Climate Change

Wouldn’t surprise me if NIWA are just as compromised

balloon_hoax

Tony Abbott’s top business adviser says the Bureau of Meteorology is caught up in global warming politics and nothing short of an independent review will dispel suspicions of bias.

Maurice Newman, who chairs the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, is highly critical of the BoM’s process of homogenising climate records.

Mr Newman questioned the way the bureau adjusts historical data, which he equates to manipulation of Australia’s temperature records.

“The stated reasons for homogenisation seem arbitrary,” he wrote in The Australian on Wednesday.

“It should explain why homogenisation consistently turns cooling trends to warming and why pre-1910 records were dropped and, with them, the extreme heatwaves of the Federation drought.”

The same problems here with NIWA that are dropping stations that produce data they aren’t happy with and modify data of other stations.    If you have people modifying the base data, then everything else becomes suspect.   Read more »

13 useful facts about Climate Change to rebut the Green taliban

Sick to death of having Green taliban busy bodies look down their nose at you, clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers that they know best about climate change.

Here are 13 facts to learn up to shove back into their faces.

Here are the known facts. Use them to protect yourself against the Green assault the truth:

  1. Both the Earth and the Sun pass through natural cycles. The Sun is currently in a cycle of lower radiation as signaled by fewer sunspots representing magnetic storms.
  2.  There is currently no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years. No child who has passed through K-12 classes in school has experienced a single day of “global warming.
  3. Not one computer model that predicted increased warming has been accurate.
  4.  Carbon dioxide, (CO2) blamed for global warming, is not a “pollutant” despite a Supreme Court decision stating this. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% of CO2.
  5.  How can carbon dioxide be called a “pollutant” when it is directly responsible for the growth of all vegetation on the planet? Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree. Or the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food.
  6.  There is zero evidence that carbon dioxide generated by human activities is causing catastrophic climate change. Climate is measured in centuries or shorter periods of many decades in order to determine its cycles. The weather is what is occurring where you reside and it changes every day.   Read more »

The hype of the scientists, caught out again

One of the refrains from warmists is that the science is settled, no more arguments can be countenanced, the earth is warming and the scientists almost all agree.

It is of course a fallacy that the scientists agree and the 97% figure claimed has been thoroughly debunked.

There was a time  when scientists presented evidence and other scientists examined the work and either supported the hypothesis or destroyed it. These days they seem more intent on developing consensus rather than proof.

We have seen this before too, remember the Ozone calamity?

Well apparently that was as over hyped by the scientists as the current climate scare….and so too is the “fix” to the ozone layer.

Matt Ridley writes:

My recent Times column argued that the alleged healing of the ozone layer is exaggerated, but so was the impact of the ozone hole over Antarctica:

The ozone layer is healing. Or so said the news last week. Thanks to a treaty signed in Montreal in 1989 to get rid of refrigerant chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the planet’s stratospheric sunscreen has at last begun thickening again. Planetary disaster has been averted by politics.

For reasons I will explain, this news deserves to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You do not have to dig far to find evidence that the ozone hole was never nearly as dangerous as some people said, that it is not necessarily healing yet and that it might not have been caused mainly by CFCs anyway.

The timing of the announcement was plainly political: it came on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, and just before a big United Nations climate conference in New York, the aim of which is to push for a climate treaty modelled on the ozone one.

Here’s what was actually announced last week, in the words of a Nasa scientist, Paul Newman: “From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 per cent in the key mid-northern latitudes.” That’s a pretty small change and it is in the wrong place. The ozone thinning that worried everybody in the 1980s was over Antarctica.

Over northern latitudes, ozone concentration has been falling by about 4 per cent each March before recovering. Over Antarctica, since 1980, the ozone concentration has fallen by  40 or 50 per cent each September before the sun rebuilds it.

So what’s happening to the Antarctic ozone hole? Thanks to a diligent blogger named Anthony Watts, I came across a press release also from Nasa about nine months ago, which said: “ Two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”    Read more »

Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate change double standard

Climate Change hypocrites abound, every country has them.

In New Zealand we have Lucy Lawless and in the US they have plenty more. Al Gore is int eh A-League for climate hypocrisy, and Leonardo DiCaprio is now in the same league.

His carbon footprint so far in 2014 would be a minimum of 40 million metric tons, more than twice the average American output.

With his speech in front of the United Nations today, Leonardo DiCaprio cemented his reputation as one of the world’s highest-profile activists on climate change.

‘You can make history …or be vilified by it,’ he told world leaders.

After marching with 400,000 others on the streets of New York this weekend to demand tough regulations to cut the amount of CO2 being pumped into the air, DiCaprio opened a UN climate change summit by urging world leaders to crack down on polluters and ‘put a price tag on carbon emissions.’

But the 39-year-old Hollywood star’s own jetset lifestyle reveals a double-standard on the issue of climate change.

In his speech to the UN, he said: ‘This disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make.’

MailOnline can report that DiCaprio took at least 20 trips across the nation and around the world this year alone – including numerous flights from New York to Los Angeles and back, a ski vacation to the French Alps, another vacation to the French Riveria, flights to London and Tokoyo to promote his film Wolf of Wall Street, two trips to Miami and a private jet to Brazil to watch the World Cup.

And those were just the trips where he was spotted in public.

Additionally, DiCaprio owns at least four homes: two apartments in New York and mansions in Hollywood and Palm Springs.

He also recently sold an estate in Malibu for $17million.

And this summer, he spent his World Cup vacation on the fifth largest yacht in the world, which is owned by Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan – a billionaire oil tycoon from the UAE.

[...]    Read more »

Global warming coming to Canada

After the Arctic was once agin not ice free this summer, despite being 3 years overdue from being free from ice forever, the Canadians are set to enjoy some real global warming.

Brace yourself: the Old Farmer’s Almanac has revealed its predictions for Canada’s upcoming winter season, and it’s not great news.

After last winter’s seemingly never-ending wickedly cold weather, residents in much of the country can expect more of the same in the coming months.

“We’re looking at the T-Rex of winters,” Jack Burnett, editor of the Old Farmer’s Almanac, said on CTV’s Canada AM on Thursday.

“It’s going to be colder, it’s going to be snowier … it’s not pretty.”

According to the almanac, central Canada, in particular, is expected to experience winter’s nasty bite.

“From Calgary to Quebec, we’re going to be up to our neck,” Burnett said.

One of the few exceptions will be southwestern Ontario, which will be cold, but with below-normal snowfall.

Burnett said forecasts show that while Toronto and the surrounding region will experience a deep-freeze, it’s going to be drier this winter, with “fluffier snow.”

Read more »

Let’s invite a vitriolic torrent of abuse

Guest post

The Foundations of Green Policy

The polls have consistently shown the Green Party at about half the Labour party’s support.  It could then be concluded that the Greens would have a third of the Cabinet positions and a commensurate amount of influence in a Left wing government.

Given some incompetence of Labour on policy matters it could be an even greater bias.

It is important for the electorate to be able to assess what that means for the future of the country.

The Greens have two underlying philosophic positions that shape their policies.  One is old-fashioned and long since disproved and mostly abandoned socialism.  The other is climate change.

Socialism hardly needs any more discrediting.  It is a recipe for economic misery and failure. The higher taxes, picking winners, state ownership and control, heavier handed regulation, bloated bureaucracy slowly stifles growth and kills initiative. Ironically, socialist governed countries generally have the worst and most degraded environments.

However the climate change premise demands further scrutiny as a platform for policy and a basis for legislation changes.

Speaking out against climate change is a sure way to invite a vitriolic torrent of abuse, name calling and dismissal.  So I am not going to.

I humbly accept the notion of climate change. Climate change is settled science.  It’s up there in certainty terms with the earth being round not flat.

However ‘climate change’ is a deliberate misnomer because we all accept on-going change.  What is open to question is how much, what is causing it and what if anything should we do about it.   Read more »

Guest Post – Climate Change, ETS Policies and Cunliffe’s Conflict of Interest

Photo/ Stuff.co.nz

Photo/ Stuff.co.nz

This is a guest post from a long time reader. The writer states:

I have been looking at and thinking about this issue for a few weeks now and had expected some coverage on the issues in the media leading up to the election but there’s been nothing.

Your post last weekend leading up to Father’s Day and suggestion to send in a post to Pete got me thinking.  However my apologies that this is not a short 500-1000 word post.

I am not a public figure, a journalist, or blogger.  I am not a member of any political party either.  I am currently a stay at home mother who also does a bit of charity work for a national charity which has nothing to do with these issues.


I have a question. It is important and arises out of an issue that ought to have some light shed on it before we cast our vote in less than a week as we weigh up who we trust to run our country because there is a risk that decisions might be made following the election that none of us thought we voted for. By then it is too late. This issue has not featured during this entire election campaign and I suspect the media’s insatiable lust for the “dirty politics” saga has taken up so much of the oxygen that even the proponents of global warming and climate change have choked on all the hot air arising from the political storm that has ensued.

‘Climate change’ and in particular the mechanism for a “polluter-pays” regime has been high on the agenda and a significant issue for all of the political parties in the previous three election campaigns with plenty of debate. This time it has been buried under all the popular issues de jour such as child poverty, capital gains tax and the minimum wage.   It surprises me especially when I recall previous elections and the spectre of an increase in the cost of living arising out of taxes on carbon pollution.

Much like the ongoing debate as to whether climate change is a controllable impact on our environment, until recently there has been a lot of debate on all sides of the political and environmental spectrum as to the desirability, credibility and effectiveness of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) versus a simple carbon tax. I don’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of all the competing arguments. I am not an industry participant by any definition but an end-use consumer, a mother of three young children in her 40s, with a sizeable mortgage to pay on top of other increasing living costs.

The sustainability of our planet, protecting our environment and ensuring the generations that follow in our footsteps aren’t adversely affected by the excesses of our times is important to me and yet I remain concerned at the rising cost of living and the potential impact the introduction of new taxes or costs based on amorphous concepts such as climate change will have on our economy.

I also want to know the detail and what the deal is for each of the parties.   We didn’t need the “Dirty Politics” book to teach us that behind political parties’ policies lie individuals, lobby groups and industry sector groups with a vested interest in the success or otherwise of proposed laws that will affect them.

As a voter and an individual I am no different in that I want to know what I am up for and what will affect me in the pocket following this election. So I went looking for party policies on this issue and the future of the ETS in particular, because it doesn’t take a genius to note that as ‘polluters’ responsible for around 47% of New Zealand’s total emissions (based on 2010 figures[i]) if the agricultural sector is included in the ETS the high costs faced by farmers will inevitably be passed on to us as consumers of dairy and meat products.

What did I learn?    Read more »

Half a dozen protestors and it makes the front page of The Press?

Half a dozen people walk up a busy road in the freezing cold wind and rain all worried about non existent global warming and it’s front page news.

Protesters marched in Christchurch today to encourage people to think about climate change when they vote in next week’s election.

Several environmental groups have banded together and are trying to encourage people to consider climate a top priority when casting their vote.

Timed to encourage people to think about climate change when they vote in next week’s election, protestors marched in Christchurch today.   Read more »

Is global warming worth it?

The warmists would have us all believe that the planet is doomed and it all because of us.

They say we must tax ourselves and the green taliban want us to abandon our advances as a society to live the way they want to tell us.

But is global warming worth keeping for all the advances that have been made?

You bet it is.

[L]et’s concede for the purposes of this piece that climate change threatens society in serious ways right now. If you want to argue that Americans should alter the way they live and sacrifice some of their prosperity for security, you might be wrong, but please feel free to convince them. If you’re arguing that prosperity itself is corrupt and man’s greatest economic achievements were a historical mistake, then your obsession with “sustainability” has warped your sense of morality.

Now, my conception (read: European) of progress and a better standard of living would place many advances above composting, organic farming, or even urban chicken coops.

  • Higher incomes that allow people to make livings that afford them more than merely survival or avoiding starvation.
  • A low poverty rate.
  • High quality and diversity of employment opportunities. Rather than the choice of being a farmer or being a blacksmith, the average citizen should have an  array of careers to choose from, and the ability to be industrious and take risks for profit.
  • The availability of housing. On an average night in the United States, a country with a population of somewhere around 350 million, fewer than one million people are homeless.
  • Consistent GDP growth.
  • Access to quality health care.
  • The availability of quality education. (I suppose we could quibble over the word “quality,” but certainly there is widespread free education availability.)
  • High life expectancy. Worldwide life expectancy has more than doubled from 1750 to 2007.
  • Low frequency of deadly disease.
  • Affordable goods and services.
  • Infrastructure that bolsters economic growth.
  • Political stability.
  • Air conditioning.
  • Freedom from slavery, torture and discrimination.
  • Freedom of movement, religion and thought.
  • The presumption of innocence under the law.
  • Equality under the law regardless of gender or race.
  • The right to have a family – as large as one can support. Maybe even larger.
  • The right to enjoy the fruits of labor without government – or anyone else – stealing it.   Read more »

Where has all the warming gone?

People are starting to wake up to the fraud that is global warming.

A massive fraud perpetrated by vested scientific interests and busy body global politicians.

But it is a fraud nonetheless.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. Areport from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Read more »