/arc-anglerfish-syd-prod-nzme.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BAY5JEOWE5BWLMZ4WLN63I3ASI.jpg)
If Hone Harawira can do it, we can all do it.
When will the police ask Harawira what authority he has to set up “checkpoints” on our public roads?
He claims he is somehow authorised to demand our reasons for travel and if those reasons don’t meet his approval, he’ll close the road. Continue Reading →
The Labour-Green Coalition Government published the discussion document Our Climate Your Say (“the Consultation Document”) in 2018 to pave the way for the Zero Carbon Bill that received Royal assent on 13 November, 2019. Robin Grieve, of Whangarei, studied the document and was disturbed to discover scientific errors, political bias and propaganda. He raised his complaints with Vicky Robertson, Secretary for the Environment. She replied but didn’t take her department’s ethical breaches seriously.
When it comes to accuracy, political neutrality and inspiring the nation to save the planet, just how badly must a public servant behave to earn a manager’s rebuke? By normal standards, addressing the parade of fiction in the Zero Carbon campaign should never have waited on a complaint from outside the organisation. It should have been dealt with firmly in-house.
Robin escalated the matter to the State Services Commissioner, Peter Hughes, who has instigated an investigation of the Consultation Document with reference to state services integrity, ethics and standards. Continue Reading →
Does Greenpeace expect us to accept their numbers without demur? To accept the cause they suggest? When can we question the researchers? A few inquiries raise serious questions about the study’s credibility. This is how the story begins on the Greenpeace website, with the headline shown in the screen grab:
February 10, 2020 – Scientists surveying chinstrap penguin colonies in the Antarctic have found drastic reductions in many colonies, with some declining by as much as 77 percent since they were last surveyed almost 50 years ago.
The independent researchers, on a Greenpeace expedition to the region, found that every single colony surveyed on Elephant Island, an important habitat northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula, had declined. The number of chinstrap penguins on Elephant Island has dropped almost 60 percent since the last survey in 1971, with a total count of only 52,786 breeding pairs of chinstrap penguins, plummeting from previous survey estimates of around 122,550 pairs. Continue Reading →
My last communication to James Renwick was July last year. I said this:
Eventfinda are advertising your presentation in Nelson in August called “Climate Emergency”. What does it mean? What data does it rest on? What makes it an emergency? If you’re not too busy I hope you can help.
Here is a letter I sent this evening to Dame Anne Salmond, anthropologist and historian, Professor in Maori Studies and Anthropology at the University of Auckland, and 2013 New Zealander of the Year. An opinion piece she wrote on climate change in Stuff today considers climate sceptics beneath an honest anthropologist’s contempt.
Dear Dame Anne,
You expressed pride in a letter you signed ten years ago describing climate sceptics as “climate deniers”, even though ‘sceptical’ has long been a deeply admired virtue of all good scientists. Continue Reading →
A brain-dead editorial, a fresh view of CO2, an amazing letter, the kitten and the blue whale.
An editorial in Tuesday’s Herald ($) begins:
Amazing that he somehow knows what is discussed not only in “most households” but in “other social gatherings,” though it sounds to me like projection. The editorial goes on to conflate our discoloured sky, the scale of the bush fire outbreaks and the heat at the Melbourne cricket as reasons we ought not doubt we’re causing dangerous warming. It says we not only saw but felt the heat of the bush fires in New Zealand (which, 1200 km away, pushes the barrow a mite far). Preposterously, it ends: “The sun was so sizzling it became a wonder anything combustible was not catching fire.” But maybe Auntie Herald was trying to crack a funny. Continue Reading →
Click to read the letters.
The Herald printed these letters on Saturday. Here is the letter (now slightly altered) I sent them that day, still unpublished as far as I know. The word count had to be under 200 words.
One cannot say much in just 200 words, but newspapers make it harder by not allowing multiple replies to multiple letters. Hence my achievement in replying to four letters, with extreme brevity, in the presence of the enemy and under fire from letter-writers on the one hand and journalists on the other, surely all but deserves the VC. Though some will demur. Continue Reading →
Once a year the BBC invites guest editors onto Radio 4 to assemble the Today programme. The latest batch includes Greta Thunberg, the child climate activist, and Charles Moore, Margaret Thatcher biographer and former Telegraph editor.
