The summer the tide went out on global warming
January 29th, 2010 at 12:05 pm by David FarrarThis week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg, at NBR, is titled “The summer the tide went out on global warming”.
It is one of my longer columns – 1,300 words, and I think a good summary of the political climate around this issue, such as China and India now refusing to even sign the non binding Copenhagen Accord. A couple of extracts:
I believe the chance of there being a post-Kyoto agreement in the next five years or so to now be minimal. In reaching this conclusion, I look at recent reports of opinion within Governments, then the public and finally what it may mean for the NZ Government. …
The loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat has been a clear message to the Government to focus on the economy and jobs. This is reflected in a Pew Research poll on priorities for 2010. Citizens were polled on 21 potential priorities, and asked for each issue whether it should be a top priority. The three top issues were the economy, jobs and terrorism – all at over 80%. The very bottom issue, of all 21 issues, was climate change at 28%. Three years ago it was at 38%, so has been declining every year. Amongst the all important “Independent” voters, it is bottom ranked at 25%,
My conclusion, focused on what it means for New Zealand, is somewhat provocative.
Related posts:
- Lovelock says global warming slower than predicted
- Global Warming on hold until 2015 claim Germans
- Leyland on global warming
- Global Warming – Yeah Right!
January 29th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Subscribers only? pfft.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Climate Change occurs. Always has done, and always will do. With or without human intervention. Global warming is actually preferable to Global Cooling.
Co2 isn’t a pollutant. Carbon Trading was an Enron brainchild. CRU have been pinged for withholding FOI requests, and that has just been deemed illegal. Egg on faces, funding at risk. Scientists on the dole?
There is no question that we need to garner resources, real pollution needs curtailing, and waste should be minimised.
FFS, the Elephant in the room is population explosion. Particulary in 3rd World Coutries. Diverting whole world economies to address a problem that simply doesn’t exist is insane.
What I object to most, if you give the alarmists their right to flag up a potential problem, is their insistence that the Science is Settled.
Furthermore that any person, crowd, organisation, or movement that want extended debate and open information on all base data. For these to be demonised as deniers, flat earthers or cranks is f*cking rich. Before the idea that there was even an issue, we were being terrified by the self same Scientific Community that there was to be a New Ice Age. Fact is they haven’t got a clue. Gordon Brown’s clarion call of him/Copenhagen only having 50 days to save the World is looking rather amusing now. What a dick.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Gorebul warming is now and ever has a been a load of feel good wank. Any “science” involved has been inciedental and tainted. It it was high school, science project it would get a “D- See me after class.”
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Taking any positions on the Pachauri contracts at iPredict?
Vote:https://www.ipredict.co.nz/Main.php?do=stock_detail&stock=IPCC.RESIGN
January 29th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
DPF, can you please make said article available to be read?
[DPF: Sorry, but NBR have made it subscriber only and that is of course their right]
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Subscriber only, lol.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
>My conclusion, focused on what it means for New Zealand, is somewhat provocative.
But 99% of readers here won’t get to find out what it is because we don’t (and won’t) subscribe to NBR. So here are some guesses:
1. You’ve finally come around to the position that most of us have had for years. Which is that the “evidence” for AGW is complete rubbish, we shouldn’t spend tens of billions of dollars trying to change the weather, that the ETS must be repealed before it trashes the NZ economy, and that Nick Smith is a red-nosed fool who needs to retire.
2. You’ve finally come around to the position that most of us have had for years. Which is that the “evidence” for AGW is complete rubbish. But you still think an ETS is a great idea because Key promised one, and you don’t want to ignore a promise even if it leads to bankruptcy, debt, unemployment, and poverty.
3. You’ve finally come around to the position that most of us have had for years. Which is that the “evidence” for AGW is complete rubbish. But you’re still taking a faith based approach that maintains that there must be other evidence available that hasn’t been presented yet and that warrants spending tens of billions of dollars on an ETS. And if no one else harms their economy by implementing a similar policy, then that’s okay because it’s NZ’s job to lead the world. Just as we did with ACC.
4. You’ve decided to take practical measures to reduce NZ’s carbon emissions by forcing people out of cities in to fields where you and Keith Locke will reduce their carbon footprint with an axe. Because Locke was all in favour of death-to-peasants-and-intellectuals policies back in the 1970s.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Has the petrol prices gone up because of the ETS? I read conflicting stories. Some say it will kick in by June.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“My conclusion, focused on what it means for New Zealand, is somewhat provocative.”
Provocative enough to make empty-suit Key and his foolish minister Nick Smith change their minds and repel the ETS?
Vote:Only time will tell if DPF’s column was the catalyst for a change of heart in this ‘decisive’ National government.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
What Guy Fawkes said absolutely, especially as my typing is so slow. Another week, another 2,000,000 and compounding. And Goonix.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Sell your carbon credits (if any) now, before the whole scheme becomes a laughing stock.
Vote:‘m being optimistic here, that the politicians will finally notice the groundswell of laughter.
January 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Just to keep you up to date, a peer-reviewed report from a day or two ago:
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanisation, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multi-decadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and panelled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UN’s IPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.
That’s all of the Summary For Policymakers – [ http://bit.ly/cl5T9b - 6.1MB PDF file]
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Some of us have been rubbishing this BS for years and getting kicked in the slates for our efforts. As we always said Follow the money. Look at who benefits.
Pollies and civil servants from new taxes that can be explained as TINA There is no alternative and also to protect the taxpayers great grand children
Big Business Super profits by advertising and promoting products as ‘green’ whether its BS or not.
Scientists By getting grants from government for spreading the BS and grants from Big Business by endorsing their BS ‘green” products See University of East Anglia et al
So you have a toxic trio all looking to extract dollars from our hip pockets to enrich themselves.
Well the scamsters including our government have been outed and bought to book.
Great stuff
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Does it show how few people pay to read the NBR that no-one yet has posted DPF’s “provocative” conclusion?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I agree with that. Current data analysis is unreliable. The result of total revision could find any of:
a) the temperature is relatively static
b) the temperature is rising
c) the temperature is falling
If it can be determined with reasonable certainty what is really happening the news could be better, or it could as easily be worse.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
The conclusion was so provocative that it had to be hidden behind a paywall.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
And eh DPF, can you give us the number of readers for your NBR column for and after the paywall?
[DPF: I don't get given that information. I just write the content, and NBR decides what to do with it]
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Pete George 2:22 pm,
Give it a rest, Pete.
When are you ‘believers’ going to accept that the only thing man-made about AGW is the data they modified?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
The conclusion was so provocative that it had to be hidden behind a paywall.
The conclusion is self evident – the bubble has burst on Global Warming.
The Standard which could be counted on to have at least one Global Warming post per day hasn’t had one in at least a week, a sure sign its game over.
Theres just the rotting corpse to deal with now – one of the more putrid parts as far as we are concerned will be getting rid of that awful ETS.
This should be done under urgency, in the same manner as it was passed.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Give what a rest Kris? I’m not deciding one way or the other on this. I “believe” there is a lot of uncertainty that needs urgent clarifying. There is a lot of doubt, and that works both ways.
Just because the situation has become a mess it doesn’t mean the the actual situation fits anyone’s preferred position. A hiccup (albeit major) along the way doesn’t mean it has concluded.
Their uncertainty doesn’t prove your “certainty”, you could be as wrong (or more wrong) than them.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
GHG forced climate change due to human activities is a reality that all the protests will not alter. The sad thing is that as science increasingly shows that the IPCC, due in large part to the processes it set up, including built-in long delayed response times, seriously underestimates the rapid rate of dangerous (to humans, but not just to humans) future climate change. For example, average sea level rise is now understood to more likely to between 1 – 2m by 2100, than up to 58cms.
Just as we still have creationists, astrologers, UFO believers, fundamentalists of any persuasion, in fact, who reject sound science, we will have our anthropogenic climate change deniers until the water is lapping at their suburban doors (not at my house, though. I’m high up above the harbour, so I’m alright, Jack).
Even in the US, some areas of Florida cannot get insurance for climate events for their homes, and some areas now authorise new buildings only on the basis that the owners remove them when they become non-viable, and still the public at large simply lags behind the hard-nosed business reality driving such actions.
Interestingly, in Europe, where the impact is already widely evident, there is no such denier debate. I put this disconnect, in NZ at least, down to the fact that we are in an oasis of relatively stable climate, lying just below the latitude that in the Southern Hemisphere will see an already warm climate became hot.
Due to gravitational influences, we (and the Eastern seaboard of the US) are forecast to have above average sea level increases, but even that will have fairly minimal effects on NZ. On the other hand, Australia, mostly in the danger zone, will suffer far-reaching effects.
