TVNZ climate science halfwits

A pristine blue sky ruined by carbon dioxide pollution

The Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry says of carbon dioxide (CO2) that it is “a colourless, odourless gas.” It’s non-toxic except in very high concentrations, it’s essential food for all terrestrial and marine plants and therefore makes all animal life possible, and its level in our blood regulates breathing. From it, plants create the oxygen that we and animals need to survive and its carbon component provides the basis of our anatomy and physiology.

CO2 is one of two miraculous molecules that give and sustain human life, setting all manner of boundaries within a whisker of death but beyond its reach. In other words, ensuring our survival through the miraculous provision of precisely what we need. Water is the other: [from it, plants create the oxygen that we and animals need to survive. UPDATE 22 NOV] We can count ourselves fortunate that atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last four hundred years or so only got down to about 275 parts per million by volume (ppmv), for when they reach 150 ppmv terrestrial plants shut down.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) don’t know this and instead would do anything to bring CO2 levels down, closer to the death of all plants. At the end of October the WMO released a report showing that CO2 levels “surged at ‘record-breaking speed’ to new highs in 2016”, reaching 403.3 parts per million in 2016, up from 400 ppm in 2015. The Secretary-General, Mr Petteri Taalas, emphasized that the new figures reveal “we are not moving in the right direction at all,” adding that “in fact we are actually moving in the wrong direction,” referring to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

The BBC claimed the report stated “Over the past 70 years, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age.” At that time, there seemed to be a rise from about 17,000 years before present (YBP) to about 13,000 YBP of about 70 ppmv. For the recent rise to be 100 times that, it would need to reach 700 ppmv, which is ridiculous.

TVNZ goes even further, calling the presence in the atmosphere of CO2 ‘pollution’. Their heading was: “Air pollution is nearly 100 times worse than it was in the last ice age.”

Anti-science halfwits. Did they even read the WMO report?

Leave a Reply

37 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Notify of
Ian Cooper

You got the ‘wits’ bit right RT, but I would have changed the first four letters if this wasn’t a family show, so to speak!

Mike Jowsey

Ramping up the propaganda for the sake of Bonn bureaucrats.


What is telling is that no one from the science community picks up the media on these obvious errors. If they did I might have a little more respect for them

Maggy Wassilieff

If I can correct something in the above text….

From it (CO2) , plants create the oxygen that we and animals need to survive

Perhaps it’s a bit of esoteric research (but it should have got a Nobel), but the oxygen that plants respire during photosynthesis derives from the water molecule, not from carbon dioxide.

This is the Hill reaction

Barry Brill

The WMO itself has announced that the volume of global emissions of human-caused CO2 have been stable throughout the past three years. Less than 1% increase 2014-16. This data came as a great surprise to climate modellers who have consistently assumed that the rapid rises of the 1990-2010 period would only accelerate throughout the next 50 years. That is the trajectory used in 3 of the 4 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) used by the IPCC for all its forecasts of future world temperatures. At COP23, WRI reported that 49 countries have passed their peak GHG emissions and are now declining. By 2020, it is forecast that ALL developed countries will have peaked. So, why is the WMO exercised by the reading that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased by 3.3 ppm during 2016? This increase clearly didn’t come from human-caused emissions. I suspect the record increase was out-gassed from the ocean, As a result of the giant El Nino, 2015-16 were record warm years and the sea gives up CO2 (or absorbs a little less) when average SST rises. If so, this was a part of the 97% of atmospheric CO2… Read more »

Dennis Horne

Emissions are not decreasing.

Even if they were, the atmospheric level would still be rising, as more GHGs are added .

During human civilisation, CO2 has been 300ppm. The rate of increase in emissions and temperature has been high.

The last time CO2 was 400ppm the sea level was >5m higher.

Most gaseous oxygen came from phytoplankton; a process limited by the availability of iron.

Maggy Wassilieff

2290 tonnes of CO2/day being burped out by Mt Ruapehu at the moment.


RT, It might pay for you to reread the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers, SPM.1 Human Interference with the Climate System: 1) Unique and threatened systems: Some unique and threatened systems, including ecosystems and cultures, are already at risk from climate change (high confidence). The number of such systems at risk of severe consequences is higher with additional warming of around 1°C. Many species and systems with limited adaptive capacity are subject to very high risks with additional warming of 2°C, particularly Arctic-sea-ice and coral-reef systems. 2) Extreme weather events: Climate-change-related risks from extreme events, such as heat waves, extreme precipitation, and coastal flooding, are already moderate (high confidence) and high with 1°C additional warming (medium confidence). Risks associated with some types of extreme events (e.g., extreme heat) increase further at higher temperatures (high confidence). 3) Distribution of impacts: Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. Risks are already moderate because of regionally differentiated climate-change impacts on crop production in particular (medium to high confidence). Based on projected decreases in regional crop yields and water availability, risks of unevenly distributed… Read more »

Maggy Wassilieff

The latest burps amount to 836 thousand tonnes (not million tonnes)

Inhaled all at once, I am sure that volume of CO2 is lethal
but it seems a bit of stretch of the truth for the latest headliner in the NZ Herald that Ruapehu is emitting high levels of poisonous gas


Then read Section B of the Guide: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4) Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil… Read more »


From above: Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions.
Are you implying that humans are not responsible for fossil fuel emissions and land use change?


If you really have read the IPCC AR5 documents then you would know that:
1. Temperatures are rising at about 1ºC/century.
2. The primary cause is the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
3. These additional greenhouse gases are due to fossil fuel emissions and land use change which are caused by humans.
4. The risks are multiple (see above) and will play out over several time horizons.
Which of the above statements do you deny?


What dangerous warming? It hasn’t warmed in approximately 20 yrs except for the 2015/16 El Nino.

Are El Nino dangerous warming events and if so, how is a recurring natural weather event anthropogenic in nature?

Simon’s quote from the IPCC AR5 SPM states ‘since the 1950s’, yet since 1950 there has only been warming from approximately 1980-1997 – 17 yrs out of 67 (25%), and that was 20 yrs ago. Some try to include the 2015/16 El Nino as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, but then my 2nd question above would need to be answered to justify that.


1. is incorrect (see above)
2. It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).
3. is incorrect. You are confusing flux with net change.
Please stop lying, it does you no credit.

Mike Jowsey

Oh Simon, you had to play the “please stop lying” card. That does neither you nor your argument any credit. Ad hominem seldom works in a logical argument. Debating 101. Really, “lying”? You may be apologetic unless you offer evidence of RT lying. Take a breath, step back, exhale CO2 slowly and gather your wits. And apologise.



Do you mean the graphs from Figure SPM.6? SMP.3 doesn’t have anything to do with surface temperature.

Mike Jowsey

We have asked for evidence for more than a decade without result.

what evidence can you bring for dangerous warming caused by human activity?

The nub and the rub, Simon.


The issue around coastal hazards is that they base their assumptions on RCP8.5. That is, that catastrophic climate change is a likely outcome, based on implausible economic inputs

My suggestion to coastal residents is that they write to the council and request a large reduction in their rates, since their property values should take a fairly big hit


Here’s an interesting new study showing only 0.364 C total warming since 1978:


If you want a bit of a laugh (or cry, your choice) check out Lew’s latest creation:

“Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy”

I find it amazing and somewhat depressing that Oxford University Press can publish this utter garbage


Thanks for the link Andy. Denier blogs are by definition those that deny the scientific evidence, so the conclusion is self-evident.


Simon, Let me reveal a little secret about your statement below: ‘The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).’ The Figure SPM.3 is below and shows no comparison between estimates and temperature, but figure SPM.6 does so I assume you mean that instead: Fig. SPM.3: Fig. SPM.6: The problem with the SPM.6 graphs is the data doesn’t end in 2010 but approximately 2000, 2 years after the IPCC says the ‘hiatus’ started. The most up to date comparison of estimates to empirical data in the AR5 us from the Technical Summary & is below, and uses 4 datasets instead of one (including the one in SPM.6): The Summary for Policy Makers truncates the temperature/data comparison at 2000 to avoid the obvious truth, which is why the SPM is a pile of unsubstantiated garbage that ‘denies’ the empirical evidence in the rest of Working Group I. Only the desperate & naive quote the SPM. Either you accept the empirical evidence Simon, or you can continue to ‘deny’ it which makes YOU the ‘denier’, not those of us who accept the empirical evidence.… Read more »


Denier blogs are by definition those that deny the scientific evidence

Evidence of what?

I deny the evidence that catastrophic sea level rise of up to one metre is going to occur over the next 100 years. I deny this evidence because it doesn’t exist.

How can I deny something that doesn’t exist? The assumptions behind these claims are ludicrous, yet local councils are implementing policies based on these assumptions.

Incidentally, I thought Lewandowski had been put out to grass after his “conspiracy ideation” paper. The techniques behind this paper were very poor, even by academic standards of today

Post Navigation