Professor Michael Kelly
Moore gave a spot on the programme to our friend Michael Kelly, Cambridge Professor of Engineering, Fellow of the Royal Society, Prince Philip Professor of Technology, former chief scientific advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Introducing Kelly’s segment [at 32:22], Charles Moore observes wryly:
One of the subjects that’s very difficult to air on the BBC if you don’t share the prevailing view is climate change.
James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change, appoints new Climate Lords to the NZ Climate Change Commission. The NZ Climate Science Coalition says it contravenes the legislation that spawned the Commission. This is the NZCSC press release.
From the desk of Chairman, Barry Brill, OBE
Email: [email protected]
Climate Change Commission ”Fatally Undermined” by Appointment of Careerists and Campaigners
The potential credibility and standing of the Climate Change Commission announced by Minister James Shaw has been fatally undermined by the inclusion of four full-time climate change careerists and campaigners, according to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Continue Reading →
A few days ago Drs Roy Spencer and John Christy published updated graphs they first presented to a Heartland conference in July. Roy says:
I keep getting asked about our charts comparing the CMIP5 models to observations, old versions of which are still circulating, so it could be I have not been proactive enough at providing updates to those. Since I presented some charts at the Heartland conference in D.C. in July summarizing the latest results we had as of that time, I thought I would reproduce those here. Continue Reading →
There’s no escaping the relentless barrage of climate alarm. Two weeks ago Mike Hosking accused us all of dishonesty over climate change, for we lament the potential of fossil fuels to destroy us while our emissions reach record levels and we use ever more coal, oil and gas but politicians around the world do nothing about it. Continue Reading →
Around the world, climate sceptics increasingly challenge governments over policies to change the weather. From furious French Yellow Vest protests against climate policy, soaring petrol taxes, education reform and a raft of other issues to Canadian provinces’ increasingly tough resistance to Justin Trudeau’s aggressive carbon pricing, Australian political opposition, frank climate rebellion among EU members and with numerous nations renouncing climate commitments, sceptics around the globe have grown truculent as never before. Continue Reading →
“The drink you have when you’re not having a drink”
Like the sham whisky peddled in the 1970s and 80s, today’s fashionable narrative of global warming satisfies no one.
Climate realists and sceptics, knowing the facts, are frustrated by witless political surrender to counterfeit science, while climate agitators declare a crisis just to make something happen, since there’s no public belief, no political commitment and—fundamentally disturbing—no warming.
Yes, we have not been warming (well, nothing you could call a crisis …).
My apologies! Please check your recent comments have been published. If not, you might like to submit them again. Thanks. Continue Reading →
Now we’re all wondering about the future.
Yes, we got thumped by the English, but I’m not pessimistic about the AB’s prospects. They bounced back with a firm statement in trouncing Wales. Continue Reading →
“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant. – Dr Richard Lindzen
It’s true. They have no proof.
So you say the science is settled, you trust 97% of climate scientists and you call me a denier. It’s hardly surprising and I sympathise with that view—we’ve been badgered over it for years.
But all we sceptics do is ask you, “What’s the evidence?” There’s no denial in that, so what’s your answer? If the science really is settled, what evidence is it based on? There’s been a tide of global warming propaganda for the last few decades, so if there was any proof we are causing dangerous warming, do you think they’d let us forget it? The fact that we don’t know what it is shows they don’t have any proof. Continue Reading →
Professor Michael Kelly
The Global Warming Policy Foundation announces the 2019 Annual GWPF Lecture will be delivered by Professor Michael Kelly, FRS, FREng, Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Engineering, University of Cambridge. Continue Reading →
[Anon1:] A major problem is that Harry Clark, who is the only scientist on the ICCC, has a conflict of interest. If we submitted Jock & Tom’s paper (Greenhouse gases – a more realistic view (2018)), for instance, then Harry Clark would pour cold water on it. If he accepted the conclusions then his job and research funding for the greenhouse gas research outfit would cease. If he were replaced with Reisinger or Frame the same thing would happen. Continue Reading →
We see mistakes in the Herald every day, but this morning there’s an inglorious language blunder from a sports reporter:
“If the browbeaten All Blacks were expecting an easier time of it in the World Cup bronze match against Wales on Friday, they have another thing coming.
Undated, but perhaps mid to late 19th century.
Beef and Lamb New Zealand today issued an Update to Farmers about Climate Change and Water, including their Announcement on Agricultural Emissions. Continue Reading →
Essay 6: Big emissions reduction bang for every buck
Reducing emissions is expensive. Every dollar spent on climate change mitigation is a dollar unavailable for health or housing or poverty; waste is unacceptable. New Zealand’s new Commission must recognise that where emissions occur is irrelevant and stick with the “global peaking” aim.
Essay 5: Cuckoo Shaw lays 1.5°C egg in cosy Paris nest
The Paris treaty ratified by New Zealand says: “We’ll keep the temperature increase to 2°C, never mind about trying for 1.5°C.” But Shaw says: “Yeah, nah. Never mind about 2°C, we’ll shoot for 1.5°C, the lower the better, right? Lead the world. How hard can it be?”
Not a conversation this time, just a snippet — an important one to me, because it’s further confirmation of my layman opinion that man-made emissions cannot significantly heat the ocean, and important for all climate sceptics, since it adds to arguments refuting the climate scare. Note that this scientist’s view applies to greenhouse gases in general, whereas the DAGW scare relies only on mankind’s emissions, which are a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide — less than 10% of all CO2, or about 0.004% of the atmosphere. Continue Reading →
Roger Pielke Jr. delivers the harsh, mathematical truth. Even if every person in the world thought abandoning fossil fuels made sense, even if every last government was committed to such a plan, the sheer size of the task would remain. He says the scale is mind-boggling.
Politicians and business leaders announced new steps to fight climate change. But much remains to be done.
Source: The Economist
THOSE CONCERNED about global warming change had a clear message for the leaders attending the United Nations Climate Action Summit on September 23rd. Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old activist, led protests in New York imploring politicians to act now to limit rising temperatures, and warned leaders at the summit: “The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you.” Continue Reading →
A list of facts to remove children’s terror of global warming from Andrew Bolt, of the Herald Sun, Melbourne. He says it won’t kill you and we must fight the hysteria that follows Greta Thunberg’s breakdown at the United Nations. Easy to print out — distribute wildly widely.
UPDATED 16 Nov — added a link to Andrew Bolt’s article and corrected the link to Australian rainfall since 1900, adding a mini preview too.
A significant new collaboration will present rational views of climate change theory and observation on a global stage.
From: Professor Guus Berkhout
[email protected]
23 September 2019
Sr. António Guterres,
Secretary-General,
United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017,
United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano,
Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat,
UN Campus,
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany.
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
Continue Reading →
Press briefing
AS THE LATEST UN climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.
Continue Reading →
Nuclear power has moved on since Fukushima — now Gen III and IV, small, self-regulating, cannot melt down, put them virtually anywhere. Available in various sizes that last from 3 to 20 years or more. If it fails, truck in another one. Cheaper than coal, more efficient and safer than ever. Come on, Greenies, why resist it? Afraid we might survive your climate crisis?
Essay 4: Climate scare could be gone by 2030
The Hon Barry Brill’s fourth essay (pdf, 302 KB) of these eleven on the Zero Carbon Bill examines the Government’s economic modelling, which tells us increasing New Zealand’s net emissions target from 50% to 100% by 2050 will cost us $200–$300 billion over 30 or more years of ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat.’ Continue Reading →
Essay 3: Climate-wise, we are the champions!
