The Climate of Fear

It is said that there is a consensus out there that Climate Change is catastrophic, man made and we are all doomed unless drastic and expensive action is taken. They say there is consensus but then again they have obtained the alleged consensus by intimidation, fear and campaigns against those who think differently.

Witness the campaign by various interested parties to try to silence Lord Monckton from speaking in new Zealand. They have waged a very public campaign to ensure he doesn’t appear on any radio shows, they have bullied Close Up into not having him on the show and now they are trying to bully venues from hosting functions.

Climate Change protagonists don’t want debate, they don’t want there to be any opposition on their march to consensus, they want silence and obedience and will do anything to silence critics. Witness the use of calling people deniers to smear them with the atrocity of the holocaust.

Right now there is a similar campaign being waged in New Zealand and it appears it is being led by Martin Tegg. He has written an appalling letter to the Northern Club smearing Lord Monckton extensively. This is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual lynch mobs masquerading as the acceptable face of public opinion.

Martin Tegg, according to his Facebook account works for Auckland City:

Martin Tegg Facebook pageYou might not think this is important but as you will see it is.

He is the one who wrote the letter to the Northern Club, he is also the who appears to be organising the protest against Lord Monckton.

That’s all fine, citizens, except Lord Monckton it seems, are allowed to protest. Protest is good, debate is good, except if you disagree with people like Martin Tegg and his ilk. Then you must be silenced. Still I ahve no problem with Martin Tegg being able to have his little rant. Just as I have no problem with Macsyna King publishing a book. We live in a free country, if we don’t like something or someone we can simply change channels, not buy the book or ignore what they have to say.

Where I draw the line though is when you and I as ratepayers are funding this sort of carry on.

Martin Tegg it seems works at  the Auckland Council and has seen fit to prepare an extensive document with what looks like several hours of research not to mention the time it took to type the letter. But it seems he has done it while in the pay of the ratepayer and during work hours.

The document was prepared on his computer that is provided by The Auckland Council. The meta data of the document proves this.

The meta data also proves that he did this yesterday and during work hours, that is on the ratepayers dime.

This I object to. Martin Tegg has spent a not inconsequential amount of time on work unrelated to his job at Auckland Council, utilised Council resources and all to campaign against someone he doesn’t like in an attempt to silence them. Worse he is bullying a ratepayer with hugely connected clientale in the form of the Northern Club and all on the ratepayers ticket.

I wonder perhaps if Len Brown and the Auckland Council condone this use of ratepayers resources to mount a public fear campaign against ratepayers pursuing wholly legal enterprises such as hosting functions.


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.

  • andretti

    What a smug little creep,unless one has his view of the world one is not to be shown any respect.If he believes so strongly in his cause why does he get someone else to pay for it,Fucken hypocrite like a lot of greenies others should take the hit while they live the life.

  • andretti

    You should ask the little Fucker how he gets to work,make sure he bikes.

    • abjv

      He might catch the train. Like Len.

  • pidge

    Something for the VRWC members in Auckland, here’s the link the the Auckland Council “Contact Us” form.

    Something I’m going to send soon:


    It has come to my attention that a staff member of Auckland Council, Martin Tegg, has been using Auckland Council Resources (namely a Council supplied computer, software and Internet connection) to carry out personal work, namely organising a protest against Lord Mockton. See!/martintegg/status/96212459064528896 and

    I have no objection to Mr. Tegg carrying this out of his own personal capacity, resources and time. I do object to him carrying out activities related to personal activities using Council resources and during working hours, paid for by the Ratepayers.

    I would like to receive a response as soon as possible indicating that action will be taken on my complaint.


    • pidge

      But they say it will take up to three days to get back. VWRC, to your keyboards, I would hope they might pay attention to a deluge of complaints about the indiscretion.

  • phronesis

    He was probably on his tea break at 2:18pm, having just returned from his lunch break. Sue the peasant for Theft as a Servant, he is after all a servant of the ratepayers presumably.

  • dangermice

    Did the Northern Club respond with tl;dr?

  • gazzaw

    Presumably WO you will be complaining to the CEO of Auckland City about the misuse of ratepayers’ paid time and the utilisation of Auckland City property for private purposes.

    Tegg is a fool. Why write to the manager of the Northern Club? It is the committee that sets club policy not management. As far as I am aware the Northern Club stands for freedom of speech but then again maybe Tegg wants some justification for the roudy protest that he & his rent-a-mob will be conducting on Princes St.

    • pidge

      No no, “Refer to Arkell v. Pressdram” :)

      • pidge

        Oops, replied to the wrong comment!

  • terryg

    Still, at least M. Tegg has a job, and is not a bludging beneficiary.

    Monckton should never be muzzled – each time he speaks he digs himself deeper into a fact-free hole. Those of you who think he isnt full of shit should try reading some of the papers he references – most of which say precisely the opposite if that which monckton claims. Of course you will need at least an undergraduate-level understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer in order to realise this. back to school, ignorant kiddies.

    • funkdup

      I’ll call you out terryg. Which papers?

      • terryg

        Prof. Abraham has done several splendid dissections of Moncktons bullshit. And you dont really need anything more than high school science (>= 6th form) to follow along.

        thermodynamics is well understood – if it wasnt almost none of our technology would work – a point seemingly lost on the uneducated imbecilic hordes.

        • funkdup

          I see, you don’t actually understand it yourself, you think linking to Abraham is enough. I see you in kind:

          • terryg

            Right. This copied (right now) directly from:

            “Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley[…snip…]
            His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA […snip…]”

            yet a tiny amount of googling will show this:
            When Christopher Monckton visited Australia in early 2010 he conceeded that it was “it was a joke, a joke” and “never meant to be taken seriously”. The Sydney Morning Herald noted that despite this, he had made the same claim with a “straight face” on the Alan Jones show one day prior, and the claim remained on the SPPInstitute website[18] where it can still be found six months later.

            Ergo his lordship (his turdship more like) is a lying sack of shit, and the SPPI website is far from a reliable source.

            Furthermore Monckton is NOT a member of the House of Lords, who went to the trouble of publicly stating “Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”

            Monckton is NOT a scientist – he has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism. I am not a scientist, yet with a mere Honours degree in Technology, I am far more qualified in the relevant sciences than he – I have also spent 20 years solving heat flow problems, albeit of far less complexity than, say, professor Abrahams.

            The PDF you link to comprises little more than Ad Hominems. Prof. Abrahams response is thus:

            Abraham reply to Monckton
            Posted on 6 June 2010 by John Abraham

            Guest post by John Abraham

            Dear Mr. Monckton,

            Thank you for taking the time to comment on my presentation. I encourage people to view both of our arguments and make their own conclusions. I stand by my work and welcome judgment by the public and the scientific community. My intention as a professional scientist is to help provide a public disclosure of your scientific methods. I continue to believe that your work seriously misrepresents the science upon which you rely.

            I would like to briefly address some matters which you raised. First, I will address your comments about my credentials. To begin, let me identify some of the subjects which are critical to understanding our world’s climate. Climate processes involve radiation, convection, and conduction heat transfer. In addition, fluid mechanics governs the flow of the atmosphere and the oceans. Chemistry is critical to understanding chemical reactions which take place in both the oceans and the atmosphere. Quantum mechanics deals with the interaction of airborne molecules and photons (radiation). Geology and its related subjects are important for many reasons, including the study of past climate (paleoclimatology). Skills in numerical simulation are essential for the creation and operation of models which allow scientists to predict climate change. There are other subspecialties which are also important; this is only a partial list.

            I am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas, a private, Catholic university in Minnesota. I have taught courses in heat transfer, fluid mechanics, numerical simulation, and thermodynamics. Topics in my courses include radiation, convection, and conduction, the same physical processes which govern energy flows in the climate. My PhD thesis dealt with combined convection and radiation heat transfer. My thesis is held in the library at the University of Minnesota, it is available to the public.

            My published works span many topics including convective heat transfer, radiative heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and numerical simulation. My work on numerical simulation is at the very forefront of computational fluid dynamic (cfd) modeling. I am an expert in non-linear fluid simulations. My background does not span the entire range of topics related to climate change (no one is able to claim this), it does cover many of the essential subtopics.

            In addition to academic research, I am an active consultant in industry. I have designed wind turbines, built and tested geothermal cooling systems, studied the potential of biofuels to replace petroleum, and designed and created solar-radiation shields for buildings in desert climates. Taken together, I believe that I have the background required to discuss the issues of energy and the environment.

            Next, your written reply to my work focused on a small number of my original points; I will discuss just a few of them here. Throughout this discussion, it must be recognized that you have not addressed the many serious scientific lapses which were present in your presentation.

            1. You correctly pointed out that in your presentation, you stated that you were “boring” whereas I stated you were “bored”. I apologize for misquoting you. In this regard, the point you were trying to make is that there is no consensus on global warming. You cited three search words and a range of years (2004-2007). Since the purpose of my presentation was to show that audience members have the capacity to investigate claims for themselves, I used a publically available academic search engine (GOOGLE SCHOLAR). I showed that there are many papers that can be found dealing with the dangers of climate change, using your search parameters. I invite readers to reproduce my search results and read the abstracts of those papers and come to their own conclusion. Your assertion that these papers existed, but that they did not provide “evidence for catastrophe” was, in my mind, unconvincing.
            2. You suggested that your temperature graphs referencing your own organization were properly cited. I disagree. It is the obligation of a scientist to show the original source of data, your work did not meet this standard. Citing your own organization is, in my view, improper, particularly since your organization was not involved in obtaining the data.
            3. I showed a number of slides which had no attribution. I note that among the totality of unattributed slides, you agree with me on all but one. You correctly point out that one had the letters “UAH” listed. I can assure you that I understand UAH refers to University of Alabama Huntsville. I continue to believe that a proper citation would include a journal in which this data was published with a volume number and pages.

            I would like to disclose some new information that I have unearthed. On your 13th slide (another slide with no attribution), you present a graph showing that the Beaufort Sea Ice is growing. Your slide gives the impression that since ice in the Beaufort Sea is growing, there is no concern about global warming. Despite the lack of a citation, I have been able to learn about its origin. The following citation should be useful in this regard for your records.

            H. Melling, D. Riedel, and Ze’ev Gedalof, Trends in Thickness and Extent of Seasonal Pack Ice, Canadian Beaufort Sea, Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 1-5, 2005.

            I have written to the lead author and he replied….

            “You are correct in your assessment that statements in the paper were nuanced…. The change in atmospheric circulation is attributable to… no one really knows but human influence on the atmosphere emissions either of chloro-fluorocarbons or carbon dioxide is the primary candidate. However, with so much multi-year ice gone, it is easy to understand why we have much more open water in September.”

            Finally, I would like to point out the reason for the delay between your October, 2009 presentation until my reply, it was caused by my desire to present a thoughtful, thorough reply. You have dealt with a small number of very peripheral issues. There remain very severe errors with your presentation that are yet unanswered. If you have corrected the many errors which I have disclosed, please accept my apologies.


            Dr. John Abraham
            Associate Professor
            University of St. Thomas
            School of Engineering


          • reid

            Er Terry, do your scientists take account of that NASA satellite DATA?

            What’s that? They don’t?

            Well aren’t you the big silly then.

            Back to the drawing board, you alarmist you.

          • funkdup

            So you still don’t have any actual papers he quoted that say the opposite of what he claimed?
            Ignoring that, what do you think yourself? You’ve read up on everything apparently, what do you understand to be the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 – to be clear, from the pre-industrial baseline of 290ppm?

        • reid

          What about this then terry?

          How the fuck can you argue with a decade of satellite DATA that DISPROVES the alarmist’s central thesis of the degree to which CO2 heats the atmosphere?

          What about that then?

          Or doesn’t it matter. It’s only fucking DATA, isn’t it.

          • terryg

            Did you read the paper? or just the yahoo article (which uses the word “alarmist” 13 times). I read the paper, and come to an entirely different conclusionto the yahoo “article” – to whit that of the authors, that “the presence of time-varying radiative forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback” (translated into moron speak: modelling this shit is hard, but we’re working on it and getting better all the time)

            If you dont understand any elements of the paper, say so and i’ll help you through it, but you might want to brush up on your radiative heat transfer first; Incropera & DeWitt is a good start, assuming you have done at least first-year calculus.

          • reid

            Science=politics terry, didn’t you know that. That’s why it uses the word ‘alarmist’ so often, just like alarmists use the word ‘denier’ so often.

            Tell us what the paper’s conclusion was terry, rather than just a cherry picked para from one of the sub-sections, or don’t you want to.

            I can understand why.

          • terryg

            that was the conclusion you twat. read the fucking paper.

    • Not for long he hasn’t.

    • Agent BallSack

      ‘Those of you who think he isnt full of shit should try read­ing some of the papers he ref­er­ences – most of which say pre­cisely the oppo­site if that which mon­ck­ton claims’
      In other words hes another graduate of the Labour school of Politics?

      • terryg

        Science politics. Science is fact based, politics is not. Contrary to what Don Key would have you believe, scientific facts are not opinions.

        Any other pointlessly irrelevant comments? how about you go study second order diffusion equations, and THEN try reading some of the scientific literature on climate change…..

        • reid

          Why would we do that terry? Look what its done to you, you poor bastard.

          • terryg

            bloody HTML editor at the less-than-greater-than does-not-equal sign. I wonder if != makes it through….. Science != Politics.

            as for why? ooh, I dunno, how about a lucrative career? I turned 42 this year, and paid my mortgage off entirely 3 years ago. not spending ones life as a brainless moron might be another reason. For all you left-handed typists, adults quite like partners who can fix things like houses, cars, microwaves etc.

            OTOH if you enjoy having a shallow and limited understanding of the world you live in, then dont educate yourself – take up an imaginary friend instead.

          • reid

            So let me get this straight, you think cause allegedly you yourself think you’re pretty special, the rest of us should believe it’s so, cause you do?

            I see. You’re not a petulant nine year old are you? Are you sure you’re 42?


          • terryg

            can you not form even a simple sentence unaided? I’ve met 9 year olds with a far better grasp of english than you, you ignorant buffoon. Let me guess, its the only language you are “conversant” with (for shallow, ignorant values of “conversant”)

          • tooright

            Exactly why would we do that terry? Rather than spinning new models you’d be better off explaining why the actual climate data experienced doesn’t match the models as the time series catches up with the projections.

            You should stop your one handed typing as you’re disturbing the people in the flat above your fully owned studio apartment with the other hand thumping the desk – from below.

          • Agent BallSack

            Touche. Thanks for the chuckle!

        • phronesis

          Actually Science is not fact based but theory based.

          • terryg

            yep. Like atomic theory, without which your computer would not exist (BTW if homeopathic “theory” were correct, your computer would not work. QED).

        • Agent BallSack

          I disagree. Science = Politics. Even more so as carbon tax and many other alarmist conspiracist theories gain traction in the popular press. Sorry we’re not all heat induction specialists. Some of us prefer to work in the real world and actually manufacture, produce and supply you with the clothes you wear, the food you eat. However because we dont have exactly the same qualification as you, we fall far below your expected standards of humanity? You must be the life of every party you’re not invited to.
          Standing around patting yourself on the back is no recommendation. Oh shit. Im not illiterate, type with 2 hands and am educated also. Just not in your field. But thats standard for any climate change theorist I guess to abuse and sub-humanise anyone with differing theories.

          *Translated from moron speech for you.

          • terryg

            Hi ABS,
            Design for manufacture is what I do; heat flow is simply one of the areas with which I deal on a daily basis. I like nothing more than working in factories, troubleshooting products and processes – except perhaps detailed analytical design (and non-linear control systems – they’re fun). You’re quite right re. clothes food etc. – as an engineer it amazes me how little most people know about any of the things that make their lives possible.

            And no, degrees dont really mean much – they are a path to knowledge, not the path. Anyone who has ever spent time in a factory knows this; DOING is at least as good as (if not better than) studying.

            However when it comes to understanding complex phenomena (like say heat transfer), sometimes education IS required. Without it, one must rely on analogies, which are at best a poor substitute – and the lower the level of understanding, the less meaningful/useful the analogies become, until they are utterly pointless, and often indistinguishable from babble. It is at this point where the layperson is unable to distinguish between real science and shit Monckton spouts.

            Heres a good question or two:
            1. why is the stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms?
            2. why are spring & autumn warming more than summer on average?

  • tristanb

    I’m no paranoid Percy, and don’t mind having a few drunk pictures on the Facebook (which I stopped using over 3 years ago), but it astounds me that people put their EMPLOYER onto their Facebook frontpage.

    It’s just asking for trouble. At best, anyone who you piss off on FB knows exactly how to blackmail you. At worst, your photos with the Thai tranny or smoking-bong-in-hand are said to bring your employer into disrepute and they dismiss you.

    It’s just dumb.

    If you’re older than 20, I’d suggest keeping work and social life completely separate.

  • davidw

    You can also phone him and have a chat during work hours on the landline number he has kindly supplied at the bottom of the letter.

  • titanuranus

    If he is part of the Manukau mafia that LB has stacked the AC with, don`t expect anything to be done.

  • funkdup

    I thought I recognised the motif in his facebook pic:

    “We are Generation Zero
    We’re the generation to oversee the profound transformation to a zero carbon world.”

    Hello, how do you have a zero carbon world when all life forms in it are carbon based?
    I believe the saying goes “back to school, igno­rant kiddies”

  • andyscrase

    Monckton’s argument is quite simple really. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 has been overestimated. (that is, the increase in global mean temp that can be attributed to CO2 emissions)

    Based on current observations vs IPCC projections, this seems like a plausible proposition.

    Why can’t we actually have a civilised debate on this topic without Stalinist attack muppets funded by the ratepayer sticking their oar in?

  • lordmontrose

    Oh dear the protest is off. I was so looking forward to seeing that group of alarmist nutters.
    What does a Senior Financial Advisor do at Auckland City Council, when he’s not writing alarmist propaganda while being paid by me, a ratepayer whose rates will be going up once again?

    • gazzaw

      Being part of a highly visible protest likely to be covered by TV is not great for the career path of Senior Financial Advisors particularly after you have probably received a bollocking from the CEO about his prominence on political blogsites and misuse of Auckland City time and resources. I am sure that certain Northern Club members will have had words in appropriate ears at Auckland City. Tegg will be learning a few hard lessons in corporate survival right now.

  • lordmontrose

    A threat last year from Gene, of Greenpeace India
    “If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    And we be many, but you be few.”

    • gazzaw

      I’ll remember that the next time one of their scruffy followers tries to shake me down for a donation in the supemarket carpark.

  • votegoldsmith

    See my response to this garbage at

  • votegoldsmith

    As I took the bus for my hour long journey home after another solid week at work I reflected on the irony of being slagged off by Whaleoil for expressing my opinion. Somehow Whaleoil obtained my letter even though it was not addressed to him – well that’s all right I hope he reads it – he might learn something about character and the reputational risk associated with misrepresenting others. I note that at no point does Whaleoil comment on the contents of my letter. The reason is that he cannot. The hyperlinks in the letter clearly provide examples of Monckton’s behaviour, for which Whaleoil has no comeback. In my view, his silence on this point indicates his acceptance of Monckton’s behaviour – such as calling an Australian Government advisor a Nazi and thereby trivialising the horrors of World War II. I invite Whaleoil to clarify his views on this. In the Scribd version of the letter that Whaleoil has provided the hyperlinks don’t work. I don’t know if this is by accident or if Whaleoil has deliberately done this so readers do not have an opportunity to see the evidence. I invite any reader, and especially the faithful who have joined the Church of Monckton and attended one of his presentations to have a look here Read and decide for yourself if you still believe that Monckton is the chosen one.

    The title of Whaleoil’s blog piece is deeply ironic. Who is really trying to create a ‘climate of fear’? Me? I wrote a polite letter to the Northern Club urging them not to host Monckton for the sake of their reputation. Or the whale oil blog? Some of the comments accuse me of being “a smug little creep”, “a fucker” and “a fucken hypocrite”. The clear intention of Whaleoil and some of the commentators is to intimidate me. When I first started reading about climate change, one of the first clues I had that the scientists are correct and the deniers are wrong was the foul language, hyperbole and absolutes used by many of those opposed to action that mitigates climate change. In contrast, the scientists talk in much more polite and measured tones about risks, probabilities, and they acknowledge the uncertainty. Would the readers of this blog make an investment with an advisor who absolutely guaranteed to double or triple your money in a month? Any prudent investor would avoid these snake oil salesmen, understanding that the large returns offered are in fact highly uncertain and there is a large risk of losing money. As someone with a financial background I would approach climate change and investment in a similar manner – by developing an understanding of the risks and uncertainties.

    Whaleoil’s posting on this blog of my facebook postings urging a protest are completely irrelevant to his weak point about the use of my employer’s resources. I did this at home, from my own computer so it is clearly not a use of my employer’s resources. My intention was to take a day off for the protest. I work pretty hard so I’ve got plenty of leave. However I later realised that a protest would simply have provided more publicity to Monckton so I called it off. It looks like my tactics have largely worked – .
    I thought a letter might get the Northern Club to rethink what they were doing – after all several Australian clubs cancelled his appearance following his Nazi remarks. Whaleoil should learn to copy and paste – it is a neat trick that many office workers use to speed things up. It might take a bit of practice for Whaleoil, but it’s not actually that hard. I prepared the text of the letter at home on Thursday evening, and then emailed the contents to myself at work. On Friday at work I opened the email and copied the contents into a word document so that it would present better. I checked and proofread it before sending it off, but I did not spend a huge amount of time on it. Regardless, I’ve more than made up for it with the time I have spent on work tasks after hours. The metadata of the word document that whaleoil posts is meaningless. One can tell that by viewing the dates that suggest that the document was printed in 2004 – which is impossible as it wasn’t written then and I did not even know who Monckton was back then.

    I would also point out that the letter is clearly identifiable as my personal views. My employer’s letterhead is not there, and I did not use my title. Nobody can say that I suggested that my employer had the same position as myself. Yes, I used my employers email, but the cost of one email is miniscule – less than a cent. Like most organisations, my employer allows a reasonable amount of email for personal use. This is simply a recognition that in this modern world where many employees work long hours which affect their home life, email is a very good way to communicate and organise one’s life – and it is much cheaper than posted letters and telephones. What I did is no different from, say, emailing TVNZ from work to complain about Paul Henry’s comment on the Governor General. What Whaleoil is effectively saying is that those who take a position in the public sector should not be able to email friends or their wives or husbands, or express their opinion on any matter than interests them – he is effectively advocating tyranny. He might wish to consider that the next time he drives on a road or turns on his electricity.

  • lordmontrose

    Admitted to using work computer and work time for private propaganda: “On Friday at work I opened the email and copied the contents into a word document so that it would present better. I checked and proof­read it before sending it off”

    “The dismissal of a Lakes District Health Board IT technician for taking a blank DVD was justified, the Employment Relations Authority has found.”

  • votegoldsmith

    Get a grip the fact that you are making this comparison simply indicates how extreme you are. Last time I checked this was a free country.

  • votegoldsmith

    Get a grip – there is no comparison I did not steal anything. It just shows everyone how extreme you are.

  • gazzaw

    Personally, I don’t care about your beliefs regarding climate change, it’s your misuse of Auckland City time that concerns me. If you choose to spend your after hours working that’s a personal option but between 8.30 and 5.00 your ass belongs to the ratepayers.

  • Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Confidence in climate scientists plummets()