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

Views: 1875

53 Thoughts on “National Geographic ignores the need for evidence

  1. Simon on 05/06/2018 at 4:02 pm said:

    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.

  2. Richard Treadgold on 05/06/2018 at 4:43 pm said:

    Mullan (2018) showed nothing of the kind. You should note that the scientific literature states the trend in New Zealand from 1909 to 2009 was 0.28 ± 0.29 °C. Barry Brill has given an answer here to the minor bits of Mullan’s comment; do you have any further answer to it (apart from your earlier attempt that Bob already destroyed so adroitly)? We’ll have a response to the rest of Mullan’s comment soon. In the meantime, I’d appreciate it if you’d make at least a show of responding to my answers and further questions to you.

  3. Simon on 05/06/2018 at 5:13 pm said:

    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.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 05/06/2018 at 5:35 pm said:

    You inspire a few questions:

    their own particular interpretation of the original paper

    Please specify this.

    making some arithmetic errors

    What are they?

    skill is required in parameterisation

    What parameters?

    Later papers by Salinger and Mullan

    References please.

    observed warming in the South Pacific

    References please.

    In the “Response to NIWA” thread Barry Brill says:

    The graph presents a picture which is “worth a thousand words”. The de Freitas curve and NIWA curve are virtually identical from the mid-1950s onward and all agree that the New Zealand warming trend during the last half-century or so has been approximately zero. According to the IPCC (AR5, Ch 10), anthropogenic global warming (AGW) did not have any detectable effect until about 1955. So – NIWA (the NZ Government) has found that this country has experienced no warming whatever since the very beginning of the AGW era. To date, New Zealand has been wholly exempt from “Climate Change”. Of course, NIWA’s contested adjustments seek to reduce the early-20th century historical data by nearly 1°C – allowing NIWA to contend that New Zealand warmed at 2-3 times the global average during 1931-55. This piece of nonsense obviously has nothing to do with greenhouse-induced ‘Climate Change’.

  5. Simon on 05/06/2018 at 9:42 pm said:

    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.

  6. Simon on 06/06/2018 at 7:54 am said:

    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.

  7. Richard Treadgold on 06/06/2018 at 9:20 am said:


    All three NZ temperature series show a warming trend of 0.86°C / century since 1955.

    Reference please. If this is true it would be surprising.

  8. Simon on 06/06/2018 at 9:33 am said:

    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.

  9. Mike Jowsey on 06/06/2018 at 3:43 pm said:

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

  10. Stephanie Hawking on 06/06/2018 at 5:38 pm said:
    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.

  11. Andy on 06/06/2018 at 6:07 pm said:

    “The greenhouse effect is better understood than gravity”

    Wut ?

  12. Mike Jowsey on 06/06/2018 at 6:29 pm said:

    “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.

  13. Stephanie Hawking on 06/06/2018 at 6:53 pm said:

    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.

  14. Andy on 06/06/2018 at 8:13 pm said:

    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

  15. Andy on 06/06/2018 at 9:25 pm said:

    What is the consensus on gravity then?

    Asking for a friend

  16. Mack on 06/06/2018 at 9:52 pm said:

    ‘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 Gore and James Hansen need to be acknowledged by us all,…either that, or they belong in a nut-house, or behind bars.

  17. Stephanie Hawking on 06/06/2018 at 11:35 pm said:

    @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.

  18. Stephanie Hawking on 06/06/2018 at 11:55 pm said:

    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.

  19. Mack on 07/06/2018 at 1:46 am said:

    “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. Fact.
    It’s the Sun, stupid. Fact.

  20. Andy on 07/06/2018 at 8:51 am said:

    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

  21. Stephanie Hawking on 07/06/2018 at 1:25 pm said:

    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.

  22. Andy on 07/06/2018 at 3:41 pm said:

    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

  23. Andy on 07/06/2018 at 3:48 pm said:

    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.

  24. Andy on 07/06/2018 at 4:14 pm said:

    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

  25. Richard Treadgold on 07/06/2018 at 4:23 pm said:

    The once-maligned term “doublespeak” that we once guffawed at is also in the dictionary (and it’s not from Orwell’s 1984). Politicians everywhere are surely encouraged. Climate deniers affirm the climate in many ways, yet we must persist in calling them deniers. They don’t deny the climate, but we must deny them a voice. So that’s decided then.

  26. Andy on 07/06/2018 at 11:33 pm said:

    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

  27. Andy on 08/06/2018 at 6:29 pm said:

    “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.”

  28. Mack on 08/06/2018 at 9:45 pm said:

    “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….

  29. Richard Treadgold on 08/06/2018 at 11:02 pm said:


    This would be about the only real “climate blog” of any significance, left, in NZ….you should be quite proud of it….

    Really? Well, isn’t that something? I am quite proud of it. Humbled, too, that good people keep returning to read what I’ve scratched onto my slate. Thanks, Mack.

  30. Simon on 10/06/2018 at 10:00 pm said:

    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?

  31. Andy on 11/06/2018 at 8:34 am said:

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

  32. Andy on 11/06/2018 at 11:57 am said:

    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.

  33. Stephanie Hawking on 14/06/2018 at 7:15 pm said:
    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…

  34. Richard Treadgold on 14/06/2018 at 8:34 pm said:

    Wrong response, SH. Truth is, these magnitudes are simply trivial. It’ll take thousands of years before the ice is anywhere near threatened. Check out this old post then see if my maths is on target.

  35. Stephanie Hawking on 14/06/2018 at 11:10 pm said:

    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:

  36. Stephanie Hawking on 15/06/2018 at 6:36 am said:

    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, Greenland was the dominant contributor. That’s no longer the case,” he said.

    The largest amount of ice loss came from West Antarctica, especially its Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers. Ice sheet collapse on the Antarctic Peninsula and slow growth of the East Antarctic ice sheet also contributed.

  37. Andy on 15/06/2018 at 9:44 am said:

    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.

  38. Andy on 15/06/2018 at 10:13 am said:

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

    No sense of irony at all

  39. Ian Cooper on 15/06/2018 at 1:33 pm said:

    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.

  40. Richard Treadgold on 15/06/2018 at 3:37 pm said:


    Popular Mechanics? Gosh you are desperate.

    What on earth do you mean? The Popular Mechanics article cited by KillerBean links to the peer-reviewed Nature article and even quotes some of the authors. The Nature letter was a genuine scientific paper that concluded the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was likely to survive the present alarm, because it had survived warm periods before. Please note that this is good news for us all.

    Also, you don’t seem to be listening to me. I said the quantities of Antarctic ice loss are trivial, but you don’t have to believe me, you can check it for yourself. Just divide the amount of Antarctic ice in tons by the claimed annual loss in tons. See for yourself whether it looks like an actually dangerous loss. This blog thoughtfully supplies some basic facts about Antarctica to help you.

    Let us know what you find.

  41. Stephanie Hawking on 15/06/2018 at 6:04 pm said:

    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.

  42. Andy on 15/06/2018 at 6:45 pm said:

    “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?

  43. KillerBean on 15/06/2018 at 7:19 pm said:

    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.

  44. Brett Keane on 15/06/2018 at 8:55 pm said:

    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.

  45. Brett Keane on 15/06/2018 at 10:28 pm said:
    Didn’t think it would take long for our colleagues to get on top of this shovelful of scat…….

  46. Stephanie Hawking on 16/06/2018 at 2:43 pm said:

    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…

  47. Stephanie Hawking on 17/06/2018 at 10:37 am said:

    Nobble Prize in the mail.

    Harbour Bridge will be couriered separately…

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

  48. KillerBean on 19/06/2018 at 1:26 am said:

    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.

  49. Brett Keane on 19/06/2018 at 8:46 am said:

    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.

  50. Brett Keane on 19/06/2018 at 6:47 pm said:

    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……

Leave a Reply to Andy Cancel reply

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

Post Navigation