My prediction, given the unwillingness of populations to consider the well-being of future generations (the propensity towards instant gratification encapsulated by the baby Boomer generation, is that realisation of the gravity of our predicament will be realised when the effects are simply so obvious, so horrendous, that even the nay-sayers are silenced.
By then (if it is not already) it will be too late to but than prepare for humans and many other species to dwindle or become extinct as the planet lurches towards a new equilibrium, the equilibrium of a hot planet.
The ray of hope is, in fact, is future generations. More highly educated than their parents, they will recoil in disgust as it dawns on them what we have left behind.
It’s not going to be pretty.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Come on Pete even ardent warmisters are deserting
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2010/01/rats-are-leaving-sinking-ship.html
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Lord Monckton in Australia
(Please spread this message widely) 12 Jan. 2010
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (Christopher Lord Monckton) has agreed to come on a lecture tour in Australia in late January 2010. In addition to the lunch at 6/112 Millswyn St, South Yarra he will be lecturing as follows:
• Sydney January 27th, Sheraton on the Park, 5:30 pm
• Newcastle January 28th, Banquet Room, City Hall, 12:30 pm
• Brisbane January 29th, Irish Club, 3:00 pm
• Noosa January 30th, The J , 2:00 pm
• Melbourne February 1st, Sofitel Hotel, 5:30 pm
• Canberra Feb. 3rd, program yet to be determined
• Adelaide Feb. 4th, Intercontinental Hotel, 7:30 pm
• Perth Feb. 8th, Parmelia Hilton, 5:30 pm
There has so far been an almost overwhelming response to this tour. This doubtless reflects the Copenhagen fiasco and the revelations of manipulations of data and attacks on sceptics by the Hadley Centre. Already, the “believers” are undertaking ad hominen attacks on Monckton.
The sponsors, Messrs Smit and Smeed, are seeking to get as many “agnostics” and “true believers” along to Monckton’s lectures. So if you have any such friends, please persuade them to come along.
As you can understand, the cost of this exercise will be very substantial and if you have not as yet made a donation and wish to do so, your donations should be directed to:
Westpac Bank – Lord Monckton Tour account Bank BSB: 035612
Account: 253068
The sponsors can be contacted as follows:
Case Smit BSc CIH(ret) CP(Env) FAusIMM
John Smeed D.MechE FIEAust CPEng RPEQ Noosaville Qld. 4566 (currently in Melbourne) Noosa Heads, Qld. 4567
0418 521 304 0417 269 216
case.smit@gmail.com johnsmeed@adna.com.au
Attached below is a presentation Monkton delivered in the UK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded
Attached below is an interview with a Greenpeace protester:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE
His response to Rudd re his criticisms of him and the “junket” party that attended Copenhagen.
Climate change: Lord Monkton’s Personal Briefing to Australia’s Prime Minister (Debunks Copenhagen)
Posted on Monday, 4 January 2010 1:00:47 PM by Robert A. Cook, PE
A letter sent from: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
1 January 2010
His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.
Prime Minister,
Climate change: proposed personal briefing
Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.
Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.
You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.
You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.
You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.
The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.
Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –
ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.
By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –
Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°
– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°
= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°
One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.
You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.
Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.
Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.
Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.
Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?
You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.
How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.
You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.
You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.
However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.
Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.
You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.
The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.
Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.
However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.
Yours faithfully,
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
These are the people – including one “Gaia” who went as an official “political advisor” to the Australian Climate Change Committee delegation – who spent roughly 15,000.00 per person to stand in the dark blizzard freezing because the UN IPCC spent two years planning an international conference for 45,000 delegates in a room capable of holding only 15,000 people.
No wonder they can’t stand real science. Math. Or algebra. Economics ….
THE RUDD GOVERNMENT’S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST
December 2009
The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –
1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister
2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water
3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.
4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister
5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.
6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept.
7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office
16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept.
17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office\
18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office
19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet
20. Stephan Rudzki
21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police
23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police
24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police
25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations
27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg.
42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany
60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus.
69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.
70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury
75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships
76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.
79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.
80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.
84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier
85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford
86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt.
87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.
88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd.
90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Ass.
91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
98. Belinda Lee Adams
99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen at the SPPI blog:
Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Hugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.
Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.
Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.
Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference.
However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day.
Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.
In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.
Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.
He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.
I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.
I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”
In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned.
I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.
The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.
To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.
Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.
However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.
It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.
A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.
While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.
However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.
He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”
Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Edit: the reference to Australia Para 5 was intended as general climate change, not sea level in particular. And I omitted to close the brackets after “generation” in the next paragraph. Sorry about that folks.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Interesting that the US has just declared a target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/us-sets-17pc-carbon-emissions-reduction-target/story-e6frg6xf-122582455363
Also interesting that UAE CRU have escaped being done for their breaches of the FOI act only because they are outside the 6 month time limit for prosecutions, however it seems it will lead to a change to the FOIA to address this. I’m hoping some more FOI requests will be made now and enforced.
Happy happy joy joy.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I can’t see anywhere in that that says “What Andrei thinks is right and everyone who disagrees or doubts him is wrong”.
Yes, their are obvious problems with IPCC.
Yes there are questions over some of the current data.
Where is the conclusive data that proves your view?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Only one party has a sensible policy on AGW.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“My prediction, given the unwillingness of populations to consider the well-being of future generations (the propensity towards instant gratification encapsulated by the baby Boomer generation, is that realisation of the gravity of our predicament will be realised when the effects are simply so obvious, so horrendous, that even the nay-sayers are silenced.
By then (if it is not already) it will be too late to but than prepare for humans and many other species to dwindle or become extinct as the planet lurches towards a new equilibrium, the equilibrium of a hot planet.”
The above apocalyptical lines qualiy comrade Luc as the sole winner of the 2010 Science Fiction prize. It would give even the fantastic IPCC report a god run for its money.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Luc, I only had to read your first paragraph to confirm you are a repeater of alarmist BS. Sea level rise will be well below 58cm by 2100 (most likely a max of 30cm).
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
Vote:Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
January 29th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Manalo, that’s called “shoot the messenger.” Just because the facts don’t sit comfortably with you does not invalidate the facts.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Pete George – there is simply no reason to believe the ice caps are going to melt before 2100 – it could happen but there is no good reason to believe it is going to.
There is absolutely not a skerrit of evidence to suggest that there is anything unusual going on with the climate.
Every single bit of alarmist hysteria which was held up to panic policy makers into making bad decisions now lies in tatters.
Even the supposed 0.8°C that the average temperature is supposed to have risen by looks decidedly dodgy.
In fact mathematically that claim was always unsustainable but since math is beyond the average politician it stood for a while as gospel – but no more.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Hey swiftman quick question, what the hell was up with that 12 page hijack please.
If you’re going to whore at least just link whore thanks.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Whoah, my BS detector is going, must be Luc claiming something as fact….
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Manolo 2:58 pm,
God had nothing to do with the IPCC report
Although having said that, there have been a lot of earthquakes and tsunamis recently, so maybe we’re just looking in the wrong places? It’s not AGW we should worry about, but rather GIND™
GIND™: God Induced Natural Disasters.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Luc wouldn’t know a fact if it smacked him the face. And if Luc is the messanger then by all means open fire.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Murray it came to me in an email you fucking rude asshole.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
murray’s been a “rude asshole” ever since he drank too much of the jooce. Or was it koolaid?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Who is that party Chuck?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
There is absolutely not a skerrit of evidence to suggest that there is a god. But I don’t know how you can be so certain about the climate (apart from it being a belief rather than based on anything factual). It is known we affect the climate. It is just uncertain how much and in what ways.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
swiftman
Vote:yeah read that.
I think they should take both Obama’s and Al Gores Nobel’s off of them and give it to that man even if he is British.
Lying bastards.
January 29th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I wonder why the most sick, perverse, crimes seem to be committed by whites (noticeably South Island whites):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10622979&pnum=2
Of course Mr Farrar will have no interest in drawing attention to this most vomit inducing criminal case (linked) in a long time.
Maori, or other non-white depravities warrant racial condemnation of course.
But not white over-representation in crimes of sexual perversity and paedophilia.
I challenge Mr Farrar to create a blog on the House of Horrors killer – surely more deserving of condemnation than even this sick animal abuser who fed kittens to his pitbull
I doubt if he will though – because in this case the perpetrator is white.
[DPF: 10 demerits for off topic - this is a thread on climate change. Also you may wish to look at the coverage I did of Clayton Weatherston - who is white. Only in your mind, is race a factor in what crimes I cover]
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
“It is known we affect the climate”
Does pissing in the wind really count though.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Pete “But I don’t know how you can be so certain about the climate (apart from it being a belief rather than based on anything factual). It is known we affect the climate. It is just uncertain how much and in what ways.”
I think your comment has validity, however the belief vs fact comment is a two-edged sword. It is becoming clearer that the facts are on the side of the skeptics. Basically while accepting some of the assertions about human influence on climate have a basis in fact, the magnitude of such influences is now proving to be much much lower than the alarmists claimed.
The science is not settled, it’s having a tantrum!
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
mjennings, take it to general debate
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Jackboot as been an anti-semitic asshole since her first read mien kampf.
Call me odd but I don’t show respect to things I despise.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
White Criminals in Kiwiblogs Top Search Terms:
5. NZ entertainer name suppression 4,300
7. Phil Ure 3,900
8. Clayton Weatherston 3,700
10. David Bain 3,000
11. Cameron Slater 2,800
13. Karen Soich 2,200
14. Noelle McCarthy 2,200
Other races: 0
White Criminals on Kiwiblog Top Pages Visited:
3. The poor entertainer 21,000
6. Comedians line up to say no 10,000
7. David Bain case 7,500
8. David Bain coverage 6,800
9. Richard Worth resigns 6,300
10. Clayton Weatherston 5,000
Other races: 0
You are a stupid rascist mjennings.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Sonny Blount:
The David Bain case does not cut it at all – the issue of his guilt or innocence was of enormous public interest – Kiwiblog was not posting his mug up there and saying what a sick fuck this fellow is.
Clayton Weatherston had it coming because of his courtroom theatrics and most importantly because he killed a pretty white girl.
The fact is the most perverse sick crimes, child porn afficianados are dominated by whites (especially from Christchurch and Dunedin). This is as accurate as saying Asians dominate P importation and Polynesians dominate home invasion stats.
But baby rapists, purveyors of child porn (who also provide the main audience), necrophiliacs, and mutilators of females are mainly white.
No one would say I was racist if I pointed to an overrepresentation of Polynesians in tagging or burglary. So why is it racist when I point out peculiarly white depravities?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
. But I don’t know how you can be so certain about the climate (apart from it being a belief rather than based on anything factual). I’m not certain what the climate is going to do Pete George – the only thing anybody has to go on is past history.
I am certain however the “facts” presented by the IPCC as science are neither facts nor science.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
It would be great if we could get rid of this climate change rip off! It’s time the other side of the story started getting some coverage. Then get rid of the mountains of buearacrates in this country and we might start coming right!! oh well its nice to dream!!
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Just come back from a public Climate Change panel discussion at Vic.
What a wonderful brainwashing operation they’ve got going for our kids. Not a hint of healthy scepticism from any on the 11-member panel, all warmmongers to the core.
I hated to upset the wonderfully affirming applecart, but in the end couldn’t resist asking this question (after introducing myself as a Climate Scientology heretic):
“What would happen to any enquiring student in this course who dared to voice inconvenient questions about reports of fraud in the Nobel-winning 2007 IPCC report?
“Or about the 100 million Africans who are dying because of the doubling of food prices caused by the conversion of crops from food to biofuel?
“Or about how the previous speaker [I think Jonathan Boston] referred to oil companies profiting from fossil fuels, but did not provide balance by referring to all the academics who profit by perpetuating a belief in global warming?”
Needless to say, there was much grumbling and diverting and I’m still waiting for my answer.
Outside the lecture theatre were the students’ posters, not one of which suggested they had been exposed to any sceptical viewpoint.
I suggested to two people that the only fair thing to do was convene an international court hearing presided over by a panel of judges acceptable to both sides.
Boy were these guys hostile to any hint of an impartial assessment of the evidence!
Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed how one-sided this seat of so-called learning is, and can quite understand how similar institutions like the University of East Anglia can become corrupted by their own unbalanced vision of the truth.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I think most climate scientists would support this, some probably grudgingly, but some would encourage it.
I’d welcome it, I think something like this is needed urgently.
And I think there are some (including posters here) who would not be happy accepting anything that threatens their fixed position.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
John Ansell 4:37 pm,
Surely you’re not suggesting that this conspiracy extends even to universities in NZ, bugger me
Another group of ‘academics’ on the ‘payroll’ no doubt.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Pete, and I agree with something you said earlier. Yes, there is a mess in the data, yes, there is some sorting out needed. That doesn’t mean that at the end of all that sorting out that there will be no warming. Personally, I suspect that it would show much less warming, and smaller feedbacks. Some on here seem to think that if you can find any uncertainty anywhere in the arguments, that automatically means we’re entering the next ice age tomorrow.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
This supports exactly what you suggested Paul.
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests
It’s likely we will get a lot of ongoing reports on research, some like this moderating the climate change claims, some reinforcing them, and possibly some adding still more weight to them. It will all come down the size and balance of effects.
The only certainty is there will be no evidence of no climate change.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Pete George & PaulL,
And then of course we get others suggesting that, in fact, we are not warming at all, but rather cooling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/
http://www.climatecooling.org/
From ClimateCooling.org:
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Global Warming is as bigger threat to mankind as the Y2K Bug !!
It is simply Global Hot Air.
Oh for some politicians with enough guts to stand up and say that its unproven and therefore we would be better helping our economy to keep growing and then we can help those that are truely disadvantaged.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I have written to Nick Smith asking for his views on the IPCC data-falsification scandal. I doubt he will ever reply to me.
All things considered, why would New Zealanders have to pay higher petrol prices (and associated costs) in the name of an unproven theory, if not an outright fabrication?
The question remains: when will Key’s government repel the ETS?
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Politicians with enough guts?
The problem may be that there are people behind the scenes that politicians are pressured or threatened by.
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”
— Benjamin Disraeli
But None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Kris K: The sun’s face is no longer quiet. Here is the latest image:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_284/512/
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
And here is the 30-year trend in artice sea ice. It’s down, baby, down.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
And here is the satellite temperature record from a skeptic for the same period. Note the way the trend is up. It jags about, but the lowest points on the jags keep getting higher.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Further to the idea of an international court hearing, does anyone know whether even one of the 192 countries represented at Copenhagen has taken the trouble to convene a truly independent commission of enquiry into climate change?
If so, what did it or they conclude?
If not, why not?
Such an enquiry should be public and televised.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
I do hope the socialist gits in Wellington get a free copy of the NBR, thieving pack of bastards. It’s fairly clear that Shonkey and his merry men have been done over like a dogs dinner. Will they have the balls to admit they’ve been conned and dump their stupid tax crab, doubt it. The country is nearly broke and poor old Shonkey can’t proceed with tax cuts, the peasants will have to stump up. Whats the bet the National Socialists are spewing their ring gears out knowing that Joe Citizen has seen through the lies and horseshit, what a terrible dilemma for the poor things.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
@Ross Nixon: Interesting paper. Are you sure it is peer reviewed? Some of it is quite good, some of it is just reproducing previously disputed analysis.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
It’s not peer reviewed.
Vote:January 29th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
John Ansell,
Good on you for asking your inconvenient questions. Would love to have been there and to have seen them squirm! With regard to your question about a truly independent commission of enquiry – no, I have not seen anything along those lines but I have seen this
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/An–Indian-IPCC–on-the-way–Jairam/570786
“An Indian IPCC on the Way”.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:27 am
” Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed how one-sided this seat of so-called learning is, and can quite understand how similar institutions like the University of East Anglia can become corrupted by their own unbalanced vision of the truth. ”
Fucking criminal. These lying indoctrinating bastards who pervert the profession of teaching to a political cause should be brought to justice.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Luc Hansen
You just don’t get this, the tide has gone out not because nobody believes the scientist might be right, but because faith that the science was conducted rigorously and without bias has been lost. If there is not time to re-validate the conclusions then we had better all start building ark’s today.
I’m not going to debate the science with you, but I don’t see how any reasonable scientist can be fully satisfied that the IPCC conclusions meet the criteria to be called scientific. Restore the faith in the process and the data, priority 1. This will not be achieved by arguing the conclusions.
I’ll warn my kids to look out for Gore’s grandson telling them they need to burn buckets of coal and keep their lawns well mowed and cut down their trees in 50 years after a decade of decline.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 6:10 am
Who said this?
“Western industrialised nations are responsible for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for “drastic solutions” to global warming, and “not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”
No, it wasn’t Nick Smith, our “competent minister”, but Osama Bin Laden himself.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Our friend John Ansell reminds of a person (English immigrant, but this information is purely as context and is not intended to insinuate that all Poms are a bit dotty, or that John is a Pom) I worked with many, many moons ago.
