Yes, Minister, we’re serious

 

Here’s a letter I sent yesterday in our name to the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw.

It opens what could be a lengthy campaign. We will ask the top climate-anxious institutions in New Zealand the same thing: what is the proof of a dangerous human influence on global warming?

At the same time we will present public demonstrations of the legitimate doubts about climate science as advocated by the IPCC, as of course the CCG has been doing for over ten years, but my hope is to begin public meetings again as well.

Our target is the government, which must stop putting our tax money into the perfectly useless endeavour of controlling the climate. Of course, only the electorate changes the government’s mind.

Though of necessity the scientists must supply the evidence—whatever it is, if it even exists—they are not our target, for it’s not their hands on the rudder of state, they just talk to the skipper, or the steering committee, as you please.

But so do we.

One last word, to those who think we’re barking up the wrong tree (or just barking mad): if you believe in dangerous man-made climate change because of the evidence, what is it?

17 Thoughts on “Yes, Minister, we’re serious

  1. James Shaw isn’t interested in evidence RT, only in eliminating fossil fuels by any means possible.

    Here he is in the last couple of days completely contradicting the evidence in the Ministry of the Environment’s own climate change report over extreme weather in NZ so he can push the CAGW agenda:

    https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/12/problem-global-warmimg-deserves-better-lies-minister/

    What really needs to happen is the Nats need to drag him over the hot coals about his dishonesty.

  2. I’d like to know how NZ is going to become a “zero carbon economy”. That would be a more interesting question to pose to the minister, I feel

  3. Richard Treadgold on December 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm said:

    Magoo,

    Yes, I know he doesn’t want evidence, however he has an important public role now and cannot afford to indulge his prejudices. The phrase “without fear or favour” comes to mind. I note that Whaleoil doesn’t tell us what the minister said, so I can’t comment. I’ll investigate further.

  4. Richard Treadgold on December 22, 2017 at 6:00 pm said:

    Andy,

    Sure, an interesting question, but not more so than “what’s the problem,” for if there’s no problem, any “solution” becomes irrelevant. And if they keep escaping having to demonstrate that a problem exists, we’ll never see evidence and we’ll be stuck with paying for their “solution.” It will include micro-management of our lives. It does need asking, though, since we’re never seeing the evidence we want.

  5. Don’t expect anything much different from The Nats. Here is a link to a letter I wrote to The Hon Nick Smith back when he was Minister for the Environment. http://www.kiwithinker.com/2011/05/the-two-main-effects-of-nz%E2%80%99s-new-emissions-target-%E2%80%93-unknown-could-be-exorbitant-high-cost-and-yet-negligible-climate-benefit/

  6. Barry Brill on December 24, 2017 at 1:49 pm said:

    Andy

    We become a net zero carbon economy by 2050 by spending billions of dollars in foreign currency on carbon credits generated in developing countries.

    This is the best available conclusion from reading the issues paper of the Productivity Commission on becoming a ‘Low Carbon Economy’. https://productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Low%20emissions%20economy%20issues%20paper%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf

  7. Dennis N Horne on December 26, 2017 at 9:17 am said:

    You guys have a lot to learn and absolutely no intention of learning it.
    https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2017/climate-updates/
    Climate updates: progress since the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC. 27 November 2017
    Download PDF: Climate updates – What have we learnt since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report?

  8. Dennis dear boy,

    Here’s the latest updated temperature global temperature:

    https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/12/Hadcrut4-1997Jan-2017Nov.jpg

    Oh dear look at that Dennis, the temperature has returned to that prior to the 2015/16 El Nino & is statistically the same as most Novembers of the so-called pause years, i.e. 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2010, 2012, 2014 and even 2016. That’s what usually happens at the end of an El Nino. You have a lot to learn and absolutely no intention of learning it dear boy. 😉

    The Royal Society report is out of date dear boy, no cigar. Additionally, if you look at the outdated data in Fig. 2, page 7 of the Royal Society report you can see just how badly the models have failed vs. the observed temperature, and now temperatures have returned to what they were prior to the El Nino, they’re back to failing dismally again.

    https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

    Merry Christmas dear boy! 🙂

  9. Dennis N Horne on December 26, 2017 at 11:25 am said:

    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/23/worlds-largest-spark-plug-manufacturer-shifting-focus-solid-state-ev-batteries/ December 23rd, 2017

    Building on all of our other recent articles discussing snowballing interest in solid-state electric vehicle batteries, the largest spark plug manufacturer in the world, Japan’s NGK Spark Plug Co, has now come out and revealed that it’s shifting its focus towards solid-state battery tech.

    In a rather blunt admission, NGK Spark Plug’s senior general manager of engineering and R&D, Takio Kojima, stated (in an interview with Reuters): “We realized that it was inevitable that the industry would at some point shift from the internal combustion engine to battery EVs, and that ultimately this could make our spark plug and oxygen sensor businesses obsolete.”

    What’s really interesting here is that execs at NGK Spark Plug saw the writing on the wall all the way back in 2010 … [continues]

    D D D: Deniers as Dead as Dodos.

  10. Dennis N Horne on December 26, 2017 at 11:34 am said:

    GWPF: Ha ha ha. Bernie Pisser, Monkey Monckton, Loony Lawson, Liar Carter. One stop crank shop.

    2017: one of the hottest years in the records, with 2014, 2015, 2016.

    Come on, say your A B C D: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.

    (Hope that answers you, I didn’t read past GWPF.)

  11. That’s all right Dennis dear boy, NASA’s GISS says pretty much the same thing as Hadcrut 4:

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

    Although the GISS dataset isn’t as up to date as the HadCrut 4 dataset, it’s still more up to date than the Royal Society one.

    Happy holidays! 🙂

  12. Or NOAA:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land/1/11/1880-2017

    Or UAH:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2017_v6.jpg

    Take your pick dear boy, they all say pretty much the same thing. You wouldn’t want to ‘deny’ the empirical data from multiple sources now would you?

    Happy New Year’s Eve. 🙂

  13. Dennis N Horne on December 26, 2017 at 7:10 pm said:

    2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 hottest years on record. All 1C warmer than pre-industrial. No, not explained by El Nino.

    And, 93% of the ‘extra’ energy going into the oceans. Takes a lot of heat to warm them. Doesn’t it.

    There is no scientific debate: human activity is causing global warming and climate change.

    Whatever goes on in the minds of deniers, it’s not scientific debate. Scientific debate is in the forum of scientific publishing. Where are the papers in reputable journals that challenge the consensus view of 99.9% of publishing climate scientists? de Freitas, Carter, Lindzen tried. All failed.

    The universal acceptance of climate science is what you would expect:
    https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
    It’s not a theory that has come out of thin air!

    So. Your views are not supported by any scientific institution or society. Anywhere. You’re a crank.

  14. “You’re a crank” points out Denny Hornface to Maggoo…..not realizing,of course, 3 fingers are pointing back at him.
    Our resident, Koolaid guzzling clown starts parroting his usual “greenhouse” drivel about…”93% of the ‘extra’ energy going into the oceans” !!!
    Aaahahahahahaha….yeah, that’s right, Hornyboy…looky here, the “science” of your looney “greenhouse” theory says so, right here….
    https://4hiroshimas.com/
    see…..4 Hiroshima bombs per second !!! worth of energy is “accumulating” in the oceans.
    It goes on to say….”Our climate is absorbing a lot of heat”….. heat? energy? what? well, whatever…..
    …..”This warming is due to more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” Yep, that’s all your “extra” energy, eh, Hornhead ? 4 Hiroshima bombs / sec. worth of energy……riiiight.
    So you and the nutty fraudster, James Hansen expect the NY freeways to be flooded and the oceans to boil next year ?…well,obviously not next year…say about 100yrs….but you won’t be worried “huffing out insulation” by then, Dennyboy.

  15. Ah Dennis dear boy,

    Now you’re ‘denying’ that El Nino affects the temperature? ROFLMAO! That’s truly hilarious dear boy, a bit of extra Christmas cheer, very funny. 🤣

    ‘Where are the papers in reputable journals that challenge the consensus view of 99.9% (LOL!) of publishing climate scientists?’

    Why here you go Dennis dear boy, 1132 in the last 2 years alone:

    2017 (630 papers) pt.1: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/#sthash.FP1jvkbc.dpbs
    pt.2: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/#sthash.SsoBODJu.dpbs

    2016 (502 papers): http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.6YRC4Uon.dpbs

    2015 (272 papers): http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.7Wr7373g.dpbs

    2014 (236 papers): http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.67nXWlYW.dpbs

    It looks like an increasing trend of more sceptic papers every year, so much for the ‘consensus’.

    Oh BTW, how does this ‘93% of the ‘extra’ energy’ get into the oceans, what’s the mechanism?

    I hope you had a great Christmas & Boxing Day. 🙂

  16. Mike Jowsey on December 28, 2017 at 8:06 pm said:

    Well this sounds important, Richard and Barry. I like the way you, RT, posed the exact question with commendable etiquette. Andy’s addition might become equally important but it could easily be batted away by politicspeak if it was the first question.

    My question to you both is, “How lengthy a campaign?” I know the answer is, “How lengthy a piece of string?”, but what do you need in terms of your readership’s help?

    Happy New Year to all.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation