How about that catastrophic warming eh?

From the NZ Herald

The polar blast that brought snow to downtown Auckland for the first time in 72 years – and created the city’s coldest day on record

How come when we get the news telling us about the hottest day since records began we get all sorts of doomsday predictions about catastrophic warming of our planet and when we get the coldest day since records began it is just a weather event?

If this is catastrophic warming then I’m going to run my diesel truck 24/7 to really pump some Co2 into the atmosphere.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • grumpy

    Once again, total silence over at the Strandard.

    A week ago on The Nation, Plunkett interviewed a nerdy Auckland Proffessor of something (who refused to argue with Monckton). The guy was claiming a 1C temp. increase in the next 10 years due to Global Warming. Where is this guy now, perhaps Plunkett could re-interview him this Sunday?

    • Hard1

      Stick your head in the freezer , Grumpy . It’s cold . Take it out . It’s warm . That’s science for you . There can’t be global warming because , because …it’s snowing outside ! Yippee , we’re saved .

    • klem

      It would make no difference, climatologists have predicted all weather events and proclaimed them to be caused by Anthopogenic climate change. So no matter what the actual weather event, if it snows or rains or droughts, ACC is the cause. ACC is now infallible. Welcome to the church of climatology.

  • Todd

    It will not be long before the very silly AGW will be found for what it is,bull.

  • John Q Public

    Oh the science is settled, Whale.

    Am curious, with regard to the 1 degree warmer “prediction” as to whether it being -30 in Antarctica will cause it melt more quickly than the usual -31.

    I can see why they’re worried.

  • Is this satire?

    Whale, I’m starting to think more and more that you’re a pinko in disguise, writing covert satire to make us all look bad. Thatcher believed that humans affect the climate FFS. Also, the science behind overall warming = colder winters is pretty basic stuff mate.

  • Tamati

    Come on whale, give us a break.

  • Susan

    Pretty sure the overall warming of the planet creates hugely unstable weather patterns, resulting in both extreme heat and extreme cold (but never consistent or constant of either). It’s basic science really.

    Y’all just showing your ignorance once again.

    • I don’t want “pretty sure” I want absolutely certain. I want categoric proof not computer models based on lies.

      • Richard

        I assume that is why you never ride in cars: there is no “categoric proof” they won’t randomly explode. All we have available to analyse the likelihood of them exploding are models. Models based on “lies” (i.e. reasoned assumptions).

        Science doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in the preponderance of evidence and the matching of observable fact to theory. The theory is that increased global temperatures cause unstable weather patterns (due to things like an uneven distribution of changing temperatures), the observations we have are increased temperatures and (as we witnessed this weekend) unstable weather patterns. There seems to be a match.

        Frankly, Whale, I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but the climate denial line is no more sound than the anti-vaccination line, and exhibits the same fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

      • andyscrase

        Whale is right. The models are hard-wired to assume high sensitivity to CO2. The built in assumption in the theory is that a bit of warming by CO2 causes further warming via positive feedbacks from water vapour.

        The problem is, there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption.

    • Cadwallader

      I can see snow on my roof. How’s that for definition?

    • V


      Perhaps you might like to point out precisely when the ‘climate’ was ‘stable’ exactly?
      And you accuse others of ignorance!

  • Stamper

    “Pretty sure” is not good enough for major changes as to how mankind uses its resources, taxes the people etc. “Just in case” for 100 years from now , when we have today’s many problems to address, is not enough.
    We need more than scientific guess work via Computer models of what might happen. The science is NOT settled, and in fact is looking more like a scam every day.

  • Optimist Prime

    Actually Susan, the science behind climate change is anything but basic nor is it settled.

    It is ridiculous to assert that these events are anything other than what they are. Climactic anomalies. What’s the explanation for the event 80 years ago when it last snowed in Auckland?

    The science is about as settled as our weather patterns.

  • Stamper

    ‘Pretty sure’ is not good enough to change mankind’s use of the world’s resources and tax the population on the possible chance we may have a problem in 100 years time.

    The science is NOT settled; in fact it seems more like a scam based on vague and in-adequate computer models producing ‘results’ which keep the funding running to people bent on pushing an agenda which keeps them in a job. It is sad to see this abuse of the scientific process for political purposes.

  • mediatart

    I bet they will have the cheek at the end of the year to say in NZ this was one of the ‘warmest ever’. And the reason why , NIWA are altering the old temerature records to make them colder. They only use a few stations and ignore all the old lighthouse records on NZs coasts that go way way back to the 1880s in favour of airports that have been built since WW2 ( which of course have plenty of tarmac).
    The meteorologists know they bullshiting ( and use their numbers for coldest day) but its NIWA who controls this and they have a death grip on climate records

    • Hard1

      Shit , that’s interesting . But were the lighthouse keepers sober ?

  • bigkev

    thats why the IPPC dont use “global warming” now, its called climate change then all bases are covered, hot, cold, wet, dry, feast, famine, its all one

  • TenM
  • TenM

    Can’t seem to post

  • Matt

    Climate change is not about weather systems all consistently warming one degree. This is an average, and everyone should understand roughly how one comes to ‘an average.’

    Secondly the debate on who is responsible is virtually irrelevant, although it seems Cameron Slater can not decide exactly what he is arguing in terms of global warming and or climate change – he just want’s decisive proof – but seems too often to make other decisions without decisive proof, on ideological grounds perhaps.

    The issue is not whether humans are causing warming, or whether carbon emissions are causing warming, the issue is the world is warming and has been warming significantly for a hundred years. This is as close to a fact as one can come (evidence available in IPCC research on average temperature changes.) Correlating somewhat with this is the rise in carbon parts per million in the atmosphere. So with potential of a continuing average temperature rise what sort of political, economical and environmental (extreme weather) issues can be expected? Perhaps it is best for one to use their imagination here instead of pointing out the obvious, and if they can’t they are bereft of general knowledge, imagination and intellectual ability.

    Is it worth denying the possibility of climate change and in fifty years have a world where neighboring countries are engaged in conflict over resources? As most evidence points towards the extreme likely hood of a continuing average temperature rise, perhaps this would be the most logical assumption to make. And maybe the methods used to negotiate the problem would be political and not environmental or economic, especially if carbon is not the cause, or if it is and it is too late to stop the effects of carbon induced climate change.

    @bigkev IPCC (not IPPC) stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (as it has been called for decades.) The IPCC has not done a switch on the terms they use, there are differences between global warming and climate change. The secret lies in the names. They are different. They have different meanings. Do you get it?

    @mediatart all international scientific evidence accumulated by the IPCC does not rely on weather information gathered from New Zealand airports.

    • klem

      “Is it worth deny­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of cli­mate change and in fifty years have a world where neigh­bor­ing coun­tries are engaged in con­flict over resources?”

      Neighboring countries will have conficts over resources anyway, whether the climate changes or not. Blaming the conflict on anthropogenic climate change is wishful thinking on the part of the green left, it’s delusional.