Auckland “disaster recovery expert” clueless on climate

Professor Andreas Neef, a disaster recovery expert at the University of Auckland, very handsome and seemingly a qualified authority on climate science, said extraordinary things in the Herald on Friday. All of it was aimed at raising alarm among New Zealanders for the climate calamities soon to strike us. But nothing he says is supported by real-world data.

http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/people/imageraw/anee972/11189614/biggest

Professor Andreas Neef, a disaster recovery expert at the University of Auckland’s Faculty of Arts.

Professor Neef says the existence of many islands in the Pacific is threatened by an “extremely desperate” disaster scenario of global warming causing rising sea levels, which are “having a disastrous impact.” This is just desperate language that has a disastrous impact only on our sensibilities.

For if sea levels have been rising, it’s not because of warming. I’ll show shortly that there’s been no significant warming, but first hear what regular readers already know about coral atolls. In SEA-LEVEL CHANGE – Living with uncertainty, by Willem P. de Lange and Robert M. Carter (2014), a GWPF report, the authors describe coral atoll formation and make it clear that many calamities, real and theoretical, are incorrectly blamed on sea level rise. This is what the two scientists say:

What about coral atolls?

Relentless media attention has ensured that the alleged threat to coral atolls from sea-level rise remains in the public eye, with the Tuvalu Islands receiving the most publicity.

The origin of coral atolls was famously first explained by Charles Darwin, who noted that they were reef sandbank complexes situated on top of sinking, extinct volcanoes. Such atolls are made up of detrital coral sand that has been eroded from the living reef communities that develop as a volcano submerges and which is washed into shallow banks. Subsequently, some of these sand banks develop a small freshwater lens derived from rainfall, and become temporarily stabilised by vegetation to the point that they can sustain human habitation. Seldom more than a metre or two above sea level, all atolls and related sand-clay islands are at the continuing mercy of the same wind, waves, tides and weather events that built them. They are dynamic features of the seascape, and over timescales of decades to centuries they erode here, grow there and sometimes disappear beneath the waves forever. Thus a coral atoll is not so much a ‘thing’ as it is a process, and they are obviously not good places in which to develop major human population centres.

Because they are located so close to sea-level, it is commonly assumed that atolls are vulnerable to rising sea-level. However, investigations into the processes that govern their formation, evolution and stability indicate that they are very resilient to sea level changes, provided human activities do not disrupt the natural processes. Perhaps counter-intuitively, overwashing of the islands—by storm waves, storm surges, high tides and tsunami—is an important mechanism for increasing their elevation, depositing new layers of sediment each time (Kench et al. 2006).

… Conclusion

The dynamic nature of an atoll is exacerbated, and its integrity jeopardized, when it is subjected to the environmental pressures created by a growing human population. Sand mining, construction project loading, and rapid groundwater withdrawal all cause local lowering of the ground surface, and thereby encourage marine incursion quite irrespective of any sea-level change.

It is these processes in combination with episodic natural hazards like tides and storms, and not global sea-level change, which provide the alarming footage of marine flooding that from time to time appears on our television news screens.

If islanders and their governments were well advised, they might ask for engineering assistance instead of simply waiting around dreaming of a share in the trillions promised by the IPCC as “climate justice” in what has turned out to be a sickening parody of foreign assistance.

Sea level data

The Herald article says:

NASA has warned global sea levels have risen by about 17cm in the last 100 years alone while Fiji has recorded an average sea level increase of 6mm every year since 1993, a figure above the global average (about 3.17mm).

The SEAFRAME reports reveal that the sea-level rise of 17 cm in 100 years is entirely normal. Sea level rose by 1.7 mm per year, which it has done for 8000 years. To call this rate of sea level rise a “warning” is grotesquely misleading. As the AR5 SPM (p. 11) confirms:

Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3).

Sea level rise at Fiji has been nothing like +6 mm every year since 1993. Instead, Prof Neef should have said the annual movements have been extremely variable, going up and down by up to 200 mm (8 inches) a year. In December, it was sitting about 156 mm (6 inches) above the mean, but one look at the graph shows it’s been all over the place in the meantime. The global annual average increase was about 3.17 mm. Both these facts can be challenged.

