Psst … engineering gossip

A little bird tells me of something rotten in the state of NZ Engineering.

Engineering New Zealand produced a report on future power supply. Problem is, it’s riddled with errors and omissions.

They have flatly refused to publish a critique of it. They have refused even to publish the affiliations and expertise of those who contributed to it.

It seems that many of them profited from the renewable energy industry.

Shocking? Much.

No, I don’t know the bird’s name.

Views: 564

22 Thoughts on “Psst … engineering gossip

  1. How do we get the truth out there when we have a media that only covers the alarmist view when there is much evidence that it is a giant hoax and the general public are being brainwashed.

    • Richard Treadgold on 16/11/2019 at 10:40 am said:

      Just keep talking and keep writing comments and letters, Yvonne. Eventually the truth will get through.

  2. Mack . on 11/05/2019 at 8:22 pm said:

    I haven’t got any Engineering gossip, but there’s some twitter gossip from NZ’s Chief Climate Change Propaganda guru.. J Renwick.. engineered to make you want give this clown a swift kick in the backside.

  3. Simon on 13/05/2019 at 11:58 am said:

    There really really really is a greenhouse effect and you are one of a very few who doesn’t realise this.
    I am reading a good book at the moment called ‘Ends of Days’ detailing the 5 (soon to be 6) mass extinction events. Greenhouse gas concentration is directly responsible for three of them.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 13/05/2019 at 1:08 pm said:


    There really really really is a greenhouse effect and you are one of a very few who doesn’t realise this.

    Well, Mack states the case roughly, perhaps, but I would agree it’s the sun liquifying all the water. Nobody denies the ability of some of those trace gases like CO2 to reradiate some energy so, yes, there really, really is a greenhouse effect but it’s pretty trivial. Would you like to quantify it for CO2? Then compare it with H2O?

  5. Simon on 13/05/2019 at 4:21 pm said:

    I wouldn’t call an effect that raises average global temperature from -18°C to +14°C and rising as trivial.
    Maybe you could convert to Kelvin so that the difference looks smaller on a chart.

  6. Richard Treadgold on 13/05/2019 at 4:50 pm said:


    I wouldn’t call an effect that raises average global temperature from -18°C to +14°C and rising … trivial.

    No, neither would I. Convert to Kelvin? Ha ha. But I didn’t quote that temperature range from the greenhouse effect, you did. It’s obvious the sun is our major warmer, GHG a minor player.

    If you are really really claiming that a trace gas at a concentration of 0.0004 of the atmosphere raises the global temperature through radiation alone by 32 °C, then the IPCC has got things badly wrong, since the temperature increase from doubling the stuff is going to be a lot more than about 1.2 °C and we’re all in serious trouble. It’s fortunate that you’re wrong.

    Please, as I asked, quantify the warming from CO2.

    All right, I should ask where the 32 °C comes from; I just realised whoever came up with that temperature rise probably tried to compensate for the other GHG, such as water vapour. At least I should hope so. Correct?

  7. Simon on 13/05/2019 at 5:44 pm said:

    All polar molecules are greenhouse gases., including water vapour.
    CO2 has a residence time of 50-200 years. H2O has a residence time of 9 days.
    Water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2.
    We’ve been through this many times before. Go review the Myles Allen lectures. He was in NZ a couple of months ago on a lecture tour. Or watch this:

  8. Richard Treadgold on 13/05/2019 at 6:40 pm said:

    Fine, you’re a learned man. It’s nice that you’re now bringing in water vapour. Now quantify the warming from CO2.

  9. Simon on 13/05/2019 at 9:20 pm said:

    Hopefully by now you have worked out that is a non linear question because of forcings and feedbacks.
    There is more than one way of getting from climate state A to climate state B.

  10. Richard Treadgold on 13/05/2019 at 11:26 pm said:


    There really really really is a greenhouse effect and you are one of a very few who doesn’t realise this. … Greenhouse gas concentration is directly responsible for three of them.

    This is your straightforward assertion earlier, but now I’m asking a “non-linear” question. You’re all smoke and mirrors. Have you noticed that water vapour is the only condensable gas? So it cools and heats?

  11. Simon on 14/05/2019 at 8:18 am said:

    Which is why water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. You didn’t watch the video did you Richard? You claim an interest in learning but you refuse to accept evidence when it is presented. Let’s try again.
    The American Chemical Society has a good online tutorial:

  12. Mack . on 14/05/2019 at 9:48 pm said:

    “I wouldn’t call an effect (ie. “Greenhouse effect”) that raises the average global temperature from -18deg C to +14deg C and rising as trivial”
    There seems to be a bit of confusion with the numbers. It’s generally understood by the “greenhouse” believing wackos, that, indeed the Earth would be a solid frozen ball (of water) at -18deg C, if it wasn’t for the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect. One wacko, even in that huge delusion, argued that there could be liquid water in the depths of the oceans because of undersea volcanoes…. I conceded him that.
    Your figure of +14deg C is close, but a little out, Simon. It’s generally accepted that it’s more like +15deg C for the real global average temperature. Measurement from thermometers, satellites, and all that stuff, Simon.
    Notice I said… +15deg C for the REAL global average temperature… your -18deg C is an IMAGINARY, calculated global average temperature.
    Converting to Kelvin for you , if you like, all the “climate science” literature says … 255deg K = -18deg C
    and 288deg K = +15deg C … the difference being 33deg K .
    33deg K worth of HEAT magically generated by the ATMOSPHERE by some wacko “greenhouse effect”.

  13. Simon on 15/05/2019 at 8:54 am said:

    I suggest you start reading the scientific literature that has come out after 1840.

  14. Mack . on 15/05/2019 at 11:48 am said:

    Well, apparently both you and Renwick both believe in the -18deg C insanity, which is your science understanding of the “scientific literature” … right here and now in 2019. So it’s more like you and he, along with your looney frozen Earth “greenhouse” nonsense, should be relegated back to the 19th century along with phlogiston.
    Don’t forget to renew your membership of the Flat Earth Society, Simon.

  15. Brett Keane on 16/05/2019 at 6:05 pm said:

    Simon is so far behind…. The CAGW myth relies on steady RH and increased SH with a resultant Tropical Hotspot at the Tropopause. This has not happened so they have slid their greaseball hypothesis over this total failure as with their other Feynmannian demonstrations of cupiditous scientific Charlatinism. I say again, child of stalin, you are five days from urban chaos so beware of what you ask for.
    Brett Keane – no hiding of names this end……

  16. how to a good engineering in New Zealand?

  17. Warrick on 06/06/2019 at 8:09 am said:

    I’m usually reasonably good at tracking down reports from websites, but this report has me stumped. Any chance you can post the link to it?

  18. Richard Treadgold on 06/06/2019 at 8:21 am said:


    Sorry, what report?

  19. Warrick on 07/06/2019 at 8:48 am said:

    “Engineering New Zealand produced a report on future power supply. ” In the original post.

  20. Richard Treadgold on 07/06/2019 at 8:52 am said:

    Ah. I’ll have another look for it.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation