Dribbly native science from the MfE

Māori – Auckland Museum Online Store

Our atmosphere and climate 2020 (pdf, 8.74 MB)

The latest climate report from the Ministry for the Environment is quickly distracted.  The first page includes Maori creation myths that dismiss normal science. For a climate report, it’s preoccupied by spiritual speculations from unknown poets who laboured to describe the world with their eyes shut.

We know this sort of philosophical song-writing from the English tradition, though Christian stories make them more accessible than this. The waffle is deeply opaque when crafted in Maori that’s unintelligible to most of us, as surveys clearly show few speak it well.

On climate science, the report is oddly obsessed with emissions of CO2 and not so interested in describing the implications of those emissions for the climate, even though that’s what everyone is keen to know.

It says “global carbon dioxide emissions are greater than ever before” but doesn’t mention that the atmospheric level rises each year by only one or two parts per million. It says “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and changing the climate” (that means the weather is changing) but fails to show how much it’s changing except for a tiny warming.

Climate changing Maori identity?

The report talks at length about warming, warm days, length of seasons and related matters, but temperature is just one element of weather. The only others it mentions are rainfall and wind, neither of which are trending up or down, so they’re apparently random. It doesn’t say we’re causing those changes, but the implication runs throughout.

The MfE claim that Maori “identity” is being changed by climate change, which is patently ridiculous. The description of this is impenetrable behind numerous Maori expressions.

Rising seas have already immersed at least eight low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean.

It gives no identifying information such as names or locations so I don’t believe it, or they’re mere rocks or reefs.

Apart from those criticisms the Ministry for the Environment should be congratulated for its dedication to public enlightenment and its obvious gratitude for the taxes they spend so wisely.

I advise them to accept that we have an English society, to stop trying to convert us into Maori speakers and if they want us to know something to express it in a language we damn well know. It’s just common sense, but they don’t have any.

h/t Dr Jock Allison

21 Thoughts on “Dribbly native science from the MfE

  1. Cambridgedon on October 17, 2020 at 11:43 pm said:

    Jock Allison. School children know more.

    Science advances one funeral at at time – Max Planck.

    • Richard Treadgold on October 18, 2020 at 11:22 am said:

      CD,

      Children know more than what or whom?

      btw, Jock told me about the MfE report but I wrote the article.

  2. Many thanks, Cambridgedon. I knew I could count on you to show me who has some real knowledge by your hostile reaction to the mere mention of their name.

    If you had not made that spiteful personal attack on Dr Jock Allison I would not have thought it worth my while to find out what he had to say about climate change and might never have discovered his lucid scientific demolition of the UN apocalyptic climate doomsday cult’s crackpot ideology here.

    Bravo! And keep up the good work!

  3. Michael J Kelly on October 19, 2020 at 7:02 pm said:

    I must say that cambridgedon gives me and my other real Cambridge dons a bad name!
    Rather than dismiss other people, ad hominem, as above, real Cambridge dons engage in the hope that both interlocutors actually learn from the engagement.
    Michael Kelly Fellow of Trinity Hall Cambridge 1974-81, 1989-1992, 2002-2016, Emeritus Fellow 2016-

    • Cambridgedon on October 21, 2020 at 10:51 am said:

      But Kelly I read recently you don’t discuss the science any more. Not that you ever did. You just argue we cannot stop burning fossil fuels because it’s too difficult to stop.

      I know for a fact you do not engage with others at Cambridge, and I know for a fact you claimed to Wayne Mapp at a meeting in London years ago you are a climate scientist.

      Like Giaever, who spent the morning Googling climate science before lecturing other Nobel laureates, you don’t know what you’re talking about and simply refuse to listen to experts – because you know more.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      You have no shame interacting with these nincompoops here, one or two who seem clinically insane.


      You go too far, you ignoramus. It’s all off-topic, all ad hominem, all unsourced and all ugly. You make a habit here of personal attacks so you’re an unreliable witness, pretending to be a psychiatrist. You are now on permanent moderation. Provide sources for the unverified assertions in this comment before I add your name to the blacklist. — R. Treadgold

  4. Michael on October 20, 2020 at 10:22 am said:

    The real flaw in the report being discussed is that it gives the erroneous impression that New Zealand’s climate change is caused by actions of New Zealanders, and by implication that our actions could put a stop to the problem. Climate change is a global problem, and so long as Africa, India and the rest of South Asia press on to acquire a European standard of living over the next three decades, global CO2 emissions will continue to increase, and any actions by New Zealanders will have no more measurable effect on the future, as in the past. The future tragedy for New Zealand is that, having invested so much of our scarce resources against possible future climate changes, we will have insufficient resources left to do the proper job of adapting to the climate changes as and when they actually occur, changes that New Zealanders will have played no role in inducing.

    • Richard Treadgold on October 20, 2020 at 11:25 am said:

      Absolutely correct, Michael. There’s mounting frustration and anger among those who see it happening and know it’s futile. To compound that frustration, James Shaw openly concedes that NZ’s approximately 0.1% contribution to global CO2 emissions is already undetectable in the climate (so any reduction will be futile) and arrogantly claims our virtue-signalling expense will instruct other nations of their duty. While disagreeing with him we ask him to remember this is our sacrifice, not his, and the expense will leave us with ‘insufficient resources’. Other nations are not following meekly behind us — last I heard the NDCs were well behind the Paris commitments.

    • Michael,
      You’re assuming no technological improvement or energy efficiency, both of which are clearly happening. I agree that there will have to be adaptation as well. At least you don’t deny climate change is happening unlike many people here.

  5. Andrew on October 20, 2020 at 4:42 pm said:

    Simon
    I don’t think many are “denying” climate change per se – but i can really only speak for myself!! It isn’t a religion where one can choose to believe it or not, CC happens! I think what many are “denying” is the delusion that it is anthropologically caused & there is plenty of proper science that supports that hypothesis!

    • Are you seriously suggesting that the observed warming of 1°C over the past century is not due to the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere?

  6. Richard Treadgold on October 21, 2020 at 10:51 am said:

    Simon,

    Are you seriously suggesting that the observed warming of 1°C over the past century is not due to the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere?

    I’ll let Andrew make his own answer, but this is mine. Of course it’s not all anthropogenic warming, and the IPCC agree.

    Most assessments consider that human emissions probably started to influence the temperature (assuming they ever influence the temperature!) about 1950 — previous warming from about the 1860s was entirely natural. We are even now emerging from the Little Ice Age, so some amount of all that century-plus warming was natural. The warming has been much mixed with cooling, so other elements have been contributing and still contribute, such as solar output, cloudiness, storminess, aerosol load, volcanoes, sandstorms and bushfires.

    How could anyone conclude differently, except by entirely denying the natural world?

    • Simon
      The direct answer to your question is absolutely, any supposed warming is not due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last century – it is quite a simple question to answer.

      But let me explain why I conclude this. Firstly a 1°C shift in the average is within margin for error so it is of no concern, secondly averages are the mean of a range, so if the range is for example, 12 – 18° C then the average is 15 so a 1°C shift is within the range & perfectly acceptable.

      I don’t accept the argument that humans have caused the climate to change for a multitude of reasons, but the main one is because it is politicised and is not based on any logically, proven science. Our Govt / Greens have cherry picked bits of data to suit their argument that we must do something about these nasty gases CO2 & CH4 (classic socialism) because they will cook us if we don’t so have become easy targets to tax & control through legislation. But they conveniently ignore all of the other, many components eg solar & lunar energy or even water vapour as major contributors that have a much greater effect on our climate / temperature. Yet, still, they have not categorically proven CO2 caused human emissions have caused the climate to change over the last 100years. The sad reality is Joe & Gill Public have bought into this without much push back because it sounds convincing, you only have to listen to the everyday language they use to see that! Everything is about climate change – so the socialist mantra has worked!

      Have a look at the diagram in Dr Tim Ball’s book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=pd_sim_351_1/134-5193540-2754560?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00HXO9XGS&pd_rd_r=19457fcb-3ad4-4522-ac16-13823d6b8def&pd_rd_w=8NdVw&pd_rd_wg=xQ7EL&pf_rd_p=d338b989-51db-4d99-9bd8-988f67d205eb&pf_rd_r=VT8WNKEPKE8SPF138A01&psc=1&refRID=VT8WNKEPKE8SPF138A01

      Figure 1 shows a systems diagram of “weather” components & interactions. CO2 & CH4 are not visible because they so miniscule a component of atmospheric composition, 400ppm & 1.9ppm respectively.
      I could be persuaded to the contrary but until you can prove to me (through proper science) the reasons why global temperatures were proven to be 1-2°C warmer (than today) during the Roman times & the Medieval Warming Period then the argument that CO2 emissions is the cause is flawed!

      If I may quote Dr Tim Ball: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
      A long winded answer to your question – but it needs explaining!

    • A 1°C / Century rise in temperature is almost unprecedented in paleoclimatic history, that’s why every temperature reconstruction results in a wobbly hockey stick. The reason is increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the cause is anthropogenic. You can’t rationally deny this.

    • Richard Treadgold on October 22, 2020 at 3:02 pm said:

      Yes, there are some, but most of them look at the last 10,000 years or less. Google “global temperature reconstruction last million years” and you’ll see many graphs that don’t end in a hockey stick, while at the same time displaying rises of one or more degrees per century. So I can rationally deny that.

