National Geographic ignores the need for evidence

They’re just like the Royal Society

A National Geographic newsletter last March featured climate change. The picture to the right, which appeared in the newsletter, is from NIWA’s website. The caption summarises the effect of carbon dioxide on the climate. It says:

Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that’s getting us into trouble, only amounts to about 385 parts per million of the gases in the atmosphere—not a large amount. But that’s a third more CO2 than 150 years ago, enough to have caused, and continue to cause, significant changes in local and global climate. Twelve of the 13 years from 1995 to 2007 have been the warmest since 1850, while 1998 and 2005 are the warmest years since records began. Over the last 100 years, New Zealand’s temperature has increased by 0.9ºC.

Note the innuendo, nothing more, that falsely concludes carbon dioxide is causing temperatures to rise.

Note the deceit, nothing more, that claims recent significant warming, yet fails to admit that the scientific literature shows a negligible temperature rise from 1909 to 2009 of only 0.28 ± 0.29 °C.

Never mind the “warmest years” mantra, as though there’s a continuous rise—those years’ average temperatures are separated by mere fractions of a degree, much as the altitudes across a flat mountain summit at, say, 12,000 feet are necessarily variable and separated by mere inches. They do not support a verdict of rising temperature stretching out for the next hundred years — that is born of ignorance allied with insanity. NIWA’s data also show no New Zealand warming whatsoever since about 1950.

The caption quoted above is evidence that NIWA’s claim that the 7SS does not influence government policy was torn from reality. NIWA has for years used the 7SS as “proof” that carbon dioxide is “getting us into trouble.”

There is not one iota of evidence that man is changing the weather.

Apparently the Royal Society agrees with this.

h/t – NZ Climate Science Coalition

Leave a Reply

53 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Notify of

Mullan (2018) has shown that the 0.28 ± 0.29 °C/century estimate was seriously flawed. Both NIWA and Berkley Earth have estimated warming of around +0.9°C/century for New Zealand.


I look forward to reading your response.
Bob indicated that the authors were aware of how the algorithm was to be applied but chose instead to use their own particular interpretation of the original paper, while making some arithmetic errors along the way.
Rhodes & Salinger (1993) was prescriptive, significant skill is required in parameterisation. Later papers by Salinger and Mullan showed how the algorithm should be applied to get the best results, but these were ignored for unknown reasons. I would hope those reasons were not because they gave answers that were higher than the authors would have liked. A conclusion of 0.28°C/century made no sense in context of observed warming in the South Pacific, and unfortunately the authors made no attempt to reconcile the difference.


Barry is incorrect on several counts. There is a warming trend since 1950, approximately 0.9°C / century
± 0.25. AR5 does not say that there was no warming observed prior to 1955. Combining global and regional trends is misleading.


All three NZ temperature series show a warming trend of 0.86°C / century since 1955. If you are going to write a rebuttal of Mullan (2018), you should at least start by being honest.


It shouldn’t be. I downloaded the 7 Station Series and BEST data and then ran a linear regression through them from 1955 onward. The de Freitas dataset has presumably not been updated to 2018, but given the low level of recent adjustments, should be virtually identical to 7SS.

Mike Jowsey

Simon, RT asked for references (to literature, not to backyard regressions). We watch with interest.

Stephanie Hawking
Interview with three men, all absolutely convinced Earth is flat.

The greenhouse effect is better understood than gravity. Simple, normal physics.
That theory of AGW is as certain as the theory of evolution. There is no scientific debate.

Just religious and ideological objections.


“The greenhouse effect is better understood than gravity”

Wut ?

Mike Jowsey

“Just religious and ideological objections.”
Pot, meet kettle. Stephanie, it is your side that makes ideological objections.
Our side is simply requesting evidence.
Your side, however, demands ideology and hates religion but offers no evidence that CO2 (or even Anthropogenic CO2) causes Catastrophic Global Warming.
We are still waiting for your evidence over rhetoric.

Stephanie Hawking

There is no scientific debate: humanity activity is causing global warming. As predicted.

AGW is normal science. In standard textbooks.

Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.
Keep can repeating you don’t understand the science.

Till the cows come home.

Makes no difference to the science. Or the conclusion. Man must reduce GHG emissions as soon as practicable.


If gravity is less well understood than climate change then why aren’t we seeing Departments of Gravity and Women’s Studies all over campus worldwide?

I’m pretty sure it’s a grave topic that we need to weigh up

Bathroom scales can lie


What is the consensus on gravity then?

Asking for a friend


‘The greenhouse effect is better understood than gravity” Simple, normal physics” says Stephanie. That’s just two items of “climate science” crap, ( numbers 7 and 8) on my list we hear, year after year from you AGW indoctrinated loons, Stephanie,…. “The theory of AGW is as certain…..” ??? as, what,… as certain as the “greenhouse effect” …which is as certain as gravity !!?. Double-dutch ,Steph. A THEORY cannot be as certain as a PHYSICAL FACT, (gravity). Hell, with all this certainty we really must get real and do something “as soon as practical” about this man-made global warming….what about taking control of our destiny and mitigating “climate change” by shifting the orbit of the planet further from the Sun, Stephanie ?…it’s “simple normal physics”. …after all, we can melt glaciers, raise the oceans…so shifting Earth’s orbit should be a doddle. We should all join the Union of Concerned Looney Scientists., or the Society of Flat Earthers, whose President is a nutty, AGW believer, like you ,Stephanie. Einstein should have got on to this problem long ago, instead of mucking about with stuff like theories of relativity, etc. .The brilliant minds of Al… Read more »

Stephanie Hawking

@Mack. Still wondering why oxford professor Myles Allen didn’t respond to your rant on

Surprised – well not really – you claim to understand gravity.

So. Gravity. How have you reconciled general relativity and quantum mechanics? Just curious.

Oh. Simple explanations. Stuff falls. Fact.

And greenhouse gases warm the surface. Fact.

Stephanie Hawking

why aren’t we seeing Departments of Gravity … all over campus worldwide?

We are. University physics departments and institutions like the Perimeter in Canada, Max Planck for Gravitational Physics in Germany…

Gravity is a conundrum.

Greenhouse effect is so simple. More greenhouse gas more warming surface and oceans.


“Greenhouse effect is so simple. More greenhouse gas more warming surface and oceans.” says Stephanie. Yeah, it’s all so simple for you and Simple Simon. All so simple…We have a “greenhouse gas” A “greenhouse gas” “warms” More “greenhouse gases” results in “more warming” More “warming” results in “warming of the surface and oceans” Warming of the oceans results in “sea-level rise” Just ABCDE, one follows the other, science for imbeciles. “And greenhouse gases warm the surface. Fact.” says Stephanie. There’s no such thing as a “greenhouse gas.” Fact. All gases in the atmosphere do not add energy, but disperse it. Fact. All gases in the atmosphere just dissipate heat. Fact. The atmosphere COOLS the surface. Fact. The energy flux at the Top of the Atmosphere arriving 24/7 from the Sun, is about 1360 w/sq.m. Fact. The Earth is NOT a blackbody radiator, but has an emissivity of about 0.82. Fact The average temperature of the Earth is about 15deg C…(never -18deg. C) . Fact. There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” (confused with thermal inertia) in the atmosphere. Fact. The Earth’s temperature is purely hydrological. Water is what determines Earth’s temperature.… Read more »


Let’s go with the gravity vs greenhouse effect argument for a minute. Gravity isn’t understood at the quantum level in that it doesn’t fit in with general models

However, the effect of gravity is well understood at macroscopic levels, to the degree that we can accurately predict orbits and tides years out.

The “greenhouse effect” may be well understood to its adherents, but its effect on the climate is not well understood, to the degree that the range of climate sensitivity given in IPCC AR5 is greater than that given in AR4

In fact, this range hasn’t really changed in 30+ years, which is remarkably poor performance for a scientific discipline

Stephanie Hawking

Science has won. Always does in the end.
NZ’s bold new climate bill: four big ways it matters

Bold legislation to drive emissions down to zero would come with massive implications – ranging from slower-growing household incomes to major impacts on industry.

The most ambitious of three options tabled this afternoon – achieving a net-zero 2050 across all emissions, not just carbon dioxide – would mean a 10th of New Zealand would need to be planted as new forestry.

But Climate Change Minister James Shaw said making plans and “taking common sense action now” would help avoid sudden changes down the track.

Shaw today released a discussion document to kickstart a six-week consultation process on the Government’s proposed Zero Carbon Bill.

Never mind. You’re in the dictionary now: climate denier
A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring.


Bold legislation to drive emissions down to zero would come with massive implications – ranging from slower-growing household incomes to major impacts on industry.

Poverty, in other words.

I’m guessing that NZ won’t be such a popular place to emigrate to in coming years


would mean a 10th of New Zealand would need to be planted as new forestry.

That’s easy, we just let the wilding pines take over. I don’t see much point in removing them if someone else is adding them, and there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to target natives over exotics.


I don’t know anyone who denies that climate change by human activities is occurring. It is a trivially true assertion, based on the observation that any change to the environment, however small, will have some kind of effect on the climate. Planting a single tree will change the climate in a small and imperceptible way

So the Oxford definition of “climate denier”, like most of the pejorative drivel that comes from “progressive” leftists, has no meaning whatsoever


I saw a piece on TV One news about the climate change bill, stating that it would hurt the poor hardest

This is the face of the progressive left . They hate poor and working class people


“Low-income households are set to bear the brunt of the transition to a low emissions economy, according to a discussion document released today.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw today released the ‘Our Climate Your Say’ document, inviting New Zealanders to help decide new climate change law and how we can transition smoothly.”


“They don’t deny the climate, but we must deny them a voice”.
I’m very grateful for you and this accredited blog for not denying me a voice…..particularly my last comment just above….Many thanks….Keeping a blog would require computer knowledge,skill ,time and effort,….probably a few quid as well. This would be about the only real “climate blog” of any significance, left, in NZ….you should be quite proud of it….


The only problem is that this “climate blog” often gets its facts mixed up. In which magazine and decade did you see this article Richard?


I think Simon is alluding to an article about us “cranks” at Hot Topic


One can be forgiven for taking an article on climate change from a previous decade or even century and mistaking it for a current one, given that nothing has actually changed in the meantime.

Same drivel, different era.

Stephanie Hawking
Antarctica had lost three trillion tonnes of ice in less than three decades

3,000,000,000,000 tonnes
3,000 cubic kilometres

Oh no! It isn’t happening! I don’t believe it…

Stephanie Hawking

Good response, Mr Treadgold: Oh no! It isn’t happening! I don’t believe it…

Sea level rise 0.8mm per year around 1900 now 3.4mm. Global warming is causing Antarctica to break up.

I know you can’t quite bring yourself to look at science:

Stephanie Hawking

Popular Mechanics? Gosh you are desperate. Why don’t you read some science? Here’s a report from 84 scientists. Antarctic Ice Melt Has Tripled in Five Years Ice melt in Antarctica has tripled in the last five years, according to the most comprehensive assessment of the state of South Pole ice to date, published in Nature* Wednesday. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE), as the assessment is called, involved 84 scientists, 44 international organizations and 24 satellite surveys and found that Antarctica had lost 219 billion tonnes of ice a year (approximately 241.41 billion U.S. tons) between 2012 and 2017, contributing 0.6 millimeters (approximately 0.02 inches) to global sea level rise, a Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) press release reported. Before 2012, ice loss held steady at 76 billion tonnes (approximately 83.78 billion U.S. tons) per year, for 0.2 millimeters (approximately 0.008 inches) of sea level rise. “A three-fold increase now puts Antarctica in the frame as one of the largest contributors to sea-level rise,” study co-leader and CPOM Director Professor Andrew Shepherd of Leeds University told BBC News. “The last time we looked at the polar ice sheets,… Read more »


Sea level rise 0.8mm per year around 1900 now 3.4mm.

Yet Otago University’s John Hannah has repeatedly claimed that there is no measurable acceleration in SLR in NZ.


“Gosh Popular Mechanics..”, then goes onto cite something called “ecowatch”

No sense of irony at all

Ian Cooper

As this article says, “putting it in context.”

As usual the NZ media have been duplicitous in some of the worst examples climate alarmism. It makes great headlines that sell advertising. The media aren’t interested in the whole story.

Stephanie Hawking

The scientists who are experts are quite clear: Antarctica is in trouble. Glaciologists Richard Alley and Eric Rignot have been saying this for some time.

Why would I bother looking at a magazine for amateur mechanics?

Nor am I interested in Treadgold-calculations; the sea level is rising at 3.4mm per year. More will come from Antarctica.

Even Simon Bridges has seen the writing on the wall; he will cooperate with the government setting up the Climate Change Commission.


“Even Simon Bridges has seen the writing on the wall”

More like he thinks that it is politically expedient to follow the herd.

If the “writing is on the wall” why in hell are we rebuilding Christchurch?


Meanwhile Steph..

Arctic sea ice is melting at the slowest rate on record, and volume is the highest in thirteen years. Good news eh.

According to Jim Hansen all this will be gone within the next few weeks…

Looks pretty cold to me.

Brett Keane

When this expedition set out, I knew they would rig the figures from their past efforts and associations. Like wrecking the NIWA/NZ 7SS etc..
Using GRACE ‘data’ which tries to use seawater gravity anomaly instruments on ICE is proven to be useless too. About 6% out each way IIRC.
Those Vic Uni Geographers Club and Niwa cronies still have nothing, but they are getting desperate, or their Handlers are, for sending them down there to produce lies when we have real data that says the contrary.
Any floating ice is almost certainly a gonner in time, especially with some 100 volcanoes beneath it as with the WAIS. But what did the recent bunch of hopefuls find elsewhere, that is, under the Ross Ice Shelf? They found freezing from the bottom in summer! Hornekings et al would be lucky if that does not continue…. I watch the daily data as the Quiet Sun steadily lowers global enthalpy and brings closer the times of crop failure. So witter on children.

Brett Keane
Didn’t think it would take long for our colleagues to get on top of this shovelful of scat…….

Stephanie Hawking

So you think the 84 scientists who assessed the evidence didn’t know about the Zwally paper?

But you found it!

Nobble Prize in the mail…

Stephanie Hawking

Nobble Prize in the mail.

Harbour Bridge will be couriered separately…

🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂 _ 🙂


Steph, please explain to me exactly how a small amount ice melting in the antarctic is proof that its caused by man made CO2.

I think its not climate change, its natural variations weather patterns.

Brett Keane

Its melting less than in the Holocene optimum but might be gone in 250000 yrs. After two more Glaciations……. However, the scratch crew sent in desperation to nourish the dying CAGW scam, know not about the current shifts around antarctica. Now getting colder cyclicly like the north polar zone. Cold kills while warmth and more CO2 to feed plants is beneficial to all.

Brett Keane

Good to see actual past measurements , of which we in fact have a great deal. The tide is turning as warmism withers on the vine, and the underying true data emerges. Or is at least given exposure by people wondering what is really going on.

AMOC cycles – read as ice age renewal by some of the current lot when I was only 30yo. Sickening to see them riding the c.32yr wave to claim heat-mageddon. Travesties of science, but normal Leninist-Stalinism……

Post Navigation