Zero emissions trial

quill pen

Letter to the Editor
17 March 2020

Planes parked up, cruise ships anchored, airports deserted, tourists not touring, supermarket shelves bare, Disneyland shut, borders closing, motor races cancelled, no fans in the stands, smelters and factories closing, travel banned, oil and coal prices crashing, stock markets plunging, businesses closing, bankruptcies rising, hotels and motels unoccupied, politicians panicking, barbies cold — looks like zero emissions is almost here.

Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld Australia

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
56 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Notify of

Incredibly poor taste to promote this at a time when thousands are dying.

No, these are facts. It promotes nothing but watchfulness.


Rubbish. It’s contemptible. Exploiting a global tragedy to try to make a puerile political point. Where’s your humanity and common decency?


Contemptible? These kind of policies are exactly what the more extreme end of the climate activists are asking for.

Meanwhile, our government is voting for the most extreme abortion laws in the world. A new born child who ‘failed’ to die during an abortion attempt will be just left to die. This is what “caring” progressive policies look like.

So take a hike with your sanctimonious hand-wringing Mr Pyat


It’s a strange planet you live on, Andy. It’s certainly not this one.

Thank you for your health advice. Hiking is consistent with self-isolation, and a good use of any spare time. But I will be hand washing, not wringing.


Yes it is a strange planet I live on


What you call a peurile political point, though strong in alliteration, is weak in climate belief, as it substantially devalues the IPCC climate project. You’re actually saying that the zero carbon policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and I agree with you on that. However, the accident of coronavirus provides a perfectly valid real-world experiment to test the cost, trouble and effectiveness of the stupid idea of zero carbon. People are dying, which is regrettable, but they die from influenza and road accidents all the time. You’re only sentimental about it when it suits you.

Andy mentions our abortion law reforms. Now they’re contemptible; they lack humanity and common decency. Exercise your high moral standards on them.


What a load of long-winded bollocks. Your correspondent makes no points worth responding to, and your interpretation of my comment is risibly wrong.

You long ago lost the argument on the need for action on climate. All you have left is this attempt to make light of a global tragedy. Shut your site down and start campaigning for abortion reform. You’ll lose that argument too, based on past performance.

But Pyat, I give you a platform, and you would undeniably not give me one. I win.


You are entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn’t mean that anyone has to take you seriously.

Respect is something you earn, and any last vestiges you may have possessed disappeared with this post and your comments under it.


I have zero respect for leftists and climate activists and we know they hate us, so what’s the problem?


So, has your respect likewise disappeared for these two AGW deluded academic clowns … Renwick and Hendy..and all the AGW believing wackos who’ve printed this…. still pushing your “climate change” crap, without one ounce of your “humanity and common decency” for the unfolding “global tragedy”. ?


I’m still struggling to see how this post is poor taste. Climate Change, after all, is “humanity’s biggest crisis” and our “nuclear free moment”. “Entire ecosystems” are collapsing, yet we worry about a mere virus.


We do our best to answer your questions and criticisms politely and accurately. But as with most climate alarmists, you ignore our questions and spout ridicule. It’s quite sad to see a bloke so persistently resist the call to reason, and yet it gives me hope, since you have clearly emptied your scientific cupboard of intellectual ammo, and its bare shelves distress you, filling you with shame. Never mind, you can join us any time you wish and we will forgive you every slight, every barb, every needless slander. The light is always the light.

Should warn you, though (carrot and stick): keep up the abuse and I’ll rip up your licence to speak.

Yes, it needs to be said, repeated even ad nauseam, but really, there are now growing bands of true believers who cannot be reasoned with. It is evidence of vast and seemingly inexorably growing schisms in thought and belief in western society. This looks to be leading to unbridgeable differences which only events beyond the ken and control of any one belief system or coagulation of partisan interests could overcome.
Modern science has been infected by a virus which is on the verge of causing a pandemic. The virus has come from the Left field and has affected not only science, but everything else as well. Religion, education, politics, commerce, even international high finance is not immune to this vile viral contamination. There is a challenge here.


What a lot of words, that say so little.

Richard, our recent exchanges show that arguing science with you is fruitless, because you don’t accept and/or believe some of the fundamentals.

Your position is purely political. Nothing wrong with that – you are entitled to your views. But there is no scientific argument underpinning your position.


“….our recent exchanges show that arguing science with you is fruitless, because you don’t accept and/or believe some of the fundamentals.

Your position is purely political. Nothing wrong with that – you are entitled to your views. But there is no scientific argument underpinning your position.”

I recommend that you repeat those words over and over again while standing in front of a mirror, Pyat. After a sufficient number of iterations have occurred, I think you might, perhaps, be able to put aside your prejudices for long enough to gain some real grasp of where Richard is coming from and what his viewpoint on these matters actually is.

Yes, thanks, Rick. Pyat, perhaps you just don’t see how you haven’t been discussing science, but ridiculing us. Still, you’re right about one thing. I don’t accept some of the fundamental aspects of alarmist climate theory. I don’t accept that we’re causing sea level rise, because there’s no explanation of how our airborne emissions warm the ocean. If you know how this happens, then tell me. I don’t believe our emissions are causing the great glaciers and icecaps to melt and if they were, it will take many thousands of years at the current rate of (summer) melting. I don’t accept that the entirety of airborne carbon dioxide possesses sufficient thermal capacity to warm even the airborne water vapour, much less the oceans, and of course that means that the job is completely out of the question for the human 5% of CO2. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone? Don’t make me laugh, they’re nothing. I don’t believe the climate models know what day it is, and they don’t give credible information from RCP8.5 except to slavering loons eager for Armageddon. I don’t believe climate models will ever give good projections until we figure out… Read more »


Your refusal to believe basic scientific principles are the problem. Evidence has been demonstrated time and time again which you steadfastly ignore.


Thank you for that catechism of climate confusion. It nicely proves my point.

One example: the last time (here) I attempted to discuss climate science with you, I pointed out that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be attributed to human activity is now over 40%. You appear to have forgotten that, and continue to cling to an erroneous 5% figure.

You fail to acknowledge your errors and/or learn from them, and that shows that your position is far from “scientific”.

By all means make a case for doing less, or for reducing emissions by means other than those currently proposed, but if you deny the existence of the problem you will simply be ignored by the rest of the world.

Let me put it another way (and I’m not being rude – just trying to explain how you are seen by the rest of the world): your points above have as much credibility as the positions adopted by anti-vax, 5G or chemtrails nutcases. I’m sure you’re not one of those, are you?


Pyat No one is arguing that we are not emitting CO2 by extracting and combusting fossil fuels. What you ,Simon and Nick don’t get is that there is no proof that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the earths temperature by more than .6 Celsius ,that is 6 tenths of one degree Celsius . That is a scientific fact and has been known for over 100 years. This is a scientific fact that the only way that the doubling of CO2 could raise the temperature above that level is by positive water vapour feedback and the tropical hotspot . These two factors are unproven at this time and climate scientists can not model clouds to put the correct parameters into their climate models . Clouds have many effects on temperature as you probably have observed . On a cold night heading for a frost clouds block heat from rising and the temperature remains above frost level . Clouds block the sun and extensive clouds hold down the temperature at the earths surface . All climate models run hot except the Russian one and their is no way that any one… Read more »


Graham: there is ample scientific evidence that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperature by a lot more than 0.6C. The water vapour feedback is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, a rock solid piece of physics. Increases in water vapour have been measured, and are in line with expectations. The “tropical hotspot” thing is ten years out of date (ie, we now know it’s there). Modelling clouds is hard, but model representations are getting better (I posted a couple of relevant links last time I posted here). But there’s a very good reason for suggesting that clouds are on balance a positive feedback: if they were strongly negative, the world would find it very hard to warm out of an ice age. We’d be living on a snowball. Your point on methane is reasonable, and several NZ academics have suggested we treat biogenic methane differently to fossil methane. Unfortunately NZ doesn’t set the international rules. The rest of your post is politics. You may choose to believe those things, but dealing with climate change is far from a scam. The point I made to Richard applies here: if you want a seat at… Read more »


Just unsubstantiated , speculative blah, blah ,blah……ending with the crowning glory…
“We’d be living on a snowball”
“We’d be living on a snowball” !! …. riiight…living on a snowball… nobody could live on an Earth snowball. …so at that point your rant has become totally irrational.. despite all the sciency blab preceding. That reveals the true, unreal lunacy, going round in your head as a result of being indoctrinated by a quack “greenhouse” hypothesis, whose pseudoscience tells you Earth would be a frozen ball at an average temperature of -18deg C, without some wacko “greenhouse effect” of the ATMOSPHERE ! , the ATMOSPHERE !….which somehow magically elevates the global average temperature to the reality of +15 deg C .
Got news for you, Pyat. It’s the Sun, stupid.

Brett Keane

Graham, I note a continued lack of actual Physics backing for these pseudonymous warmists’ claims. A sign of teenage drug-induced lack of Adult reasoning abilities, we have found. “I believe magic is real, so there!!!”
We put the Papers etc up for their debate, but they ignore them and carry on with insults.

Do I see any comment on the NIWA Group’s finding that we are net negative for ghgs?
Brett Keane

Really — “nutcases”? Yet you’re not being rude? You can’t resist it. Control yourself. I’m putting together further responses for you, but life has just thrown us a curve ball so I have other important things to do as well.

Brett Keane

Good Luck RT, and all here.
I would like to see a “Crowd Analysis” of the above Paper so we can get some idea of what has been happening with our CO2 Flux.
I hazard a guess that the southern hemisphere may have been cooling, but just a guess so far….. Brett Keane

Thanks, Brett. You too.

Brett Keane
The Paper sent to my last Post is one of several that quantify our real position as carbon-negative.
This one, above herein, discusses the seminal Paper(s) by Maxwell, the Physicist par excellence. These show how the Ideal Gas Laws make CAGW impossible, for thos with eyes to see. For others there is a precipice ahead….. Brett Keane, Ruawai

Brett Keane However, the Paper being discussed here, tries to re-use Jennifer Francis’ strange ideas of cooling causing heating in the Northern Hemisphere. She has now changed her Job, Hmmmm – like Renwick. The false idea (ask Earl Happ) of a human cause for the annual SH blockage of Ozone transport southward by the Antarctic Vortex, is being used now to explain SH multidecadal cooling. Which is yet another huge embarassment for the warmistas from wayback. In fact, I have a challenge for our trolls – slag our prediction, based on Heliophysics (Tayler Instability, Nasa LWS etc.), of increasing unseasonal cold spells and floods. One is supposed to be hitting Europe soon. We can expect the same here. The vital growing season is expected to continue to be nibbled at. But the lefties wish to harm our Farming efforts….. go figure. Organics were the norm the previous similar times, and millions starved and died of disease that accompanies starvation. By the way, March record cold at Vostock Station, -75.3 IIRC. It is in line between the South Pole and NZ, near Mawson’s “Place where the winds are born” where he lost two mates while… Read more »


The paper (A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol) suggests that cooling since 2000 from the recovery of the Ozone Layer over Antarctica has been balancing the warming from man-made CO2.

Eric Worrall says the easiest way to explain two powerful independent opposed forcings which just happen to perfectly balance each other, without the uncomfortable coincidence of perfect balance, is to assume neither forcing actually exists.

This fits well with the reasonable view that understands carbon dioxide lacks the thermal magnitude necessary to be “the control knob for global temperature,” and if that’s true, then there was never anything but a seasonal fluctuation in the ozone layer driven by the lack of sunlight in the austral winter. To the extent that the ozone fluctuation was entirely natural, we never needed the enormous expense of the Montreal Protocol.

Pyat, You made this comment on rate of warming and I followed your link: The current rate of global warming (the “global” is important, because regional changes can be rapid) is more than ten times faster than the warming out of the last ice age (see here for references). It leads to a Guardian article full of errors and with no scientific support for the statement you made. I find The Guardian consistently unworthy of credible scholarship. The heading, “Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age” is false, but you have to read a long way down to discover this. The article says: We’re already warming the Earth about 20 times faster than during the ice age transition, and over the next century that rate could increase to 50 times faster or more. The headline should have said 20× faster, not 50. The higher rate is predicted from “model simulations of the future”, not drawn from observations (it has never been seen). In sum, the article is wholly misleading, as the alarming warming rate will not occur if any of the numerous assumptions in the models… Read more »


Thank you Richard. It appears you are avoiding my questioning of your 5% figure for human influence on atmospheric CO2. I wonder why that might be? So you don’t like the Guardian. I’m not surprised. But the underlying research – and the paleoclimate record – is sound. The warming out of the most recent ice age was between 4 and 5 degrees Celsius over a period of 10,000 years. This site has a fully sourced and referenced graph you can play with to show that. Over that period, the planet was warming at an average rate of 0.04 to 0.05C per century. This was enough to melt enormous ice sheets and cause sea level to rise 130 m. Using your figure for recent warming (which is wrong, but I’ll let that pass for now), your rate of 0.5C per century is ten times faster than the last entirely natural rapid warming. In other words: you prove my point. On sea level rise: if you visit the site under my link above you can track sea level over the last few ice ages, as well as temperature and atmospheric CO2 level. They march in… Read more »

Pyat, It appears you are avoiding my questioning of your 5% figure for human influence on atmospheric CO2. I’ll get to that. You say: “In other words: you prove my point,” but not so fast. Yes, you claim modern SLR temperature rise seems about ten times faster for a short period. But, first, the “reference” you gave claimed modern SLR rates of temperature rise were 20 and even 50 times faster and was totally unscientific, which means you have no support for your claim of ten times faster in modern times. Second, not all warming was anthropogenic. From 1850 to 1951 the globe warmed probably 0.5°C from natural causes as it came out of the Little Ice Age and possibly more than that earlier. It’s inevitable that natural factors were at work because human emissions had barely begun. The IPCC give us no reason to think those natural forcings somehow ceased in 1951, and in fact they specifically refer to “natural forcings” and “natural internal variability” in the period 1951 to 2010, ibid. So we assume they continue, which means the human contribution was not 100% and never will be. Bear in mind,… Read more »


I’ll get to that. I hope your answer to the CO2 question makes more sense than the above. I made no claim that “modern SLR seems about ten times faster for a short period”. I was talking about global temperature. You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what the IPCC is actually saying. Take a look at fig 8.18 from AR5 WG1 report here. The graph summarises all the factors affecting global temperature, from warming factors – increasing greenhouse gas levels – to negative effects such as volcanic cooling or anthropogenic aerosols. As you can see, the impact of GHGs in the atmosphere begins to rise slowly at first, but becomes the dominant influence over the last century. The anthropogenic components now far outweigh “natural” factors, but they’ve been warming the planet since they started rising 150 years ago. Correlation does not prove causation, but if there is a correlation (and the data I linked to certainly show that), and you do have sound physical reasons to explain the linkage, then you have a good explanation of what’s going on. Unfortunately, you baldly state “Atmospheric CO2 is not the “control knob” for… Read more »


” You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what the IPCC is actually saying” I’m sure RT understands exactly what the IPCC is saying. It’s saying a lot of modelled pseudo-scientific crap based entirely on the false premise that CO2 is the….wait for it…”control knob of the climate” ! “Take a look at fig 8.18 from the AR5 WG1 report….blah, blah….. The anthropogenic components now far out weigh “natural” factors, but they’ve been warming the planet since they started rising 150 years ago” Well, looking at the fig 8.18, your 150 years is hand-waving bullshit from the start….your IPCC graph goes back to 1750….it goes from 1750 to 2011…from this year,that’s 270 years ago. That fig 8.18 is derived from those lying little deceptive modelled speculative wacko charts, that sit along side of fig 8.18….namely, fig 8.15 , fig 8.17 and fig 8.20. All these colourful charts show this massive amount of “anthropogenic forcings” and a piddly little bit of natural forcing…you know, the Sun, stupid. (note, you put quote marks around “natural”… whereas me…”anthropogenic forcing”) All of these deluded colourful charts show a Natural Solar Forcing of about 0.3 watts/sq.m. What… Read more »


Oh dear. Your last link is a bit of a giveaway. I stand by my response to Richard. There may be cranks disputing the physics, but no serious scientist does.


Yes, well we get this from you…
“This stuff we understand in detail, and at the quantum level ”

It’s pretty obvious you don’t know shit from clay about physics. At a quantum level ?
Here’s some atmospheric physics at a quantum level …. see if it can rectify your blind ignorance.


Oh dear. Your link is a bit of a giveaway. I stand by my response to Richard. There may be cranks disputing the physics, but no serious scientist does.


Do you do ventriloquism as a side hobby, or has someone from the IPCC got their hand up your ass. ?

Mack, thanks for your more thoughtful comments, but this is tasteless. – RT


Yes sorry RT, I do tend to lapse into tastelessness or sometimes a state of “off-colour”.
such as what Andy objected to here…

Pyat, I was talking about global temperature. I’ve corrected my comments to reflect the fact that I was talking about temperature, not SLR, and thank you for pointing that out. You talk about the effects of GHGs, where I wasn’t asking, thanks. But reflecting on what you say, I had a look at AR5 Figure 8.18 and I find it hard to accept. For instance, it doesn’t give a figure for solar forcing at all, while Figure 8.17 gives 0.005 W/m2 (Solar Irradiance, at the bottom). This is entirely fictitious when compared to TOA solar irradiance measured at about 1360 W/m2, or about 1000 W/m2 at sea level “on a clear day”. It shows stratospheric H2O as 0.1 W/m2, yet tropospheric H2O as zero, though it’s the most important GHG, as they acknowledge elsewhere in AR4, cited next. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. – AR4, Frequently Asked Question 1.3, What is the Greenhouse Effect? Water vapour in the middle and… Read more »


OK: it really isn’t my job to teach you basic science – but you appear to be confused again. In the IPCC’s terms (and that of climate science in general) a forcing is something that causes change. It can be positive or negative, depending on whether it acts to warm or cool. Changes in the amount of solar energy arriving at the planet caused by the solar cycle are relatively small, peak to trough, and so the forcing is small. Water vapour is of course a greenhouse gas, but it is not a forcing. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is set by the global temperature (see the Clausius-Clapeyron relation I referred to in another comment), so water vapour is a feedback to changes caused by other things. Climate models are basically souped-up weather forecasting models (the core code is often identical), and of course they take full account of the role of water vapour in the atmosphere. Your list of “scientists” does not impress. If you want a true picture of the balance of expertise on this issue, I would direct you to this list of scholarly organisations supporting action… Read more »


Never forget that climate alarmists are flat Earthers, who deny that the Sun heats the earth.


Wrong again Richard. According to AR5,

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 greenhouse gas 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.

You really must learn to stop misquoting the scientific literature.


Let’s review what I actually said:

In AR5 (2013), the IPCC estimate that man-made warming from 1951 to 2010 was probably “more than half” the total warming, which they give as “approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C.”

Which is precisely what you say the SPM says. Where am I wrong?

Now, can you reconcile the contradiction in the first paragraph? First they claim that it’s “extremely likely” that the human-induced contribution to warming was responsible for “more than half” of the warming in that period. Then they announce that the “best estimate” of “the human-induced contribution to warming” is more or less “the observed warming.” It’s clear they don’t consider the first statement to be the best estimate, and they give no more precise figure for the anthropogenic contribution than “more than half”.

But, consistent with its internal contradiction, I have quoted the scientific literature correctly.

Brett Keane

RT, of course “extreme likelihood” has no Scientific validity. It is a political ie SPM type handwaving. It is used because there is no basis, no hotspot or WV increase except in the imaginations of Zeke H et al for their failed hypothesis.
Scientists never use such terms of probability. 98% is a bare minimum for reasons trolls have no understanding of. My Statistics Prof would have excoriated me for such an assumption and suggested I use that Paper for Personal Hygiene.
In order to destroy Western Civilisation, as greenies plan, over 99 percent certainty would be needed, but they gave up trying at 95 and now use failed Models only……
Plus propaganda as we see. Ad Nauseam. Brett

Brett, RT, of course “extreme likelihood” has no Scientific validity. OK, although AR5 (p.121) gives two groups of definitions: 1 In this Report, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details). 2 In this Report, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain 99–100% probability, Very likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%, About as likely as not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33%, Very unlikely 0–10%, Exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (Extremely likely: 95–100%, More likely than not >50–100%, and Extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Section 1.4 and Box TS.1 for more details). Having said that… Read more »

Brett Keane

Yes RT. So IPCCand trolls are practising mimicry – of real Science – for the parvenues and our trolls who wish to sound as if they have real knowledge and understanding. A sort of parallel universe that Lewis Carroll might have invented…… Yay, they might have a future in standup Comedy. I’d even pay to watch and listen, rolling in the aisles.. Brett Keane

Brett Keane

Yup, I think it begins, but we shall see. Can windmills save us, or was Cervantes /Quixote prescient?
Poor Nth Italy, as if they had not enough……… Brett Keane

Brett Keane

comment image


Good riddance to a scoundrel.


Singer was a good scientist

You are nothing

Brett Keane

In homage to the Late Dr Singer, truly a fine human being (unlike all trolls) – an overdue analysis of my most recent wintertime set of experiments: All data failed to show any CO2 effect different to that of Air when irradiated by 240volt “Pigtail-type” fluorescents. Container effects were allowed-for (BoPet ziplock bags) and calculated. A simple Methodology was finally arrived-at after some years of trial and error. These results emulated similar “Berthold Klein” results which used very fine Mylar bags which had no detectable container-effect. Maxwell’s work on gas kinetics, informed by Poisson’s Ideal Gas Laws, predicted these results because he determined that all Gas Specie in handling Kinetic Energy input, expand or contract the same regardless of Molecular Mass. Lighter ones vibrate faster to equilibrate with heavier molecules in ocupying their relatively considerable space as gases. Radiation is a weaker after-effect of kinetic vibrations in the molecular electro-magnetic Fields. It cannot dominate within any Atmosphere denser than 0.1bar as already proven. But if it could not dominate in the thinner zones, cooling would need atmospheres to bleed gas molecules to cool, resulting in lost atmospheres. Ultimately, loss seems always likely of… Read more »


Where would we find a description and methodology of this and the other experiments? You say radiation is a weaker result of kinetic vibrations within EM fields; what does that mean? More importantly, of the various ways the gases transfer energy, what are their magnitudes and how much energy do they transfer? I’d like to point to CO2, CH4 and the other minor GHG and say “what you claim for these gases is impossible.”

Brett Keane

RT, these are fantastic questions which I will be glad to discuss starting later today.
For Reading, I suggest downloading Maxwell’s “Kinetics of Gases” and his other works too. They form the basis of modern Gas etc. Physics. As acknowledged by Einstein in his 1917 Paper on Quantum Physics.
It is a world where Speed is King compared to our Macro existance, but it makes up our world nonetheless….. Speed it is that makes Momentum, and THAT governs power along with Mass. So, a speeding bullet and a motorcar at 80kph, can have the same Power. So it is with Gas Specie in an atmospheric mix. More later, Brett

Ah, good. I look forward to that. When you can.

Brett Keane
Brett Keane

Blast! Just lost an involved reply, full of answers hopefully. All gone……..Happy Easter All. Brett

Brett Keane

Yep, feed trolls and that is what we get. Never any respect for common humanity…. Brett

Post Navigation