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 →
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 →
Here is a curious thing.
Since 2007 our population has risen by what seems a healthy 14.8%, our emissions of carbon dioxide are out of step in rising only by 2.8% and our per capita emissions have fallen by 10%.
Our energy efficiency has improved. Continue Reading →
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 →
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 →
The following is my submission in your name on this bill that threatens to mutilate our economy. Much more could have been said; much less might have been preferable. But let rip, kind readers. Continue Reading →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Known as the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), but given a new name to highlight the lack of science, fear of dissent and unfaltering righteousness that characterises totalitarian regimes. But whence arises my discordant denunciation? Continue Reading →
RT
I’ll be there — if you see me, please come and say hi; I’d love to meet you. Come along with all those questions you’ve never had a chance to ask. This is the MfE—they know the truth, right? Take advantage! Join me as I gang up on them!
Details below. Continue Reading →
Not next Friday—there’d be pitchforks in parliament.
Not next month—the riots would have spread to every town.
Not next year—not with markets collapsed, trade destroyed, the country in chaos, permanent departures through the roof and condemnation universal. Continue Reading →
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 →
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.
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.
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 →
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.
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 →
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 →
Matt Ridley
Arguments from authority are the refuge of priests. For the scientist, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a nutshell
Free speech is under fire around the world and nowhere does it face greater threat than in the bitter dispute over man-made global warming. Continue Reading →
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 →
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.
Gareth Hughes, Green Party Energy Spokesman
There was a triumphal email in my inbox this morning from Gareth Hughes, buck-toothed saviour of the world. Continue Reading →
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,
Since the beginning of November, when the software started to record the amount of traffic, to March 2018, these were our top posts. Continue Reading →
Has anyone noticed that the Royal Society website in the UK was suddenly inaccessible about 24 hours ago?
Does anyone know why?
Never mind, it’s back.
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 →
Climate change real or imagined is driving massive business change. A risk-management expert told him that the impact of climate change is real whether you believe the science or not. Most people, including those at senior levels of business and government, do believe the science, which means the world is going to be shifting to a lower carbon economy.
Continue Reading →
A stunning victory in California, as Judge Alsup declines to validate global warming alarmism and delivers a big thumbs-up to the sceptics. A principal plank of the plaintiffs was that the oil companies had conspired to “cover up” global warming science; the judge said the plaintiffs showed “nothing of the sort”. The case is not over.
BOOM! Federal Judge Dismisses Claim Of A Conspiracy To Suppress Global Warming Science
Well done Christopher Monckton for a last-minute assist.
Pacific Climate Change Conference 2018 21-23 February, Wellington. The 2nd Pacific Climate Change Conference will bring together a broad range of voices on climate change to discuss the recent research, plus the impacts to policy as well as public implications.
The fish hasn’t been seen since. Click to enlarge.
Polar bears are the cute poster-beasties of climate change. I’m sure the cute factor would quickly fade as those pearly-whites and claws closed in from a few metres away, but as cuddly toys polar bears are top-drawer. Continue Reading →
Well-disinformed comments here prompt a repost from a valuable source of good sense: Matt Ridley. His blog post, Whatever happened to global warming? was published in the Wall Street Journal in September, 2014. Its lessons remain eminently digestible and they deserve to bat for another spell—metaphors that are indeed well mixed. Continue Reading →
Professor James Renwick
Just two weeks ago Dr James Renwick published an article in The Spinoff provocatively titled Slaying the zombie memes in that ‘climate sceptic’ column on Stuff. Dr Doug Edmeades had posed some perfectly sensible questions to the science behind the claims of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), yet Dr Renwick apparently gave them little thought, slating him as presenting “zombie memes”—using a shallow warmster meme himself to denigrate his colleague. It’s amazing what he does next. Continue Reading →
For a long time the common name for the greatest challenge of our generation was “global warming” — in fact, it must have been twenty years or more. We all knew what it was and groaned every time the boring old subject was raised.
Then, maybe a decade or so back, just when people were starting to notice that warming had hit some speed restriction, the name seemed to morph into “climate change”. This was a new name and suddenly climate change was the bogyman. Then, of course, it was all on for young and old — every darn piece of weather was being caused by man-made “climate change”. Continue Reading →
The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for each IPCC report is written by bureaucrats and politicians for people who cannot follow scientific language. It is not authoritative, frequently misrepresents the science and is always written before the longer scientific report is finished. If the SPM is challenged, one must resort to the WG1 report, written by scientists. What do the scientists say?
We present here, from the AR4 (2007) (pdf, 106.9 MB) and AR5 (2013) (pdf, 375 MB) reports, a selection of passages that speak against extremist climate change forecasts widely circulated by activists. They are not much referred to by warmsters but they should be widely known, especially by those spending our hard-earned taxes. Dip into these facts — discover the real science and prepare to be amazed by the discord between the claims of the warmsters and the sober consideration of scientists (emphasis added). Continue Reading →
I’ll try to post this once a month or so, keep you in touch with the real size of the CCG’s audience.
Hail, O audience!
These traffic figures have suddenly reduced themselves, and I think I know why. Only the number of visits has changed, the number of unique visitors has changed only minutely. For example, peak visits on 18 December is now 2232, when two weeks ago it was over 7000, but visitors number 743, when previously they were almost the same at 739. I changed a setting a few days ago that now counts every visitor with over 50 visits in a day as a robot; so it eliminates their visits. I would guess one robot could easily account for up to 1000 page requests, as there are over 1000 posts, so losing 5000 visits might mean there were about five unidentified robots. Most robots are identified by a regularly updated database but it’s not infallible. The change means that more than 50 genuine page requests in a day by a real visitor aren’t counted in the statistics, but it’s the best we can do. I had to let you know of the change, and anyway daily average visits of 1400 is pretty impressive (over 42,000 visits a month). So thanks! You make the striving worthwhile.
The Lancet, one of the world’s leading medical journals, recently published two long commissioned reports, timed to coincide with 23rd Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the third UN Environment Assembly. The journal’s aim was to boost climate change mitigation and enhance a ‘Pollution-free World’ initiative in the name of public health. This paper gives examples of the biased, misleading and false health-based arguments that are made in these reports. Continue Reading →
Climate nightmare
The story of dangerous anthropogenic global warming is painted as a delicate jigsaw. Diverse enigmatic elements mysteriously combine through uncaring human activity to destroy the planet, preventing which is called “the greatest challenge of our generation.”
At root, however, the story is simple; it’s painted as complex to baffle us. At root, our constant carbon dioxide emissions increasingly heat the atmosphere. But we observe that carbon dioxide does not keep heating the atmosphere, which is demonstrably not warming very much and, debunking the warmsters story, this is the coldest period in the last 65 million years, and for the last 420,000 years, natural temperature changes controlled CO2 levels. There has never been runaway warming.
A majestic view of the biosphere and of oneself.
Can we really improve on nature? Is it remotely possible for us to reproduce her elegant mysteries or achieve her breathtaking biological efficiencies, or is our greatest work a crude parody?
Dr Kelli Archie, climate change lecturer, VUW.
In an article in yesterday’s Herald, Resistance is fertile in battle for our climate, (a Dr Who reference — hilarious!) Dr Kelli Archie (right, evincing a fine enthusiasm in the face of an imminent global calamity) makes a case for reducing our meat intake for the sake of climate control. The concept that anthropogenic climate change might be dangerous is sheer madness, so I recommend the term ‘climate control’ when the focus is humanity’s culpability, to emphasize its foolishness. Continue Reading →
Greenpeace, hate speech and legitimate oil production.
Greenpeace helped out James “Climate Change” Shaw the other day with a press release of impeccable logic pointing out that tackling climate change is incompatible with looking for more oil. Impeccable, that is, on their assumptions. In truth, their reasoning is of the worst falsified kind, twisted beyond reality, there being no evidence that our emissions of carbon dioxide do anything but good for humanity and the planet. Continue Reading →
Here’s a letter I sent yesterday in our name to the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw.
It opens what could be a lengthy campaign. We will ask the top climate-anxious institutions in New Zealand the same thing: what is the proof of a dangerous human influence on global warming? Continue Reading →
Climate-caused food disaster? Balderdash.
The FAO just revised (increased) its forecast for global cereal production. The 2017/18 season is heading for an all-time record of 3.3 million tonnes, while stocks have built up to a record reserve of over 720 million tonnes. Continue Reading →
Climate Science 101: that tiny Sun heats this whole gigantic Earth and that little moon.
I’ve been called a “climate denier” hundreds of times because I lie about global warming, ignore unfavourable reports, obscure the truth and all this is funded by big oil. For over ten years I’ve apparently bamboozled the public by introducing doubt where no doubt exists, stirring up needless arguments over climate science that’s already settled, I’ve delayed crucial emissions policies and killed millions of people by allowing global warming, so I certainly deserve prison after all this and maybe a death sentence as well. Continue Reading →
In a shameless piece of execrable disinformation today, the NZ Herald tries to tell us that carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas. Poisonous? Continue Reading →
A pristine blue sky ruined by carbon dioxide pollution
The Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry says of carbon dioxide (CO2) that it is “a colourless, odourless gas.” It’s non-toxic except in very high concentrations, it’s essential food for all terrestrial and marine plants and therefore makes all animal life possible, and its level in our blood regulates breathing. From it, plants create the oxygen that we and animals need to survive and its carbon component provides the basis of our anatomy and physiology. Continue Reading →
|
|