The third (pdf, 240 KB) of these eleven essays by the Hon Barry Brill on the Zero Carbon Bill has a look at the vanity factor, asking:
From Copenhagen in 2009 to Paris in 2015 we did our best to hog the limelight by taking a lead. Now the Green Party strives to legislate for carbon neutrality by 2050 to gain the prize. But that’s all about ego—what are the facts? Continue Reading →
Essay 2: 2050, costs vs benefits
The second (pdf, 267 KB) of these eleven essays by the Hon Barry Brill on the Zero Carbon Bill has a look at what it will cost us and what we will get in return. Barry asks the fundamental question:
The sacrifices in eliminating carbon emissions by 2050 will be far more painful than some undetectable heat, and far off, as it’s 30 years away. Admittedly this is a long time for government planning—usually tuned to about five years at a time—but it’s a savagely short time to create total disruption in our commercial, industrial, agricultural and other spheres—and then attempt to smooth it over. Continue Reading →
To the Editor
Climate Conversation Group
11 September 2019
Bushfires are normal events in this season in tropical and sub-tropical latitudes of the southern hemisphere — in Australia, Africa and South America. Even Captain Cook noted many fires in Eastern Australia in 1770, long before the era of “global warming” hysteria. Continue Reading →
Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
London, 6 September: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety. Continue Reading →
Source: Science Goes Up In Rain Forest Smoke – The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
You could destroy all of the world’s forests and it would hardly affect our oxygen supply. In fact you could destroy every living thing on Earth and still not dent it because our atmosphere of 20.9% oxygen is the gift of geologic time, slow to build up and we have enough to last millions of years. Yet this idea of the world’s lungs and of atmospheric oxygen needing to be refreshed and replenished, ideas unsupported by science, is everywhere.
Look how much we had to go through for science to wrench our minds free of what is “obviously true” and seek proof. Is climate science, or at least the public side of it, immune from normal scientific standards? And where are the high profile, “public” scientists setting the record straight, highlighting that the Amazon rain forests are not the lungs of the world?
– Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
BY THE WAY: To open the comment window, click the post title.
Essay 1: The Zero Carbon Bill
Barry Brill has given us these eleven essays on the Zero Carbon Bill. Do sample these enjoyable pieces for yourself, with their crisp writing and clear logic. It’s illuminating to absorb Barry’s analysis of the origins of the Bill, its aims, strategies, substantial flaws, and his oh-so-pragmatic strategy to align the Bill with our international obligations without exposing our lower classes to the egregious fanaticism of the coalition’s Green climate dogma.
Barry’s first essay (pdf, 185 KB) opens with the startling news that the Bill is
Our dim-witted commander.
In 1994, the authors of Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies coined the phrase “big hairy audacious goal” (BHAG, pronounced BEE-hag) to describe an organisation’s vision statement.
Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZ Climate Science Coalition and Bay of Islands lawyer, uses the term to describe the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (ZCB).
Wellington – a lovely climate
Really? Are you serious? Well, prove it!! Tell us the evidence! Of course you’d first have to ask for some. Oh, and would you care to describe the effect of your silly declaration on the global temperature in 2030, 2050 and 2100?
The Wellington regional council has declared a climate emergency and thinks it can take action – including on its fleet of diesel buses. The region, as well as the world, has about 10 years to cut its emissions in half to change the course of climate change, the Greater Wellington Regional Council was told on Wednesday. Councillor Sue Kedgley said there had been some comments around the table about whether or not there was actually “an emergency”.
“I can’t understand how we can watch the news and not conclude that we’re in an emergency.”
A few weeks after saying “every action makes a difference” on climate change, Prince Harry and Meghan Markel emitted six times more emissions in two jet trips than the average Briton does in a year.
Source: The Real Reason They Behave Hypocritically On Climate Change Is Because They Want To
British Royal couple Prince Harry and Princess Meghan Markle triggered widespread outrage recently after lecturing the world about climate change while flying around the world in private jets. Continue Reading →
A Stuff article on Saturday by Amber-Leigh Woolf, Climate change accelerating but people can help change a world crisis, scientist says, quotes Prof James Renwick, who mentions a couple of hitherto unknown and surprising aspects of global warming.
The Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences professor said people were right to worry about the world’s future because the rate of climate change was accelerating. Climate change was affecting an ecosystem which had been in place for tens of thousands of decades, and could be destroyed within 40 years.
India’s Coal Minister, Pralhad Joshi, said (5 August, 2019): Continue Reading →
Herald headline, 4 August – Climate scientist: It’s cold now, but NZ region just saw its warmest July.
Prof Jim Salinger
Professor Jim Salinger, who helped create the benchmark seven-station national temperature series, the 7SS (or SSS, if you prefer), now runs a competing series using 22 hand-picked land weather stations (let’s call it the 22-station Salinger series, or 22SS). He claims July is an all-time record 1.79 °C above average, while the previous record of 1.74 °C above average in July, 1998, is demoted to second. Continue Reading →
The knowledgeable conversations in the NZ Climate Science Coalition are often gripping and inspire me to more research. I’d like them to find a rich appreciation among a broader audience, so let’s see how they appeal to you, the reader. This first one is from about four days ago. Some of our members prefer to remain anonymous. — RT
[Dr Jock Allison:] Please have a look at https://issuu.com/farmersweeklynz/docs/fw_22-07_issuu page 19. This is the first of a series of four articles that Harry intends to write for the NZ Farmer’s Weekly. Harry Clark is the CEO of the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, and I sent him a copy of the Allison & Sheahen paper (attached), with my assessment that anthropogenic methane was responsible for less than 1% of the world’s warming. His response was as follows. Continue Reading →
These emissions figures are well over ten years old. You’d think by now, for such a topical matter, the Royal Society might have found the 2017 data. Oh, and the MfE claiming agriculture produces nearly half our emissions is a scandal driven only by ideology. They should start pretending they are non-partisan: reduce methane’s atmospheric lifetime to a more realistic five or six years, remove its demented GWP of 28 times carbon dioxide’s and finally acknowledge that the country is a net carbon sink.1
refer The NZ Farmers Weekly – 22 July, 2019
The Government say farmers should pay for emissions from 2025—just six years away—so long as we devise a means of calculating those emissions.
To get their taxes altered, to reflect changes on the farm, farmers will have to provide evidence like invoices and receipts to prove their animal emissions have gone down.
But they’re having to prove they reduce what cannot be proved causes harm.
Because, which is extremely odd, the government has not produced evidence to show the emissions alter the weather, or that there’s a “climate emergency”. That can’t be fair.
The government will say (because they’ve told us before), “we listen to the IPCC.” But to that we say, “We did exactly that too, we examined what they said, and they have no evidence.”
The situation couldn’t be more pig-ignorant if you threw chicken bones on the ground and claimed to know the future. Continue Reading →
Insights from the
NZ Climate Science Coalition
See this:
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/deadline-approaching-climate-change-commission-nominations
James Shaw is making the gross presumption that his loony Zero Carbon Bill will pass, by calling for nominations to a Climate Change Commission BEFORE the proposed legislation establishing that commission has even started its Second Reading.
Continue Reading →
Takes a while to melt this baby.
We’re not afraid of climate change. Since pre-humans started making tools over 2 million years ago we’ve been dealing with climate change and it has never destroyed us. Continue Reading →
Nobody really knows how much it would cost us to attempt to meet James Shaw’s Zero Carbon prescription, as it would take 30 years and there is much about it that is yet unknown.
But the Zero Carbon Bill’s own accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) admits that it’s impossible to identify any quantifiable benefits at all, and following Barry Brill’s outstanding examination of the Bill Continue Reading →
Hills? Clouds? Ocean? — from MetService website
A curious climate scandal was raised this week by one of our long-time favourite readers, biologist Dr Maggy Wassilieff (here is her comment).
Maggy reports on an article in the Sunday Star-Times by Paul Gorman, who describes the extraordinary duplication of national weather forecasting by both the MetService and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), both Crown Research Institutes (CRI).
As an aside, I must say how pleased I am to see a Stuff journalist inquiring into matters of climate—truly exciting, like spotting a unicorn.
Continue Reading →