Page one of the Executive Summary of the latest SEAFRAME report in December says: “At Fiji, the monthly mean sea level is the highest on record.”

The difference in annual average sea level at Fiji between 1993 and today was about 150 mm. So, yes, sea level rise might have averaged about 6 mm per year since 1993—but it was highly variable—and sea level there in December was the “highest on record”—but it also reached the same level in 2011, meaning that it’s not unprecedented and it’s not because of a rising trend.

What is the global annual average? We already checked the AR5 SPM (p. 11), which says sea level rose 190 mm between 1901 and 2010 (1.74 mm/yr), so that tells us the claim of 3.17 mm from 1993 to 2010 is about a doubling; where does the number come from? That’s also on page 11:

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was … 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010.

That’s an acceleration in 17 years that suddenly doubles the rate for the last 8000 years, but the tide gauges don’t report it. The claim is only from satellite observations, obviously from far offshore, because we don’t observe it on the coast. There’s no reason to believe that this new, higher rate will soon affect our foreshore.

Satellite altimeters and tide gauges

Dr Willem de Lange tells me the discrepancy may have something to do with errors in the calculation of the geoid (the hypothetical shape of the ocean surface), with which the satellite measurements are compared. Plus an amount is added to account for what is claimed to be a theoretical, unobserved increase in the volume of the ocean basins caused by tectonic movement. But they can’t add anything to the tide gauge measurements—it is what it is.

There’s no evidence that an increase in sea level rise is imminent. The only indication is the output of unverified computer models that the IPCC has admitted run too hot. The New Zealand tide gauges show sea level rising in some places, declining in others. Few people know this, especially among reporters.

This graph from the December 2018 report from the Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project shows sea levels at each station since installation around 1992. Prof Neef said Fiji experienced 6 mm/year since 1993, which is supported by this graph. Except that all the graphs show a lot of variation, with sea level at Fiji going above the 100 mm (0.1) mark three times, so it’s not a warming trend.

The reports advise caution

Please exercise caution in interpreting the overall rates of movement of sea level – the records are too short to be inferring long-term trends and have not been corrected for land movement or other parameters that may influence the reported rates.

Professor Neef is twice mischievous: first to imply a rising trend of 6 mm per year at Fiji when it’s nothing of the sort and second to cite it as though it’s disastrous, when you could cherry-pick Micronesia for a large fall, or Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa or Tonga along with Fiji for substantial rises (judged improperly by the start and end points alone).

The truth is, global warming is not causing rising sea levels in the Pacific, so the “disastrous impact” he says is occurring is not occurring. Curious that he gives no examples of the impacts of rising sea levels. The disasters he mentions have nothing to do with the sea level and his account is full of woolly terms such as “could”, “likely to become uninhabitable”, “this may no longer be the case if sea temperatures continue to rise.”

Still, his very lack of certainty means that “the seriousness of climate change-induced disaster can’t be underestimated.” Well, yes it can.

A swamp by any other name would smell as foul

Neef appears not to be a serious natural scientist (correct me if this is wrong). He teaches in the Arts Faculty and according to his page at Auckland University he holds MSc and PhD degrees in Agricultural Economics and the soft subjects of Development Policy and Rural Sociology [not usually considered natural sciences] from the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany. He says he advised the German Parliament on “issues of global food security and on societal and political discourses on the commodification of biodiversity and ecosystem services.”

I won’t try to argue with that (knowing a swamp when I smell methane), but I wonder why he hectors the New Zealand public on climate, which is far outside his field. Anyway, this is what the last 20,000 years of sea level looks like—total rise was about 130 metres (430 feet), but mild and steady for eight millenia:

Global sea level measured by tide gauges has risen at about 1.8 mm per year for about the last 8000 years. Satellite observations began in 1993 and report a higher rate of rise, about 3.2 mm/yr, but this is unexplained. I am told by Dr Willem de Lange the discrepancy may have something to do with errors in the calculation of the geoid (the hypothetical shape of the ocean surface), with which the satellite measurements are compared. No significant rise has been reported by tide gauges, except where the land is sinking, which means the height of the sea right beside our infrastructure, the only place it matters, has not greatly changed. These facts refute the constant claims from warmsters of accelerating sea level rise.

New Zealand will never face the same situation as low-lying atolls and to state that we soon will is highly misleading … oh, but he doesn’t, does he? He says we “could face what’s happening in the Pacific.” Except that we are in the Pacific, it’s not affecting us and he mischaracterises the whole “extremely desperate” disaster scenario of global warming causing rising sea levels, which are not “having a disastrous impact.”

Infants and teenagers know nothing

Consider the recurring theme of galloping global mean temperature: the truth is, it has hardly risen in 20 years. No infant, child or teenager has experienced global warming. The global datasets of UAH, HadCRUT4, NCDC and GISS all show temperatures in 1998 are virtually indistinguishable from today’s. It’s curious that RSS temperatures were quite similar to UAH, but since the update in 2015, RSS is running about 0.2 °C hotter than UAH.

Dr Neef knows nothing about many aspects of climate science—but neefer mind, we can help him.

Let us hope that the good Professor Neef sticks to disaster recovery and leaves the long-suffering Pacific Islanders alone in their counterfeit climate calamities. They have more than enough real ones to cope with—perhaps he might inquire about those.

The activists are hotting up

Here’s a piece, including graph, regarding Jim Salinger’s opinions on global warming that I thought the NZ Herald might like for an op-ed three weeks ago. They didn’t. It’s now slightly improved and I’ve added the earliest NZ temperature records. I like the fact that the error margins swallow these Lilliputian record margins. — Richard Treadgold

A week ago, Dr Jim Salinger, jumping the gun a little, predicted 2018 would prove to be NZ’s hottest year. The Herald indulged his forecast (inadvertently awarding him the title professor) with the heading 2018 NZ’s hottest year on record. Unfortunately, when they published NIWA’s official data a few days later, Jim’s claim turned out to be wrong, with 2018 declared the second-hottest year, following 2016. Continue Reading →

OPEN LETTER to West Coast Regional Council

Let us understand!

WITH COPIES TO

    • Minister for the Environment, Hon James Shaw, Whaleoil, Newstalk ZB, ODT, NZ Herald, Stuff

LETTER

Mr Andrew Robb
Chairman
West Coast Regional Council

30 January 2019

Dear Andrew,

The Climate Conversation Group admires your council’s decision—which has gained widespread attention—not to support the Zero Carbon Bill until the science of the underlying theory of man-made global warming has been clearly explained and properly proven.
Continue Reading →

Kill them all except me

New York allows abortions until birth

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxjrAJxWkAUZr--.jpg

Dress the building for the slaughter

Entitled the Reproductive Health Act, New York’s latest abortion law allows termination of a pregnancy until the expected day of birth with certain limitations:

[An] abortion may be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.

The city was suitably dressed—after all, slaughtering the innocent is a festive occasion.

One World Trade Center in New York City, NY — the centerpiece of the World Trade Center complex — was illuminated with pink lighting to celebrate the Empire State’s passage of legislation designating abortion a “fundamental right.” Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) directed authorities to use pink lighting to laud New York’s new abortion law.

Continue Reading →

Bags of hot air

Greenpeace ocean plastic — fake whale, fake filled with plastic for propaganda photos. See kids cheering camera.

Apparently the government plans fines of $100,000 for companies that hand out a free plastic bag. What tyranny is this, what cruel despotism fills our masters? These bullies bring no evidence to justify harsh punishment. Just because other countries fine such convenience doesn’t make it right, and first they must substantiate the harm we’re supposed to be causing. Continue Reading →

NZ sideswipes the UN migrant crusade

The United Nations was formed in 1945. The speeches must have been less than rivetting, and the candid body language on display makes a fascinating study. Click to enlarge and pass a little time exploring.

Our favourite Canadian commentator Donna Laframboise credits New Zealand with  compounding the UN’s year-end climate and migration gloom.

If you’re a UN bureaucrat, recent weeks have been full of disappointment.

Continue Reading →

Sheep and cows on methane roundabout

Letter the Herald declined to publish

Jamie Morton’s recent Herald article How NZ could cut agriculture emissions by to [sic] 10 per cent states:

Nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture – the main source being methane burped from cattle and sheep.

It’s indeed surprising to again hear this non-factual assertion that methane in ruminant eructation constitutes cumulative emissions, when it’s well established that the methane arises from the digestion of recently-eaten grass as part of a cycle.

One has to wonder where the government gets its scientific advice.

There is no evidence to claim that ruminant methane is one-way traffic, for it moves in a cycle, and has done for millions of years. After a short time in the atmosphere the methane breaks down, the carbon dioxide is released to contribute to more grass growth, the grass is consumed and digested and around it goes again. Nothing is added to beyond wool, milk, meat and the rest of the beast (at slaughter nothing is wasted).

To continue claiming that farmers are in this way adding to global warming signals deep ignorance.

Continue Reading →

Dieu bénisse les gilets jaunes

God bless the yellow vests

For they serve us all  [click pics to enlarge]

The French are turning up in their thousands and hundreds of thousands. They’ve had enough of the aloof, out-of-touch President Macron, his electricity and gas price increases and they disbelieve the climate scare, so when he hiked fuel prices the people finally took to the streets. Continue Reading →

Will the government please please please keep the lights on?

Barry Brill and I condemn the wilful political blindness that contemplates destroying our energy security and risking dry-year blackouts by shutting down the last thermal power plant merely to win polite applause from other nations. Meanwhile, those same nations are brazenly operating a gigantic fleet of 3700 coal-fired power plants and building another 1900.

The Huntly gas and coal-fired power station is NZ’s largest thermal generator. With its coal generation halved to 500 MW and total capacity including gas now 953 MW, or about 5000 GWh/year, Huntly can still provide about 12% of our annual consumption. Genesis intends to remove the remaining coal units by 2022, and there’s an uncertain future for the gas units since the Prime Minister, without consulting interested parties such as the industry or the electorate, banned gas exploration.

Are New Zealand politicians naive? Babes in the wood? Country yokels who don’t understand realpolitik? Continue Reading →

Tiresome climate propaganda

Here’s a (lightly improved) op-ed I submitted to the Herald a month ago with no acknowledgement. Prof Geoff Duffy describes scientific properties of greenhouse gases that raise significant doubt about the wisdom of mitigating our emissions of any gas. How odd that these fully informed colleagues make no argument against his criticisms, preferring an ineffectual allegation of being “wrong about many [unspecified] aspects of science.” So I ask you, lady and gentlemen: what aspects and how is he wrong? — RT

The letter Our impact on climate very clear, of 8 Oct 2018 (right), by Prof Dave Frame and seven other local climate scientists, gives misleading information about greenhouse gases.

Seeing a letter over those scholarly signatures sparks interest in the pending illumination. But, sadly, Frame et al. (or Frame ‘n Pals) recite the tiresome propaganda of the IPCC without demur and tip-toe around the scientific points made so well by our friend Dr Geoff Duffy.

They present sentences arranged to resemble a logical argument that are in fact unconnected. Each one tells part of the truth, so it’s not wrong, but it neither contributes to an argument nor supports the next sentence.

Any connection between them rests only on our gullibility. Continue Reading →

How to fix climate alarm

Economists have proposed really effective solutions to the high levels of anxiety felt by politicians and government officials about the risks of transport sector emissions.

The New Zealand Government’s plan to legislate for “Zero Carbon by 2050” has been accompanied by economic modelling that shows the NPV of the economic costs will be huge. See Putting a price on the hair shirt.

Tailrisk Economics, a private firm, has now delivered a devastating critique of both the quality and veracity of the Government’s modelling and consultation documents. The price of feeling good is a must-read for anybody interested in this issue. Continue Reading →

Reality quells fears of catastrophic ice shelf melt

Beneath the Ross Ice Shelf – click to enlarge

I’ve been informed of significant new research that discovered Antarctic ice shelf melting—constantly referred to as “catastrophic” in warmster commentaries—is considerably less dramatic than we were led to expect—quelle surprise. It even involved a New Zealand scientist but so far this is the only media coverage. Continue Reading →

World-first listing of carbon fund — NZX

The NZX announces a listing guaranteed to moisten the eyes of greenies around the world. But they won’t be the only ones weeping.

The fund, which received more than $1 million in applications from a range of investors, intends to buy carbon credits in emissions trading schemes in New Zealand and offshore. It is designed to give individuals and organisations a chance to invest in or offset carbon.

Continue Reading →

The Greens’ strategy for industry and commerce

Letter

Gareth Hughes, Green Party spokesman for our most industrious sectors

Sent on 9/10/2018 at 6:47 PM to Gareth Hughes, list member for the Greens since 2010, spokesman for Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Energy and Resources, Primary Industries, Technology, Research and Development and Science. They are the country’s most industrious sectors—the ones we must take care of, or we all suffer. I fervently hope that Mr Hughes is himself industrious and well informed.

Dear Gareth,

We proudly produce many things we want. From butter to lamb, beef, pork, timber, wine, gold, coal and fish and more, we have laboured for many decades to keep our communities prosperous.
Continue Reading →

Royal Society must explain refusal to justify climate policy

This open letter was emailed to party leaders and a select group of journalists. Following poor advice from the MfE and an error-ridden report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Climate Change Minister, James Shaw, has misconstrued the science and proposes inept policy. Mr Shaw should demand an urgent explanation from the Royal Society for their refusal to reveal evidence for a human cause of dangerous global warming and then he should realign national climate policy with a proper understanding of climate science. – RT
Continue Reading →

Carbon price of coal shunts winter gas price higher

Bloomberg reports:

The highest prices for carbon credits in a decade have also lifted natural gas, discouraging power stations from making the switch away from coal. As a result, demand remains strong for the dirtiest fossil fuel in the continent that’s doing the most to clean up its economy. Coal prices as a result reached their highest in five years on Tuesday.

You might think the ETS impost on coal’s CO2 emissions, about twice those from natural gas, would give gas an edge, but you’d be wrong—rising prices for carbon credits have pushed up the gas prices too. The graph at right shows an eye-watering surge in the carbon price of about 400% over the last 11 months (although I guess 400% of nothing is still pretty small; so it could get worse). This financial punishment for the poor is a clear consequence of market interference by the climate justice do-gooders—nobody else has done this. The sooner they lose office the better, in the EU and everywhere. Continue Reading →

Royal Society of NZ rejects tenets of science over global warming

SEE UPDATE BELOW

Award-winning architecture of the Royal Society of New Zealand headquarters in Wellington

The Royal Society of New Zealand refuse to give evidence that global warming is man-made.

They say the evidence is overwhelming but will not say what it is. In doing this, they fail to show that future warming will be dangerous and thus void all efforts to prevent it.

Countries don’t go to war without reason. Local bodies don’t close roads for nothing. Juries don’t convict without evidence. Continue Reading →

Mann’s naked climate activism

Penn State University stadium

Someone thought I needed to work this climate stuff out and helpfully cited a PennState climate course. The course was written by one Michael Mann, no less, with an assistant. It took me two seconds to learn that the course is ineradicably rooted in global warming activism, not science. Continue Reading →

‘Armageddon Summer’ is just the beginning—but Dyer’s the living end

This post is based on an article I wrote in the Otago Daily Times that answers a bunch of balderdash by Gwynne Dyer about global warming: ‘Armageddon Summer’ is just the beginning (pdf, 134 KB). SNAPPY MOTTO: Defeat drivel, bury baloney. – RT

MULTIPLE LINES of evidence show that Gwynne Dyer is dead wrong (in ‘Armageddon Summer’ is just the beginning, 3/8/18) about the cataclysms he claims will be caused by our continued use of hydrocarbon fuels. Continue Reading →

Kiwis complacent on global warming

Naturally!

Dr Anna Berka

There’s nothing to be done about global warming beyond feeling anxious, if you choose. We’re not causing any harmful warming and the sporadic warming we’ve seen is of no concern.

But once again we’re being hectored, this time by an academic skilled in redistributive environmental policy, inclusive energy governance and conceptualizing community renewables deployment as a form of associative democracy—oh, yes, Anna Berka knows us so well. Continue Reading →

Simon says listen

Wikipedia: Simon is a common name, from Hebrew שִׁמְעוֹן Šimʻôn, meaning “listen”.

Listen, Simon.

Two weeks back Simon said the following and I was just too busy to respond. He makes what may seem obvious and sensible points but simply regurgitates the great global warming myths which by now have been so utterly proven false that they are pathetic. However, not all our bystanders know this, so I shall do it again. Simon makes nine separate points: Continue Reading →

Greens hail the defeat of prosperity but answer this

The Green Party celebrated Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s banning of “the environmentally dangerous and planet-threatening search for new oil and gas in our pristine waters” as an historical victory, rather than the Luddite, anti-progress, backward ideology it plainly advertised.

It’s unthinkable they might already be reconsidering that ideology, but we will prod them in that very direction with questions that their seat on the coalition obliges them to answer. For the Hon James Shaw: Continue Reading →

Busting out of climate shackles

Dr Mike Kelly alerted me to Roger Pielke Jr’s thoughtful piece at WUWT titled Opening Up the Climate Policy Envelope. I heartily suggest you read it; below is a sample. As well as improving our thinking about climate policy, Dr Pielke makes it sound perfectly reasonable for convinced climate alarmists and unyielding climate sceptics not only to talk with each other but also to reach common ground. A miracle indeed. But wait, there’s more: the questions he poses are those we’ve been waiting for from our political leaders—questions, if quietly contemplated, that would fit them for the decisions we need from them and only they can give—if only they knew.  –RT Continue Reading →

Zero Carbon meeting — science loses

Consultation or propaganda?

I attended the public meeting on the Zero Carbon Bill in Tauranga last Monday. A team from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) presented details as part of public consultation on the bill. About 80 people (mostly old ones) turned up, but the Environment Minister, the Hon James Shaw, though expected, did not turn up. Continue Reading →

A goal breathtakingly scant

SEE UPDATE below

2 July, 2018

Dear Prime Minister,

I wish to register my disagreement with your decision to make us reduce our so-called “carbon” emissions to zero by 2050. You commit the nation to this significant goal without knowing, as your joint statement makes quite plain, what it means, how to achieve it or, extending by simple logic, what it might cause. That is unreasonable.
Continue Reading →

Now it’s “carbon-free” farming, but what is it? Why do it?

One of the few valid applications of the well-known propaganda term “carbon emissions” (heard of chemistry?). Listen: it’s called carbon dioxide. In a similar way, we don’t try to call water (dihydrogen monoxide) hydrogen.

Eh?

Basically, we don’t know what carbon-free means, we don’t know how to achieve it and we don’t know what it might cause. But oh, yes, we’re going for it! (Big silly grin.) Welcome to the rabbit hole.

from Scoop (h/t Andy S.)

The new Government has set a goal of New Zealand achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Farming leaders with the support of the Government are stating their support for this goal and the agri-food sector playing its part in achieving it.

This is a very ambitious and challenging target for the agri-food sector. We have agreed that there is more work required to understand exactly what this means and how we can achieve it. – emphasis added

This is utter nonsense. By this blunder alone — and there have been many others — the Peters-appointed coalition government secures its release from power at our earliest convenience. Continue Reading →

Heroic NZ emission cuts versus Chinese colossus

Here’s a harsh dose of reality for the NZ Productivity Commission in attempting to convert us to a “low-emissions” economy. The map shows China’s plans to expand their links with the world in a colossal project that will triple China’s emissions. Their gas discharges already eclipse ours by 250 times so our reductions will be absurdly futile in stemming man-made global warming. The climate won’t notice, but our poor will suffer, while China’s poor rise into the middle class. What do we think we’re doing, cutting back — even banning oil exploration — when we ought to be boosting the economy at full speed?

My friend Dr Mike Kelly kindly sent me a copy of his latest analysis of New Zealand climate policy that he’s just submitted to the New Zealand Productivity Commission in response to its draft report on moving to a Low-emissions economy, which many would describe instead as disabling our productive capacity. Dr Kelly’s unflinching engineer’s eye assesses our Government’s putative policy responses to the climate perils forecast by skittish warmsters and it makes for thoughtful reading.

The New Silk Road

His central message is a revelation: whatever emissions we record over the next 20 years, China’s will be a thousand times larger. In fact, the emissions expected just from their One Belt, One Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are destined to overwhelm all other human emissions for twenty and more years. Continue Reading →

The bare-faced cheek

Now, I’m a sceptic about man-made climate change and though I frequently reproach those, such as the Royal Society of New Zealand, who give some inaccurate account of climate science, I have no particular position to defend but that of dispassion. To tell you the truth, I don’t know what position to adopt.

Because, quite simply, I have questions, which of course are unanswered, which explains my uncertainty. If my questions were answered, they wouldn’t survive, because answers destroy questions — it’s either that, or you go back to sleep. Credible answers will certainly decide the matter, then perhaps I too, like King Canute before me, will turn and contest the climate. Or not. Continue Reading →

Dr Vincent Gray

Dr Vincent Gray

I regret to announce the death of Dr Vincent Gray at 7:45 yesterday morning, after an illness.

Vincent was a co-founder of the NZ Climate Science Coalition and was generous in sharing his knowledge. He consistently offered me help and encouragement after being invited by Bob Carter to join the Coalition about twelve years ago.

His support of colleagues was matched by an implacable defiance towards opponents, an unmatched skill in identifying errors of reasoning and an enviable fluency in refuting arguments with unfailing courtesy.

The world has lost a ferocious illumination.

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.

Continue Reading →

Royal Society of NZ refuses to reveal evidence of man-made climate change

1 June 2018                                                           FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) has been accused of concealing evidence for its claims of man-made climate change. The society has also been accused of being in breach of its own Code of Ethics.  The accusations are made in a statement released today by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, which says:

“When Jacinda Ardern said we must battle climate change, it became clear that our new Prime Minister believes the temperature of the earth can be controlled by man. But the leading climate scientists of the RSNZ have refused to reveal evidence that supports her belief.

Continue Reading →

Diligent academic sacked for dissent

Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy in Sydney last November during a presentation on quality assurance in science.

Professor Peter Ridd has just been fired from James Cook University, Queensland, for speaking out about misleading science concerning the Great Barrier Reef. He needs a lot of support. He is not the only one.

If your heart beats, strengthen it with a donation to a freedom-loving brother. Fight for freedom now before it’s gone.

Continue Reading →

CCG in Australia

I was in Bendigo last week with my wife, Ann, to celebrate a daughter’s nuptials. Now we’re in Melbourne for a few days with the happy couple, back to NZ on Wednesday. Out of touch a bit, but watching the emails. Off to the Victoria Market in a few minutes. Nice place but cold, wet and windy on Friday.

Did the Royal Society prove that we cause dangerous global warming?

Well, no

On April 7 (as you can read in my previous post) I wrote to Dr Julie Maxton, Executive Director of the Royal Society, London, asking a simple question:

I’ve been hunting for evidence for several years without success and now I’m thinking that the Royal Society will surely not let me down. I do hope you can provide a succinct answer. By what mechanism do our emissions cause dangerous global warming?

Shortly afterwards a reply arrived from her Executive Assistant: Continue Reading →

Green Utopia

 

Ten years ago, Tom Scott captured this vision of the consequences of Left-Green tyranny. Today, they continue on that backward-looking path, abetted by a compliant Labour Party through an electoral accident that Winston Peters exploited to circumvent the democratic vote and put the Greens and Labour into the same bed. What a pity Peters wasn’t thinking of the national good.

They banned oil exploration, but why? Was it because of global warming? Well, since it hasn’t been warming, what would you say? I say it’s because oil riches threaten us with extraordinary prosperity—which means freedom for everyone. But they don’t trust us with freedom. National does.

PS: The likeness of the ploughwoman to our Helen is astounding.

Click the heading if you wish to access the comment form.

Royal Society answers my inquiry

On April 7 I wrote to Dr Julie Maxton, Executive Director of the Royal Society, London, saying:

I’ve been hunting for evidence for several years without success and now I’m thinking that the Royal Society will surely not let me down. I do hope you can provide a succinct answer.

By what mechanism do our emissions cause dangerous global warming?

With enormous gratitude,

Continue Reading →

Kiwi Royal Society fails to produce climate evidence

The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) cannot substantiate their claim that mankind is causing dangerous global warming. The NZ Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) have just spent months pursuing them for evidence, which they failed to produce. We believe that it does not exist. Continue Reading →