    • Aha! I see that Simon has thrown down a gauntlet:

      “A 1°C / Century rise in temperature is almost unprecedented in paleoclimatic history, that’s why every temperature reconstruction results in a wobbly hockey stick. The reason is increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the cause is anthropogenic. You can’t rationally deny this.”

      However, it is a false challenge. Even if no-one could rationally deny it, that still would not make it true. I cannot rationally deny that Simon is a reptilian alien from the Zeta Reticulum star-system either, but that does not mean he is one! I simply don’t have enough information about Simon to be able to decide that question.

      It is the same with question of dangerous man-made global warming – I simply don’t have enough information about how the planet and its global climate system are behaving to decide:

      1: How much global warming is really happening;
      2: How much of whatever global warming is happening is being caused by human emissions of GHGs; and
      3: How large our collective contribution to atmospheric GHGs will be in future.

      All these questions are implicit in Simon’s challenge. But it seems that I am not alone in not having enough information to be able to answer any of them. Evidently, NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, the IPCC and just about every university and scientific institution and academy in the western world does not have enough information to answer them either. Because if they did have it, they would be able to give a precise, certain and unequivocal answer to the simple, basic question of how much global warming a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would actually produce at the planet’s surface (a.k.a. the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, or ‘ECS’).

      But with all the scientific personnel and paraphernalia at their worldwide disposal, they cannot do that. The most that they can come up with is a nebulous range of possible ECS values with vaguely defined probabilities of being the true value being subjectively assigned to each possibility within the range. No surprise, then, that their multitudinous different climate models all give different answers to the same questions about the future course of the planet’s temperature and are in a general state of disagreement about virtually everything. This is not scientific clarity and enlightenment; it is scientific confusion and bewilderment.

      So, if the entire worldwide climate scientific establishment does not have the information that would be needed to substantiate Simon’s definite and specific proposition that “A 1°C / Century rise in temperature is…. (etc.)”, I’m now wondering where he is getting his essential information from and why he has never shared it with us and the worldwide scientific community to date.

  7. Andrew on October 21, 2020 at 1:15 pm said:

    Simon –
    Maybe, you can explain why you believe CO2 to be the cause of a 1degC warming over the last century?

  8. Michael J Kelly on October 21, 2020 at 3:56 pm said:

    Simon,
    Do the maths, as I have done before. Between 1995 and 2015 world energy demand went up by 40%, and during that time 1.5B people left dire poverty and joined the global middle class. The projections for 2015-2035 are that a further 2.5B will leave dire poverty and join the global middle class, and a further 40% growth in energy is anticipated, and that already factors in the improvements in energy efficiency and other technological advances. (This is data from BP on energy and the World Bank on poverty.) Since 1980, the fraction of global energy provided by fossil fuels remained within one or two per cent of 86%. At best that figure might reduce to 80% by 2035 if current advances are accelerated.

    cambridgedon
    You have made my point – tackle the numbers. Sticks and stones …

    • But we have Paris Agreement commitments plus many countries committing to be net carbon zero by mid-century. Maybe these commitments won’t be reached but they will more than cancel out the increase in emissions from developing countries. The big emitters are big emitters by wide margins, it is not difficult to make reductions without a noticeable change in lifestyle. Coal is now one of the most expensive energy sources, whereas twenty years ago it was the cheapest.

    • Richard Treadgold on October 22, 2020 at 2:48 pm said:

      Simon, you really must start providing evidence for your wild assertions — this one of the wildest.

  9. Andrew on October 22, 2020 at 4:13 pm said:

    Simon
    You still have not shown any evidence that selected greenhouse gas emissions have caused the climate to change. As i have said, & you can include the Paris Agreement, it is a political rort because various Govts conveniently ignore the “worst” GHG which is water vapour – approx 95% of all GHG is water! So please explain why they do not include H2O in their rhetoric?? (i think i know the answer!)

    Dr Tim Ball successfully disproved the IPCC & Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph as being fraudulent as Mann couldn’t or wouldn’t provide the data so why would we believe any data from the IPCC?

  10. Brett Keane on October 22, 2020 at 6:56 pm said:

    Our Canadian Statistition friend proved Mann’s bent Stick would occur from his algorithm, no matter what the input. Maxwell,s Kinetics of Gases and the Ideal Gas Laws complete the wipeout of IPCC mendacities. Stupidity repeated endlessly gets more tiresome than merely risible……
    But of course the aim is to destroy Western Civilisation. Pity is, the imminent demise of all “Useful Idiots” like our trolls brings me only sadness. What a waste. Brett

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation