientists’ keep repeatedly trying to rewrite the empirical data to fit their unfounded faith in the tropospheric hotspot, but their desperate attempts are always ignored by the IPCC for the ‘crap science’ that it is.

The science is settled regarding the empirically confirmed tropospheric temperatures, & has been for many years now – those who reject the empirical data are just ‘deniers’ dear boy. The radiosondes and the satellite data all agree – it’s a consensus. Torturing to data to achieve a predetermined outcome is just desperation dear boy.

Dennis N Horne

UAH has been cooking the satellite data for years. The only time it hasn’t shown warming is when it didn’t allow for the position of the satellite. Basic errors others pointed out.

Thermometers are showing Earth is retaining more energy, as the Greenhouse Effect predicts. Temperatures up, ice vanishing.

Nobody knows how the ice sheets will break up, but break up they will. The more the temperatures go up, the faster that will happen and the more sudden will be the sea level rise.

It’s happened in the past and it’ll happen again.

That’s science for you.

Denial is for dreamers.

Dennis N Horne

Here’s to those with a loose screw
Climate Conversation has a few
They can’t see past their nose
Sometimes we do come to blows
But ’tis easy to show theirs beliefs untrue

Richard C (NZ)

>”Thermometers are showing Earth is retaining more energy, as the Greenhouse Effect predicts.” Thermometers where? At near-surface all thermometers are measuring is diurnal temperature (max/min) and the heat transfer along the gradient from surface up. Daytime heat isn’t “retained” at night. Sure we have climate regime changes but when we look at NZ and OZ meteorological data back in the 1800s there is little difference to now. Just 2 warm periods separated by a cool period. Similar;y the latest El Nino heat wasn’t “retained” either. Just dissipated to space. Thermometers detected the the transient temperature spike and then it was all over – no heat “retained”. Even the IPCC has most of its theoretical GHG-forced energy dissipating to space. They have the residual, by scientific fraud, going into the ocean. So it’s all about the ocean and attribution of ocean heat accumulation. The troposphere is a negligible heat sink and a transfer medium from surface to space anyway. Impossible for GHGs to be the ocean heating agent because the only net flux into the ocean is solar. Excess solar heat in the tropical ocean about 24 W.m-2 which must be dissipated towards the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Sure we have climate regime changes but when we look at NZ and OZ meteorological data back in the 1800s there is little difference to now. Just 2 warm periods separated by a cool period.” From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years). From: Are we feeling warmer yet? [See unhomogenised series trend 0.06°C/century since 1850] MfE Figure 8.1: New Zealand average surface temperature, 1853–2006 From: ‘Environment New Zealand 2007’ Dean and Stott (2009) Figure 1. Annual global mean surface temperature from the HadCRUT3v dataset (thick gray line) and annual mean temperature from the seven-station New Zealand temperature series (thin black line). The New Zealand temperature series is also shown after having a 20-point low-pass filter applied (thick black line).[1853 – 2006] From: ‘The Effect of Local… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Been all over this before of course but some refuse to accept the facts and go into blind denial.” Most recently in Page 1 of this comment thread: Exhibit A of the IPCC’s failed theory IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated): FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature” And, [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system” And, IPCC Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing: IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report – Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total… Read more »

Dennis N Horne

Richard C (NZ) is his C C name
Climate denial is his little game
‘Bout science he hasn’t got a clue
Makes one after ‘nother big booboo
A laughing stock he soon became

More CO2 more warming more ice lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

Settled science.

Dennis N Horne
The RSS Middle Tropospheric Temperature Now V4.0 : Carl Mears : Friday, March 4, 2016

This change to the RSS air temperature TMT product represents a major upgrade. There are 4 important changes to the methods used to construct the dataset.

Datasets used for comparison in this post and the V4.0 paper are available as below:

University of Washington Data: Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J. Thorsen, and Qiang Fu, 2015: Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies. J. Climate, 28, 2274–2290. doi:

NOAA STAR Data: Zou, C.-Z., and W. Wang (2011), Intersatellite calibration of AMSU-A observations for weather and climate applications, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D23113, http://dx/

University of Alabama, Huntsville Data: No relevant paper has been published.

University of Alabama, Huntsville Data: No relevant paper has been published.

Still cooking.

Dennis N Horne

Denying loss of ice? Seriously?
Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.4 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.


I now live on a glacial moraine at 750m above sea level, so I can attest to the loss of ice

Where I live used to be a glacier

Maggy Wassilieff

We are doomed…no-one is listening

I live on the seafloor (albeit 70m above present sealevel). I’m preparing sandbags.



Your info on the new RSS temperature record is all very interesting, but you still haven’t answered RT’s question of how has ‘UAH has been cooking the satellite data for years’ dear boy. It’d be great if you could answer it so we can all be as informed as you.

Dr. Spencer has an article on the RSS v4 vs. UAH6. The comparison between the various satellite & radiosonde records is quite interesting, and the update at the bottom also raised an interesting point:


We have a great view and we also had snow mid week last week, which facilitated some cross country skiing on the golf course behind my house

Richard C (NZ)

TrustPower (TPW) was supposed to delist Friday but still trading, Tilt Renewables (TLT) and New TrustPower (TPX) to begin trading yesterday. Short of calling their investor relations I have no idea what’s going on. They might have got cold feet, TPW last close yesterday was $7.270. The balance day price was: EPS 0.306 * PE 26.7 = $8.17 From calcs upthread Today: High Bid $7.110, Low Offer $7.230 (Say $7.17 for convenience i.e. $1 difference from above). That’s a $1 per share loss of wealth to TPW shareholders since balance date and before demerger. Total loss to shareholders since balance date: $315,751,900. But 52 weeks ago $6.936 so a 52 week gain of $0.334 or $105,461,135. Market sentiment is more the reason for the sagging price than the demerger I think. Genesis and Contact are similar: Trustpower Limited Ordinary Shares (TPW) Genesis Energy Limited Ordinary Shares (GNE) Contact Energy Limited Ordinary Shares (CEN) Launching Tilt Renewables into this market would be fraught with the risk of a price crash I would have thought. Especially given Tilt was not a saleable entity in the first place. New Trustpower would benefit… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

S&P/NZX All Energy (G10)

The S&P/NZX All Energy comprises members of the S&P/NZX All Index, considered the total market indicator for the New Zealand equity market, classified within the energy sector of the Global Industry Classification System (GICS®).

Value 1,297.870 Movement ▼-6.04
Percentage ▼-0.46%

30 day graph

Richard C (NZ)

>”TrustPower (TPW) was supposed to delist Friday but still trading, Tilt Renewables (TLT) and New TrustPower (TPX) to begin trading yesterday. Short of calling their investor relations I have no idea what’s going on. They might have got cold feet,”

Holdup seems to have been a “date for final court orders” in respect to demerger and the “South Australian Transmission Event” going by the latest TrustPower announcement yesterday:

Update South Australian Transmission Event and Demerger

10:25am, 17 Oct 2016 | GENERAL NZX Announcement 17 October 2016

Trustpower is pleased to advise that the suspension of the electricity market in South Australia has been lifted and the Spot Market has resumed normal operations. The operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms during the suspension have also been lifted.

The Trustpower Board has resolved to resume the demerger process and Trustpower will be seeking final court orders at the earliest opportunity. Once a date for final court orders is known an updated demerger timetable will be published.

Vince Hawksworth, Chief Executive

# # #

>”operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms”

Is this the future of wind once the grid reaches wind saturation limit?

Richard C (NZ)

>”operating constraints that were placed on Trustpower’s wind farms” Is this the future of wind once the grid reaches wind saturation limit?

Frequency issues, read here:

How much wind power can a grid handle?
Could Australia end up with synchronous failure across states?

Richard C (NZ)

Big Oil: The Oil Market is Bigger Than All Metal Markets Combined Chart of the week USD1.7 trillion per year at current prices. But for perspective, in 2015 the dollar value of world merchandise trade was USD16.0 trillion, in 2008 16.1, 2009 12.5, 2011 18.1. In other words, the fuel is transporting goods of far greater value. And that value now is no more than a decade ago in 2008 and 2.1 trillion less than 2011. >”COP21 [the Climate Change and Business Conference says], “has created a new paradigm” that “will require changed practices” at the global, country and local levels.” Might be a good idea to look at actual oil consumption in that case: ‘A Surprising Look at Oil Consumption’ – by Ron Patterson 11/24/2015 The EIA publishes oil consumption numbers for all major nations. However they have data for most nations only through 2013. They do have data for some nations through 2014. Nevertheless a lot can be gleaned from just looking at those consumption numbers. If oil consumption numbers are growing year after year, then there is a good chance that nation is growing economically. But if oil consumption… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”But if oil consumption numbers are continually declining year after year, then it is more than a little silly to say all is well, economically, with that nation. Or that is my opinion anyway. [Ron Patterson is not alone on this but shipped merchandise and electricity are other measures. GDP is nuts]”

Shipping is about stuff, and tracking stuff seemed like a far more attractive way of getting a handle on “the economy” than economics
By Lambert Strether

What Electricity Consumption Tells Us About The State Of The US Economy – An Update
by Tyler Durden

Richard C (NZ)

Lomberg in WSJ:

Even more insidiously, doom-mongering makes us panic and seize upon the wrong responses to global warming. At a cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, the Paris climate agreement, recently ratified by China, is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty. It will slow the world’s economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources.

This will achieve almost nothing. My peer-reviewed research, published last November in the journal Global Policy, shows that even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century—at a cost of more than $100 trillion in lost GDP—global temperature rise would be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F (0.17°C).

# # #

The world’s economic “growth” has been down for years – forget about meaningless GDP – but the weather didn’t change.

Richard C (NZ)

‘India to more than double coal mining by 2020’ – JoNova

Good news. India plans to add more fertilizer to the global air which will help feed the world. There is no charge.

India will become the world’s number 2 miner of coal by 2020, overtaking the US. There are plans to ramp up from mining 634 million tons to 1.5 billion metric tons by 2020. That’s only 3 years away. China’s total coal use doesn’t even fit on this graph. As best as anyone can guess, China uses 3.7 billion ton each year.

How’s that ground breaking, world leading Paris agreement going?

# # #

Obama’s US “war on coal” negated.


Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. John Christy expose Dennis’ ‘Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data’ by Santer et al. paper for the cherry-picking failure that it is:

It would appear the desperation is getting unbearable amongst the alarmists.


“How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes”

They’ll be consulting animal entrails & consulting the oracles to see what influence climate change has on solar flares, super novas, and black holes next. The Guardian readers really are a pack of Frank Spencers:

“Hmmm, Betty, climate change has done a whoopsie in the corner”.

Richard C (NZ)

Bill McGuire trying to spruik some book sales again.

Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes – £9.83

I might read it if he paid me £9.83 but it would have to be a rainy day with all communications down and no other books to choose from. Kevin Trenberth subscribes to this idea to a degree. I have him on email record. Atmosphere-earth “friction” apparently.

Nothing at all to do with all that molten magma.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes – £9.83″

But I mention sea floor hydrovents at Hot Topic and they think I’m unhinged. Turns into “mysterious” undersea volcanoes. Never mind that scientists believe that some 80 percent of all the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place in the ocean and super-heated water from hydrovents can reach 400C.

Richard C (NZ)

RT >”the pressure of the atmosphere reduced by many gigatonnes during a severe storm” The conventional as yet unproven conjecture is a rapid change of pressure in terms of hours that releases friction. Even then a fault has to be on the verge of slippage anyway. Invoking climate change over several decades as per McGuire is a huge stretch of credibility i.e. there’s already the rapid pressure changes from storms going on and a definite connection hasn’t been proved yet (we’re talking about 750 earthquakes a year just in the US alone). What’s climate change going to do over decades to pressure? Can’t be anything rapid. Kevin Trenberth says this (personal email): “Wrt El Nino and seismicity, the main link is more likely the other way. The effects of seismicity and ocean vents are negligible but El Nino causes substantial changes in winds and surface wind stress that creates torque on the earth, part of which changes ocean currents, so if there is a link it is more likely causal from El Nino.” This is a long way removed from McGuire’s ideas and El Nino is a natural event anyway but Kevin’s action… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should be:

“but Kevin’s action is El Nino => air stress => seismicity not direct El Nino => seismicity [or seismicity => El Nino] as below.


Long term pressure via El Nino/La Nina perhaps (minimally), but in the case of extreme weather I think it would let go anyway. It would happen with or without El Nino/La Nina or extreme weather events.

Richard C (NZ)

[Trenberth] – “The effects of seismicity and ocean vents are negligible”

[Kamis] – “The 2014-2016 El Niño “warm blob” was created, maintained, and is now being partially recharged by massive pulses of super-heated and chemically charged seawater from deep ocean geological features.”

[Walker] – “In 1988, evidence showed a correlation between the five extreme lows in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) from 1964 through 1987 and episodic seismic activity along the East Pacific Rise (EPR) from 20°S to 40°S. This area contains one of the Earth’s most rapidly spreading ridge systems where large amounts of energy are released through submarine volcanism and hydrothermal activity”

CO2-centric atmospheric climate scientists will never concede to geologists over this. For them the atmosphere drives everything. Ask Roger Dewhurst, geologist (NZCSC), about this.

Richard C (NZ)

The previous links to the Walker papers referenced upthread no longer work and the papers are paywalled now. But here are the abstracts:

More evidence indicates link between El Ninos and seismicity D. A. Walker (1995

Seismic predictors of El Nino revisited D. A. Walker (1999)

Richard C (NZ)

Magoo >”Long term pressure via El Nino/La Nina perhaps (minimally), but in the case of extreme weather I think it would let go anyway. It would happen with or without El Nino/La Nina or extreme weather events.” Geological evidence upthread has El Nino geologically (seismically) driven rather than seismicity being El Nino driven. But in respect to extreme weather events, yes, seems sensible that geological forces gazump atmospheric pressure change hands down. The seismic forces are so great a mere atmospheric pressure change is negligible I would have thought. But there is some literature to link some specific events (see below) but it’s not as if they are talking about anything major. ‘How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes’ By EVAN LEHMANN of ClimateWire November 20, 2009 New evidence (pdf) shows that atmospheric low pressure systems can prompt the landslide [Slumgullion Landslide in the San Juan Mountains of Southwest Colorado] to lurch downward. Pressure drops when warm daytime air results in low “tides,” or when fast-moving storms race onto the scene. The effect on landslides and earthquakes only occurs when the pressure plummets suddenly, causing underground water and air to shoot toward the surface. That… Read more »

Post Navigation