I was his supervisor and he used to latch onto to me as I passed, ostensibly to ask a question about the job but very quickly moving on to inform me of the latest moves of the SIS round the clock surveillance team keeping very close tabs on – guess who.
Why would the SIS be doing that to an elderly (well, at least to my twenty-something eyes; probably just late middle-aged, like me now), inoffensive, mild mannered man working in an obscure little factory in the back streets of Otahuhu? Indeed. I asked the same question myself. Bad move. It turned out, from the resultant interminable monologues, that there were lots of reasons, as there would be, of course.
The pity of it all is that I can’t remember them but they would be a great basis for a few short stories!
I do hope John’s got a sense of humour.
Anyway, just to quickly reply to John’s questions that were, according to John, either studiously ignored or greeted with hostility in a forum dedicated to the reality of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
1. IPCC fraud. One example of sloppy reviewing does not invalidate possibly the most all-encompassing science-based project of all time. As far as the glaciers go, though, John, most of the world’s glaciers are melting. The only dispute is how fast. Here is one example for you.
2. 100m dead Africans as a result of biofuel cultivation – some proof please John. And remember that the US jacked up the price of biofuel crops by subsidising its own farmers who did the switch from grain to biofuel at the behest of one G W Bush. Who buys the crops, John? Yes, it’s a misguided policy, but does not disprove AGW.
3. Fossil fuel vs academic profits. Did you pay to enter this forum, John? Were the academics in attendance on overtime rates? I’m sure they would retort, “Fat chance!” And to conflate oil companies huge profits with any meagre earnings academics may derive from consulting, or books that hardly raise a mention in the general public discourse, is just a bit rich, don’t you think?
4. You call for an international court hearing on…what, exactly? You want to examine the skeptical views of climate warming? But John, those belong to the very scientists you keep decrying. Scientists are skeptics by nature. You need to read up on the Scientific Method, in my opinion.
John, you are not a skeptic, you are a DENIER.
And John, be fair: if your properly convened court (no potty peer on the bench, I take it) came down on the side of the IPCC and the scientists, wouldn’t that just be more evidence of the worldwide conspiracy against…the species homosapien?
5. You want an impartial opinion? John, although scientists are also human, I remind you of the retort of the great cricket umpire, Dickie Bird, when asked about the idea of neutral umpires – “All umpires are neutral.” Does the term “evidence based” mean anything to you, John?
And of course, John, just as the man I once worked with saw every innocent person at a pedestrian crossing as an SIS agent, so you see genuine puzzlement, and probably a bit of impatience, of your dotty questioning as just more evidence of the worldwide conspiracy against…against…you, I guess, John.
Ah well, keep your pecker up, old chap.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 8:59 am
With this guy declaring his support for the Warmists, you know for sure their cause is sabotaging the West:
Vote:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/strange-but-true-bin-laden-on-global-warming/#more-15829
Add that to the furore developing over the dependence on parts of the IPCC report on references to lobby group propaganda from the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, as well as the corruption exposures that are unfolding, and this thing is set to blow. It is amazing how the NZ media have not caught up with what is happening overseas yet.
I suggest the Nats need to quietly dump the ETS urgently, or they could soon face having to get rid of a very badly decaying mess in embarrassing circumstances that might well demand resignations.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:08 am
“Who is that party Chuck?”
Mike, ACT of course
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 10:37 am
John Ansell;
Go over here there’s lots more discussion and info.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32&p=28047#p28047
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=702&p=28046#p28046
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=934&p=28035#p28035
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Luc, sorry, no proper answers in there.
1. IPCC fraud. I wouldn’t quite call it fraud, but there are a hell of a lot of questions being asked, and the answers are looking shakier. The glaciers was the most egregious, but the questions around the ground-based temperature record are more than just sloppy reviewing. The questions about the size of the forcings and feedback, including those raised by NASA scientists, also require a lot of answering. The fact that the consensus is breaking should give some pause. Does that mean there is no warming? No. Does it mean the size of that warming, and the confidence that it will become runaway warming is in doubt? Yes.
2. The US jacked up the price of biofuel crops by subsidising them? I’d like to see how subsidies make things more expensive. Maybe in your anti-capitalist world, but not in the real world. Good try at blaming George Bush though.
3. Not fossil fuel v’s academic profits. Incentives for individuals. I would say that most of the large corporates have now worked out how to make massive windfall profits from global warming. They’re very much on the side of the warmers. And yes, that includes a lot of fossil fuel companies – their prices are going to go up, and they’re going to be exempted from the taxes and ETS. The oil in the ground is going to be worth a hell of a lot more. They have little to complain about. The point is that, for many of these academics, their entire career hinges on finding warming. Without warming they get no funding, without aligning with the consensus their papers get rejected from peer reviewed journals, without publishing they cannot get promoted. Do they overtly doctor their results? Only occassionally. Do they look twice as hard at any result that doesn’t align with the consensus, and give a brief review to any result that aligns with the consensus? Yes. Does that create a bias in all their results? Yes.
4. The international court I think was to review the temperature record. Everything that this science is based on comes down to a relatively small data set over the last 150 years. All the major papers use that data set in one way or another. That dataset itself is in question in a number of ways, if we cannot trust that data set then all the results are in question.
5. Would that be like the chair of the IPCC, who said that any suggestion the glaciers in the Himalayas in fact wouldn’t melt before 2035 was “voodoo science.” He’d be a scientist, right? So by your definition, impartial? Doesn’t sound very impartial to me.
Frankly, you’re being a cheerleader for the warmers. That’s your right, but don’t expect us to take you or your arguments seriously if all you’re doing is regurgitating talking points without any thinking of your own.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 11:15 am
It pushed up the price of food crops. By subsidising biofuel crops many “farmers” (in the US that is more often companies) switched from food crops to biofuel, which created a shortage of food crops, pushing their prices up. An unintended consequence.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Pete, Luc said:
He’s saying biofuel crop prices went up because of US subsidies. I’ll buy that food crop prices went up because of US subsidies to biofuels, but not that biofuel prices went up. Maybe Luc is just using sloppy wording, if so, yet another reason to not take him seriously.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Fight global warming…..join forces with this guy?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Ms Luc Hansen said…
GHG forced climate change …
And here we go again. The illiterate Ms Hansen is at it again. She simply repeats what others say on the internet then cut & pasted them here without knowing what they are.
Ms Hansen, do you understand what does forced climate change mean? Here is your hint. Scroll down to the section with title Forced Response on this link and check out the basic definition of system forcing. You should educate yourself some basic science, and then top it up with your typical cut & paste from what you read on the net, so it makes you knowledgeable in what you’re trying to debate here, because you’re obviously clueless.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
PaulL said;
Luc is just hiding the decline, it’s a trick the IPCC taught him. Apparently it is valid to make stuff up when in your heart of hearts you hope what you are saying is right.
Vote:January 30th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I think you’re all missing the point, which is that regardless of whether it’s a scientific reality, it’s a political phenomena.
While it remains such, it requires political action, in the minds of the idiot MSM and the majority of idiot politicians who slavishly take their lead from said MSM.
Whether that action ever actually achieves anything practical beyond a warm feeling in some people’s tummy’s, has never been the driver. It never was, and never has been.
This AGW phenomena has been an interesting gateway that exposes the vapid venal self-righteous behaviour that inhabits almost all of politics. Emphasis on vapid.
That’s the real story and yet, surprisingly, most people still concentrate on debating the small picture.
Vote:January 31st, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Thanks Pete, but I meant to say that the African farmers reaped a higher reward from biofuel crops that food crops and that was due to US demand, which was boosted by subsidies to US farmers. I was in a bit of a rush then, and yes, I do make mistakes and occasionally even suffer from total brain fade. It’s a bummer being human!
Falafulu Fisi, one does not live one’s life becoming an expert in everything. The only real expertise one needs is the ability to listen to the experts and decide which have the credibility and plausibility that satisfies one. I have no intention of learning climate change maths. You are welcome to question the scientists, and you have the expertise to do so, but the only time I have seen you dip your toes into that water is on RC where you were politely rubbished. If you have had greater successes than that, please give us the link.
As I have said many times before, I entered this debate by chasing down many of the naysayers arguments presented on here only to discover that they did not stand up – not by spending years at university, but by going to the experts.
And that includes nonsense posted by you.
Climate change through human-caused warming is real, it’s here now and people are increasingly being hurt by it. It’s only a matter of time before Aoteroa New Zealand is adversely affected too.
One of the consequences of most significance is that New Zealand will become a destination of choice for many climate change refugees, and how we deal with that will define us as nation, both to ourselves and to the world.
Vote: