tripple alliance

Global Warming / Climate Change

375 posts in this topic

More money down the drain.

Ardern pays out on election deal debt

by 
 
green_subsidy.jpg?w=880&ssl=1

Greenhouse gas emission free farming

TVNZ reports on the latest splurge of taxpayer-funded largesse. Quote.

The Government is investing $100 million in an effort to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, with the Government saying it will bring “cash and know-how to the table”. End quote.

Hopefully not the know-how of Minister for Energy, Dr Megan Woods! Quote.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the fund, New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd, today, as part of the Green Party’s Confidence and Supply Agreement.

“This new investment fund is an important component of New Zealand’s plan to build a clean, sustainable, low-carbon economy that has both lower emissions and profitable enterprises,” she said.

“No one can opt out of the impacts of climate change. This fund helps business to opt in to the solution.”

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said the investment fund would be a commercially focused company “which will work to invest with business to reduce emissions while making a profit”.

He said the $100 million injection was “intended to stimulate new private sector investment in low-emissions industries; with returns over subsequent years expected to pay back the Government’s investment”. End quote.

It will be extremely interesting in the coming years to see the scale of return on this ‘investment’. To date, experience worldwide with ‘green investments’ has been far from encouraging. Quote.

“New Zealand faces a big job in upgrading our economy and infrastructure. New Zealand Green Investment Finance will help deliver financial backing to help ensure that the upgrade is fit for purpose.” […]

“We know there are economic opportunities to being climate leaders. We don’t just see challenge. We see opportunity. This is where I think New Zealand has the potential to lead.” End quote.

Have to be the leaders, have to punch above our weight. Why?  Why not let the big boys sort out the wrinkles and make something green profitable before we jump in?

I’ll tell you why. Election bribe!

SunEdison burned no fossil fuels but rather burnt 1.5 billion of US taxpayer dollars. A few years ago, the renewable energy developer seemed to be unstoppable. SunEdison made a series of acquisitions, including the purchase of First Wind for $2.4 billion in 2014. The company has since had to lay off more than 1,000 workers, and its bankruptcy has left virtually nothing for shareholders. The case is now considered one of the biggest corporate implosions in the renewable industry’s history.

Still, with the combined brainpower of Woods, Shaw and Ardern – what could possibly go wrong?

This list of failures up to 2012 has been quoted before on Whaleoil.  But just to refresh your memory:

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

  1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
  2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
  3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
  4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
  5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
  6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
  7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
  8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
  9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
  10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
  11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
  12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
  13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
  14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
  15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
  16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
  17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
  18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
  19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
  20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
  21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
  22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
  23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
  24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
  25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
  26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
  27. Vestas ($50 million)
  28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
  29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
  30. Navistar ($39 million)
  31. Satcon ($3 million)*
  32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
  33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Hosking: Screaming about climate change won't work

 

Christina Bu has been in the country and found herself somewhat bewildered.

Bu is the head of the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association, and as such comes from a world of subsidy. When it comes to EVs, no-one hands out free stuff like Norway.

Cash grants, subsidies, tax write-offs, free public transport, free bus lane use and free charging. It's Christmas every day in Norway if you want to get behind the wheel of a Nissan Leaf.

So she can't understand our antagonism towards what she calls "feebate"-type incentives.

Of course she can't, the same way Julie Anne Genter can't understand what's wrong with buying kids' bikes, and sending the Government round to teach you how to ride them.

When you come from a world, or a mindset, where the Government pays for everything, our sort of free-market level playing field "success on its merits" outlook must seem awfully strange.

I am sure European farmers still look at us aghast at the fact we have to grow and sell everything for what it's worth, as opposed to what we want it to be worth topped up with subsidies and tariffs.

A little irony though: Norway's obsession and generosity around the EV is, of course, funded from oil, from which they are happy to collect revenues.

Perhaps we should have thought of that before we put the kibosh on exploration, and watched them slowly but surely pack up, leave, and take with them their exploration fees that put millions upon millions into our coffers.

It seems these days we are awash with pressure groups formed as a result of "issues".

There is a global chinwag underway on climate change this very week, and it's the usual story. Kyoto was a bust, Paris is a bust, so now it's urgent. We must act immediately, the problem is even worse than we thought.

Just this week as well, we had plastic alarm bells. Recycling won't solve our problems, we need to act urgently, and do more than ever.

And the poor old EV, sold as a utopian solution to fossil fuels, has failed, like all the other dramatic life-threatening episodes we face, to take off the way the peddlers of this sort of misery would have hoped. So now they resort to the time-honoured tradition of expecting Governments - through the poor old taxpayer - to pick up the tab.

The raising of the issues didn't work, the warnings didn't work, the alarmist warnings didn't work, the screaming from the roof tops didn't work. We simply haven't - in the numbers required - got on board, whether through laziness, deep suspicion, or outright rejection.

From the air, to plastic, to cars, the Christina Bu's of the world don't get us. All they have left are virtue-signalling Governments who are still open to using other people's money to fund their largesse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit Ted you are still cutting and pasting. Yes none other than the prize wanker Hoskings. Only Old bitter Tories like yourself listen  to him. I see that Jacinda has widened the scope of the  child abuse enquiry to relegious groups. Bill (I took money I was not entiked to) English would not have approved this bacause he is a Catholic who attended one of the worst  schools for Pedos St Pats Silverstream

You are a Hutt Valley Boy Ted. I hope that you did not attend there when one of their  Pedos were running rampant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bloke said:

Shit Ted you are still cutting and pasting. Yes none other than the prize wanker Hoskings. Only Old bitter Tories like yourself listen  to him. I see that Jacinda has widened the scope of the  child abuse enquiry to relegious groups. Bill (I took money I was not entiked to) English would not have approved this bacause he is a Catholic who attended one of the worst  schools for Pedos St Pats Silverstream

You are a Hutt Valley Boy Ted. I hope that you did not attend there when one of their  Pedos were running rampant.

 

Ah  Socialist Cindy. I see one of her boyfriends the Frenchman Macron, another globalist, is about to face the guillotine. The French people have had a gutsful of socialist policy after a year and half and along with other countries in Europe citizens are regaining control from the leftist ideologists. Socialism has never worked Bloke and never will.

Never went to St Pats.  Co-ed college for me. Did you, you seem to know a lot about the ins and outs of the school.

               

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:55 AM, Uriah Heap said:

I see the Greenland Ice sheet is melting, when all thought this had ceased.. Are we all in agreeance that, for whatever reason, the sea level is rising at a concerning rate?

Thought I would do a little more checking and found these FACTS and surprise surprise have a read .

Polar Portal Season Report 2018 

In  the following , we will look at the most important results monitored in the Arctic in 2018:    
    • The    wettest    May    in    Greenland    since    1949    • As    in    the    previous    year,    2018    was    yet    another    year    with    a    low    degree    of    melting    of    the    Ice    Sheet    • Small    changes    in    the    area    of    the    glaciers    • • The    albedo    of    the    Ice    Sheet    was    record high    in    May,    June    and    the    beginning    of    August    • Two    unusual    openings    in    the    sea    ice    north    of    Greenland    in    2018
   

 Melting    from    the    Ice    Sheet    is    also    measured    directly    at    selected    locations    within    the    PROMICE    project.    Observations    from    the    18    weather    stations    in    the    melting    region    of    the    Ice    Sheet    indicate    that    the    average    degree    of    melting    was    the    lowest    recorded    during    the    10    years    in    which    observations    have    been    made    (2008-2018).

I will add this as regarding sea ice . it's area decreased but that's what nothing unusual unless you are a climate zealot .

    Compared    to    the    last    40    years    of    satellite    imagery,    a    new    minimum    record    was    thus    not    set.    Although    the    extent    of    coverage    of    the    sea    ice    in    this    season    was    2    million    km2    below    the    average    for    1981-2000,    it    was    still    1.2    million    km2    more    than    the    record-low    coverage    in    2012 
    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are waking up to the corrupt Globalist climate change scam

Look at the France and Europe protests

Thank your lucky stars for Trump

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
FollowingFollowing @realDonaldTrump
More

The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris. Protests and riots all over France. People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting “We Want Trump!” Love France.

  1.  

    Very sad day & night in Paris. Maybe it’s time to end the ridiculous and extremely expensive Paris Agreement and return money back to the people in the form of lower taxes? The U.S. was way ahead of the curve on that and the only major country where emissions went down last year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming is a bust so what will the Greens do now?

by Suze 
 

Recent scientific evidence that the earth is cooling means the collapse of the flimsy house of cards that is global warming.

The Green party is focussed on preventing global warming, and they are committed to curtailing the so-called disastrous man-made CO2 emissions. 

GlobalWarmings.jpg?w=630&ssl=1

Can’t argue with science.

But someone, somewhere got the numbers wrong, and the myth of global warming that began in 1987 is perpetuated.

Dr Muriel Newman writing for the NZ Centre for Political Research puts New Zealand’s man-made CO2 emissions into perspective. Quote.

… using the grain of rice analogy, our 0.17 percent contribution to global man-made greenhouse gases is equivalent to a 0.03 portion of a single grain of rice and is too small to see. End of quote.

Dr Newman also refers to a 2016 report by New Zealand engineer Emeritus Professor Michael Kelly of Cambridge University, which was rejected by both the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Journal of New Zealand Studies, not because they could fault the scientific basis of his findings but because they did not like his conclusions – that New Zealand’s efforts to reduce C02 emissions are ineffectual, a waste of money and should be debated before proceeding any further.  Quote. 

I am publishing the original paper and the redacted referees’ reports here to show how serious debate is being suppressed. As a direct result of stifled debate, New Zealand is taking steps of great and certain futility and destruction of capital value. End of quote.

When the media bothers to examine the scientific evidence fairly and the public does its own research, maybe the government will be forced to wake up and the Greens will wonder what purpose they have left. 

Here are their goals, from the Green Party website, which are being implemented by the Coalition of Losers. Quote.

 

Green Party will:

  1. Pass a Zero Carbon Act, putting into law the goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

  2. Establish an independent Climate Commission to guide government decisions.

  3. Establish a Kiwi Climate Fund to replace the failed Emissions Trading Scheme. This will put a charge on climate pollution, including from agriculture; provide a guaranteed payment for people who plant trees, and recycle all surplus revenue back to New Zealanders via a dividend payout ($250 per person in 2020).

  4. Support the planting of 1.2 billion trees over 1.1 million hectares of erosion-prone land and provide $40 million for native forest regeneration.

  5. Commit to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

  6. Create a $100 million Green Infrastructure Fund to kick-start private investment in new, clean infrastructure and industries.

  7. Commit to no new coal mines, fracking or deep-sea oil and gas drilling.

  8. Divest public investment funds (e.g. the Super Fund and ACC Fund) from companies involved in fossil fuel exploration, mining, and production.

  9. Invest in multiple new electric rail lines in Auckland and Wellington.

  10. Fully electrify the rail line between Auckland, Hamilton, and Wellington.

  11. Set ambitious emission standards for imported vehicles.

  12. Invest $1 billion for 10 years to create safe cycling in all major cities and towns.

  13. Create a new humanitarian visa for Pacific peoples displaced by climate change.

These are huge financial commitments to attempt to curtail global warming. Quote.

According to former Reserve Bank economist Ian Harrison, the cost of reducing our infinitesimal greenhouse gas contribution is expected to be in the region of $200 billion. End of quote.

So global warming is a myth; billions of dollars have been wasted, along with the loss of billions more from disincentivised farming and the closure of the coal mining and the oil and gas industries. Quote.

The government’s economic analysis shows that under their proposed plan, the agriculture sector could face reductions of up to 65 percent. This is in spite of article 2 of the Paris Accord specifically requiring nations to reduce emissions “in a manner that does not threaten food production”.End of quote.

So busting the myth of global warming has immediate financial benefits in terms of saving money and creating revenue from re-investment in neglected financial opportunities. Quote.

It remains to be seen whether New Zealanders will decide the price of the Government’s climate extremism is too high and say enough is enough.

The French President has just backed down from raising fuel taxes as a key part of his decarbonisation plan, following extreme protests that had the potential to destabilise the country.” End of quote.

Will it take a similar amount of protest from a disenchanted public to put the brakes on our global warming nonsense, or do we just keep chipping away, enlightening one person at a time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are looking up  , I did wonder why we haven't heard much on the TV about the scammers gathering in the coal capitol of Europe , Poland . The global rule book on climate change is in trouble , James shaw is doing a cry baby , O'dear some country's are more concerned about prosperity than global warming what a surprise . It seems some country's will only agree to rules that are very permissive (his words) so that their gross domestic product isn't affected . Clearly he wants to dominate our lives at any cost with his view , an  extremist climate view of the world and he wants to dominate our lives and how we live . There seems to be a clash at the trough , climate extremist views , pragmatism  and those who don't care and just want hand outs .

No doubt there will be a face saving announcement when it's time to go home but make no mistake a lesson  in reality is in progress in Poland , perhaps we should thank the French , they certainly have hammered the schoolboy macron .

What a scam , thousands flying around the world , burning fuel spending up large on a fools mission , shaw is demonstrating how naïve he and the greens really are .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well , China who is spending up large on establishing itself as a dominant force around the world is demanding rich country's pay there debts , WHAT DEBTS  , China has made no commitment to reduce emissions . It seems they want special rules for themselves .

Geez this is a scam , what riles me is the continued attacks on developed country's and the notion we aren't doing enough and we must make sacrifices , WE HAVE , long ago most developed country's worked out smaller affordable family's are the way to a better standard of living , many family's sacrificed a big family for the overall good of themselves   , it's not our fault these developing country's have traditionally had poor political systems and it's not our fault most of them have bred like fly's , it's a bit rich to see some woman who has had 10 kids blaming us for their predicament , demanding we cut emissions and effectively our wealth when they have made no sacrifice .

  China put the one child policy in place years ago and are reaping the rewards today and in fact have recently relaxed that because they can now afford it , the rest are still breeding like flies

 

China called on rich countries to “pay their debts” on climate change at global talks on Thursday, criticising developed countries for not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide finance to help poor countries do the same. 

Xie said the talks were “deadlocked”, but maintained that China should continue to be treated as a developing country, and that developing countries should have flexibility over transparency rules.

“We need flexibility,” he said. “Developing countries have very varied capabilities. If more [financial and technological] support is given to developing countries, they will have more capabilities and stronger actions [on emissions].”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China is a beneficiary of the UN's Billion $ climate fund , they have made no commitment to ever stop using coal and no commitment to stop increasing emissions until 2030 and at that point they will look at the issue and now this from a so called developing country , BILLIONS and billions spent on a space program .

I wonder how much of NZ"s Billion dollar a year contribution to the fund will go towards Chinas military space program , a program that at some stage might  be a threat to our existence . 

 China has landed an explorer robot on the dark side of the Moon has echoed across the global media, a sign of the country's growing prominence on the international stage. 

We cannot ignore the fact that China has the most rapidly growing military presence in space. A US defence department report noted last year that, since it tested anti-satellite weapons in 2007, China's ability to take out US satellites has burgeoned, with near-space unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), satellite jammers, and a "vast ground infrastructure".

Many of these systems are developed as "counter-space" technologies, in which China might deny other powers the ability to use space in a crisis or conflict. Given President Xis insistence that Taiwan "must and will be" reunited with the mainland, and the US commitment to defend it, a space conflict may no longer be merely in the realm of imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 9:16 PM, tripple alliance said:

China is a beneficiary of the UN's Billion $ climate fund , they have made no commitment to ever stop using coal and no commitment to stop increasing emissions until 2030 and at that point they will look at the issue and now this from a so called developing country , BILLIONS and billions spent on a space program .

I wonder how much of NZ"s Billion dollar a year contribution to the fund will go towards Chinas military space program , a program that at some stage might  be a threat to our existence . 

 China has landed an explorer robot on the dark side of the Moon has echoed across the global media, a sign of the country's growing prominence on the international stage. 

We cannot ignore the fact that China has the most rapidly growing military presence in space. A US defence department report noted last year that, since it tested anti-satellite weapons in 2007, China's ability to take out US satellites has burgeoned, with near-space unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), satellite jammers, and a "vast ground infrastructure".

Many of these systems are developed as "counter-space" technologies, in which China might deny other powers the ability to use space in a crisis or conflict. Given President Xis insistence that Taiwan "must and will be" reunited with the mainland, and the US commitment to defend it, a space conflict may no longer be merely in the realm of imagination.

Amazing what the UN climate fund indirectly funds isn't it , the fund that NZ contributes $1 BILLION  a year into for the next 10 years .

China's armed forces must strengthen their sense of urgency and do everything they can to prepare for battle, President Xi Jinping told a meeting of top brass on Friday. China is keen to beef up its armed forces amid territorial disputes in the South China Sea and escalating tension with the United States over issues ranging from trade to the status of Taiwan. "The world is facing a period of major changes never seen in a century, and China is still in an important period of strategic opportunity for development," he was quoted as saying. Xi's comments followed his remarks on Wednesday that China still reserved the right to use force to achieve "reunification" with Taiwan and prevent the island's independence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff does not want you to read this: Part one

by GP
 
Screen-Shot-2018-03-07-at-5.23.22-PM.png National MPs Alfred Ngaro, Gerry Brownlee & Green Party Co-leader and Climate Change Minister James Shaw meet students of GPS Fasi moe Afi Primary School

John Rofe is a chartered accountant and business consultant with 14 years of experience of research into conflicting arguments. Before that, he had some experience as a commercial fraud investigator. More recently he has studied both sides of the ‘climate change’ debate.

Oilers,
Given the outburst of global warming alarm splashed on the front page of the morning Herald, based on the known temperature reading fiddler Jim Salinger, and the grant seeking James Renwick of Victorias University, you might find this timely as a guest post. 

I have only recently come across John Rofe, whose research into climate change is some of the deepest and most convincing I have read from anywhere in the world. What’s below is a follow-up letter to Climate Change Minister James Shaw.

An Open letter to our Minister of Climate Change

[…] I have spent 14 years trying to find whether Anthropogenic Global Warming has some evidence to support it.  As you already know from our previous lengthy correspondence […] I have been able to […] prove to my own satisfaction that it is wrong and a total fraud supported by multiple lies and conspiracies. […]

 CO2 emissions are certainly not one of humanity’s problems – so you are just wasting valuable time and should change direction and address the real issues.  Please deal with the main event and not this “global socialist side-show”.  You may well be scheming to empower the UN to become an unaccountable global socialist government, but that too is an irrelevant side-show for humanity. […

CO2 comprises only four hundredths of one percent of earth’s atmosphere and while it is a greenhouse gas, it exists in such a small proportion to other natural greenhouse gases that even in its totality it cannot possibly cause climate change.  The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is small and far less than even the sum of the interchange between sea and air, volcanism, rotting vegetation, natural forest fires etc.  The IPCC studies arbitrarily presume all the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human causes.  It is suggested by IPCC sponsored reports that science controls nature…and that is just naked and unsubstantiated hubris.

The ice core sample analysis published globally from the 1990s showed that for the last 600,000 years the changes in atmospheric CO2 occur after (and only after) changes in temperature.  This seems straightforward as the oceans (where far greater proportion of the world’s CO2 is held) only give up the gas when warming and absorb it when cooling.[…]

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on climate models, none of them have been able to replicate the current change in atmospheric temperatures which have stubbornly remained within normal bounds.  Only Russia’s model, which acknowledges the impacts of other natural causes comes close.   More importantly, those hundreds of billions of dollars have in truth only reinforced the certainty that CO2 emissions can not only not be accurately measured but also the impact of IPCC policy settings on reducing emissions cannot possibly have a measurable outcome.  Yet the IPCC and their acolytes want us to spend much more on emissions reduction.  Reducing pollution is praiseworthy.  But there is demonstrably no good purpose for reducing CO2 emissions. 

Germany spent a trillion Euros implementing a rapid rill-out of renewable energy projects over four years.  They did not even put a dent in their CO2 emissions but they did succeed in giving their citizens the highest cost of electricity in Europe…alongside Denmark, which achieved the same result.  For Germany and for Japan, they have both gone back to building multiple new coal plants…hopefully with effective scrubbers for pollution minimisation. 

Every scare tactic and itsassociated, trumped up, pseudo-scientific evidence has led to predictions that have failed to hold true. 

The polar bears were meant to be in crisis (they are not – in fact they prosper more than ever). ,

Polar-Bear.jpg?w=511&ssl=1

The Arctic Ocean was meant to have been ice free by the summer of 2013 (it isn’t – in fact the extent of sea ice is greater than before and this year even the ice load on Greenland increased by some 550 billion tonnes).

The sea levels were meant to be rising far faster due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, yet the rate of change in sea level rise has remained largely unchanged or has in some areas dropped. 

The ice load of Antarctica has not reduced.  The temperature of the lower atmosphere has actually fallen by 0.5 degrees since 2016.  Yet CO2 emissions continue to stubbornly rise.  The most obvious cause of that is warming oceans due to an upsurge in volcanism, yet we humans must be made to feel guilty.

To be continued…

Readers interested in skeptic scientists’ research should visit these two websites:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That?

World’s most viewed site on climate change, global warming, extreme weather, IPCC, NOAA, NASA, Arctic sea ice, urban heat islands, environmentalism.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff does not want you to read this: Part two

by GP
 
climate-change.jpg?w=1024&ssl=1 The obligatory picture of harmless water vapour to illustrate a Climate Change story Business Insider

John Rofe is a chartered accountant and business consultant with 14 years of experience of research into conflicting arguments. Before that, he had some experience as a commercial fraud investigator. More recently he has studied both sides of the ‘climate change’ debate.

Part One:

Part two: An Open letter to our Minister of Climate Change James Shaw.

I suppose pictures of polar bears on small pieces of pack ice are just part of the IPCC’s and your disinformation programme. The same disinformation shows factory chimneys with water vapour billowing out which is represented as being CO2, whilst the content of the emissions, whether clean or polluted, remains unknown. This is a level of deceit your government should be railing against and not condoning or promoting. The cherry-picking of data for inclusion in graphs must surely be a source of deceit of which you are already aware? Your ministry’s advisers contribute to it, don’t they? 

Coral reefs in the warmer Papua New Guinea waters are thriving despite allegations that the warming waters of the cooler Great Barrier Reef are killing the same species of corals off.  In fact, the death and rejuvenation of Great Barrier Reef corals have always been part of the natural cycle.[…] 

We are all carbon-based life forms.  We humans breathe in air (we are told) with 410ppm of CO2 and we use much of the oxygen that we inhale for our cardiovascular systems, eventually breathing out ‘stale air’ (due to 20% of the inhaled oxygen component having been carbonated) that contains only about 16% oxygen but about 41,000 ppm of CO2

Plants cannot survive and prosper with a level of atmospheric CO2 lower than about 170ppm. Ideally, our farmers would optimise their plant growth at more than 2,000ppm of CO2. That is why many Dutch greenhouse farmers pump high concentrations of CO2 into their glass houses.    Scientists have proven that the planet is greening due to increased atmospheric CO2. They can actually prove conclusively that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial to all Earth’s life forms. Yet no one is able to show any evidence that it causes harm. 

Even if all countries actively worked to reduce carbon emissions, which most have no intention of doing, they cannot actually change total CO2 emissions sufficiently to make any difference to atmospheric temperatures.  There are too many other large natural sources of atmospheric CO2.   Diversifying away from fossil fuels is not the same objective as reducing CO2 emissions. I argue we should do more to diversify our energy sources, but forget trying to manipulate CO2 levels. Stop the geo-engineering rip-off. 

[…] the taxation of carbon is just an excuse for levying yet another tax while the whole ‘faux emergency’ status of CO2 is simply being used as a device to frighten national governments into handing over funds and control to a supranational governmental agency – the UN IPCC. […]

Between 1928 and 1940 the global average atmospheric temperature rose and this, together with extreme droughts, gave rise to far more forest fires than we have seen within the last decade. It was so hot then that, due to the dust-bowl conditions, many mid-west farmers in the USA were forced off the land. Then people were dropping like flies from heat stroke…not so today. The heat of 1937 was far greater than that of 2018, yet no one tells us that. Instead, the heat waves of 2018 were hyped while the far more significant cold weather records that were set this year never even made it into the newspapers. Now you would have thought that anomalous snow in the Sahara desert, Saudi Arabia, the Serengeti and South Africa should at least make it into our news media and temper the extravagant claims of heating. But no, this news was suppressed; just like the abbreviated reference to the severe cold in New Delhi in December. 

Between 1940 and 1970 the global average atmospheric temperature fell, yet atmospheric CO2 still increased. This disproved the linkage between the temperatures and the theory that we humans change the climate. It also suggests that the task of reducing atmospheric warming by reducing atmospheric CO2 levels is utterly impossible and, even if it could have any effect, that effect would likely be so small as to not be measurable. That was clearly the reason for mass sanitising of temperature charts in 2004. But it won’t wash because the world is going into a solar cycle called a Grand Solar Minimum. This is due to reduced solar activity as part of the normal 400 year cycle, and nothing we have done or could do will affect that prospect of severe climatic cooling. It will either occur or not. 

The modern warm period (1980-2004) coincided with three more active solar cycles (numbers 20-23). This short period of warming is what stimulated my interest in causation. It wasn’t CO2, it was the sun. 

Since 2004, the sun has started a series of eleven year quiet cycles that first resulted in a “temperature pause” but now holds the prospect that we could soon experience extreme cold, due to what is called a “Grand Solar Minimum”.  You want to argue with that?  Then explain why the influx of cosmic rays is now at a 100 year high causing increased lower cloud formation…and also why the earth’s thermosphere is thinning and rapidly cooling.  Plus the effects of increased volcanism and earthquakes. We should be analysing and preparing for the coming cold event, because the last two Northern Hemisphere growing seasons have been shorter than usual and the possibility of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum and associated Little Ice Age looms far larger as a potential threat than atmospheric warming possibly could in our near term future. Just one or two more reductions in the growing seasons, and food scarcity will dominate our news cycle. The coldest weather under the solar scientists’ scenarios is expected by 2030. 

There seems no point in discussing the inevitability of returning to the next leg of the 100,000 year Milankovich Cycle at this stage. 

In 1989 the UN’s IPCC (corrupted ab initio by political interference) issued its first extravagant and unsubstantiated emergency global warning (printed gleefully in our own newspapers) that we had to reduce our CO2 emissions within ten years – or else! For you to still accept the IPCC reports as authoritative (and without any question), despite the abundant evidence of fraud and conspiracy, defies belief. […]

We have, since COP21 in Paris, actually increased our emissions, and the countries being monitored are continuing to increase emissions while attacking pollution. Yet every year or two we get warnings based on false scare tactics which masquerade as scientific studies, carried out by people who receive money for supporting this UN IPCC fraud – always published just in time for the next convention, which is inevitably held at great expense in exotic places. Then the latest garbage gets debunked by sceptics but their truth is suppressed and excluded from media commentary.  To date there have been 24 such international “Conferences of Parties”  with attendees ranging from 15-30,000 beneficiaries jetting in to get more government handouts for achieving what? None of their predictions have ever come true! Just more scare tactics. 

Even the litigation prosecuting big oil have failed. There was never any evidence of them committing misdeeds, only the coordinated “beat-up” so the IPCC could claim that anyone who rejected their Anthropogenic Global Warming theory was in the pay of Big Oil. The programme of getting rid of all opposition to the IPCC programme is disgraceful; it has been vindictive and a blot on scientific credibility. If the global warming argument could be supported using science, why resort to fraud and character assassination…thereby ending the careers of many brilliant scientists? 

Our media seem at a loss to explain why the subversive actions of the IPCC and other UN organisations have led President Trump into open revolt against the United Nations.  Instead, the media focus on his tweets to denigrate any achievements he has made.  Try viewing […] this.

[…] We are indebted to those scientists who have kept up the battle against the global machine. A few OECD countries are now being tapped to provide the UN IPCC with multi-billion dollar annual contributions, so the UN IPCC can fulfil their primary mandate to take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor. Obama’s agreement to go down that route won him an early Nobel Peace Prize (this is what he got in return for his gullibility; what are you hoping for?). Now Trump has rightly pulled the pin on the US contribution. Yet, somehow ,we Kiwis are still on the hook. Carbon is an essential element and yet we in New Zealand are being treated like idiots, as our government sets out to raise taxes on it, for which we will all ultimately pay through increased cost of living. 

Do we have to join the “yellow vests” of France on the streets of Wellington before we get some common sense from our leaders?

John Rofe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 out of 12 ain’t bad …

by WH 
 
alarmist_clock.png?w=414&ssl=1

It is a constant source of wonder that climate doomsday scenario after climate doomsday scenario fails to come true and yet the faithful continue to believe and the media continue to parrot climate doomsday scenarios. The GWPF has put together a list of the top 12 debunked climate scares of 2018 for us. The Stuff and Nonsense editorial team would no doubt be very surprised to find that the science is not as settled as they think. Quote.

January 2018:  Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: Study

PARIS (AFP) – Earth’s surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet’s temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

February:  ‘Sinking’ Pacific nation Tuvalu is actually getting bigger, new research reveals

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu — long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels — is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

March: BBC forced to retract false claim about hurricanes

You may recall the above report by the BBC, which described how bad last year’s Atlantic hurricane season was, before commenting at the end: “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.” I fired off a complaint, which at first they did their best to dodge. After my refusal to accept their reply, they have now been forced to back down

April: Corals can withstand another 100-250 Years of  climate change, new study

Heat-tolerant genes may spread through coral populations fast enough to give the marine creatures a tool to survive another 100-250 years of warming in our oceans.

May: Climate change causes beaches to grow by 3,660 square kilometers

Since 1984 humans have gushed forth 64% of our entire emissions from fossil fuels. (Fully 282,000 megatons of deplorable carbon “pollution”.) During this time, satellite images show that 24% of our beaches shrank, while 28% grew. Thus we can say that thanks to the carbon apocalypse there are 3,660 sq kms more global beaches now than there were thirty years ago.

June: Antarctica not losing ice, NASA researcher finds

NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

July: National Geographic admits they were wrong about notorious starving polar bear-climate claims

The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

August: New study shows declining risk and increasing resilience to extreme weather in France

This risk factor for French residents of cities stricken by a disaster has been falling with every passing decade.

September: Coral bleaching is a natural event that has gone on for centuries, new study

Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before Euro­pean settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

October: Climate predictions could be wrong in UK and Europe

Current climate change predictions in the UK and parts of Europe may be inaccurate, a study conducted by researchers from the University of Lincoln, UK, and the University of Liège, Belgium, suggests.

November: Number and intensity of US hurricanes have remained constant since 1900

There’s been “no trend” in the number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the continental U.S. and the normalized damages caused by such storms over the past 117 years, according to a new study.

December: Alarmist sea level rise scenarios unlikely, says climate scientist Judith Curry

A catastrophic rise in sea levels is unlikely this century, with ­recent experience falling within the range of natural variability over the past several thousand years, according to a report on peer-­reviewed studies by US climate scientist Judith Curry.  End quote.

Oh, by the way, we only have 10 years left to reduce our emissions in order to save the planet. The 30,000 people that flew to Katowice agreed on that so it must be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming causes hurricanes? Yeah, nah.

by Kevin 
 
pb-130528-storm-cannon.photoblog900.jpg? Orlin Wagner / AP

Remember climate alarmists saying that more hurricanes were proof that man-made global warming was real? James Delingpole at Breitbart sets the record straight. quote.

Quote:Global warming has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, a study published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has confirmed.

Climate alarmists such Michael Mann, Kerry Emanuel, and Al Gore often claim that hurricanes are among the extreme weather events that have been exacerbated by man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle.End of quote.

In other words evil Capitalism and Consumerism. quote.

Quote:But there is “little evidence” that this is so, according to the study’s author Paul Homewood.

Even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 that there has been little change in long-term hurricane activity:

In summary, [there is] low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting or past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.

Unfortunately, a particularly severe hurricane season in the North Atlantic in 2017 gave the alarmists just the excuse they needed to cry wolf once more. Backed by footage of the devastation caused by that year’s two major landfalling hurricanes — Harvey and Irma — they concocted a plausible theory as to why global warming will increase such extreme weather events: hurricanes feed off warm waters, so the warmer the waters, the more intense the hurricane.End of quote.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, correlation isn’t proof of causation. quote.

Quote:This theory, though, is confounded by real-world evidence:

The longest and most reliable database of hurricanes is of US landfalling ones. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division has carefully reanalysed the original records of all hurricanes up to 1960. Its HURDAT database shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of hurricanes or major hurricanes (Category 3 and over) since the start of the record in 1851.

Prior to Harvey, no major hurricane had hit the US since Wilma in 2005, the longest such period on record. In 2017, for instance, two major landfalling hurricanes – Harvey and Irma – hit the US, but this is not unusual. In 1893, for instance, there were three, a number repeated in 1909. The record year for landfalling hurricanes was 1886, when there were seven. Only three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the US mainland: the Labor Day hurricane in 1935, Camille in 1969, and Andrew in 1992.End of quote.

Actually, it’s isn’t even a theory. I dug out my old form 4 science notes (actually googled it) and found that a “hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.” In contrast, a theory is a “tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.”

So the idea that global warming causes more hurricanes is a hypothesis, not a theory. Actually, it’s not even a hypothesis as a hypothesis must be “testable and falsifiable.” How do you test that warmer weather causes more hurricanes? How do you even falsify it? quote.

Quote:Data provided by HURDAT also shows that recent hurricane activity in the North Atlantic has not been unusual by historical standards. In 2017, there were six major Atlantic hurricanes, but the highest total recorded was eight in 1950. Of last year’s six, two were Category 5 – Irma and Maria – but again, this is not unusual, having occurred five times previously, including in 1932 and 1933.

[…]A database of global hurricanes is kept, with data going back to 1970. This shows an increase in the number of major hurricanes and their accumulated energy between 1970 and 1993. This is associated with the AMO cycle too. Since 1993, there has been a decline in the frequency of all hurricanes, major hurricanes and accumulated energy.

In summary, there is little evidence that global warming has resulted in more hurricanes, or more intense ones in recent years. On the contrary, available evidence confirms that hurricane and major hurricane frequency has been similar in many prior periods.

Hurricane activity, in other words, is a cyclical weather event which has nothing to do with “man-made” climate change. Don’t let the alarmist #fakenews merchants tell you otherwise.End of quote.

AGW isn’t science. It’s a show trial with Industrialism as the accused and the media in the back pocket of the prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

97% of media hacks agree …

by WH 
 
97_percent.png?w=632&ssl=1

Ian Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, previously he was a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He looks at the 97% consensus in a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Quote.

In the scientific circles I mix in, there is an overwhelming scepticism about human-induced climate change. Many of my colleagues claim that the mantra of human-induced global warming is the biggest scientific fraud of all time and future generations will pay dearly. […]

In my 50-year scientific career, I have never seen a hypothesis where 97 per cent of scientists agree. At any scientific conference there are collections of argumentative sods who don’t agree about anything, argue about data, how data was collected and the conclusions derived from data.

Scepticism underpins all science, science is underpinned by repeatable validated evidence and scientific conclusions are not based on a show of hands, consensus, politics or feelings.

Scientists, just like lawyers, bankers, unionists, politicians and those in all other fields, can make no claim to being honest or honourable, and various warring cliques of scientists have their leaders, followers, outsiders and enemies. Scientists differ from many in the community because they are allegedly trained to be independent. Unless, of course, whacking big research grants for climate “science” are waved in front of them.

The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 self-appointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent. […]

Another recent paper on the scientific consensus of human-induced climate change was a howler. Such papers can be published only in the sociology or environmental literature.

The paper claimed that published scientific papers showed there was a 97.1 per cent consensus that man had caused at least half of the 0.7C global warming since 1950. How was this 97.1 per cent figure determined? By “inspection” of 11,944 published papers. Inspection is not rigorous scholarship. There was no critical reading and understanding derived from reading 11,944 papers. […] What was inspected? By whom?

The methodology section of the publication gives the game away. “This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project. […] In March 2012, we searched the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science for papers published from 1991-2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’.”

This translates as: This study was a biased compilation of opinions from non-scientific, politically motivated volunteer activists who used a search engine for key words in 11,944 scientific papers, were unable to understand the scientific context of the use of “global warming” and “global climate change”, who rebadged themselves as “citizen scientists” to hide their activism and ignorance, who did not read the complete papers and were unable to evaluate critically the diversity of science published therein.

The conclusions were predictable because the methodology was not dispassionate and involved decisions by those who were not independent.

As part of a scathing critical analysis of this paper by real scientists, the original 11,944 papers were read and the readers came to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Of the 11,944 papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950 (0.3 per cent). […] It was less than 1 per cent and not one paper endorsed a man-made global warming catastrophe.

Political policy and environmental activism rely on this fraudulent 97 per cent consensus paid for by the taxpayer to rob the taxpayer further with subsidies for bird-and-bat-chomping wind turbines, polluting solar panels and handouts to those with sticky fingers in the international climate industry. […]

Activists with no skin in the game are setting the scene for economic suicide. Time for yellow shirts to shirt-front politicians about their uncritical acceptance of a fraud that has already cost the community hundreds of billions of dollars.  E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open letter to West Coast Regional Council

by Guest Post 
 

 

open-letter.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1

Dear Andrew,

The Climate Conversation Group admires your council’s decision—which has gained widespread attention—not to support the Zero Carbon Bill until the science of the underlying theory of man-made global warming has been clearly explained and properly proven.

To support this decision and to strengthen your resolve, we write to let you know:

  1. The CCG has been asking for evidence of dangerous man-made warming (DAGW) for many years without success.
  2. Two weeks ago we asked the IPCC Secretariat itself for this evidence; they have none.
  3. We wrote last year to the Royal Society in London for this evidence; they had none.
  4. We asked the Royal Society of New Zealand a few months ago for this evidence; they had none.
  5. In December 2017 I asked the Minister for Climate Change, the Hon James Shaw, for this evidence; he had none (which means the Ministry for the Environment has none).
  6. We have asked numerous scientists in New Zealand and around the world and the publicly-employed ones universally tell us to see the IPCC Assessment Reports. Many of the independent scientists tell us there is no evidence.

I note that NIWA scientists have already started to bully you and your council, but please withstand the temptation to give in. No matter how much it may seem that the weight of public and official opinion is against you (and it’s a terrible weight) know beyond a shadow of doubt that truth is with you and truth is very weighty indeed.

The evidence for that is easy to find (unlike the evidence for DAGW) — it is simply that so far nobody has clearly explained the evidence.

Keep asking for the evidence and be assured that we will, too. If we can be of any assistance to you, you need only ask.

With my very best wishes,

Richard Treadgold
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group
Member of NZ Climate Science Coalition
climateconversation.org.nz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

West Coast Regional Council get it right

by Christie 
 
165.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1 Buller Gorge. Photo: Christie

The West Coast Regional Council has rejected the government’s proposed Zero Carbon Bill, saying it needs more scientific evidence before it buys into the idea of man-made climate change. This is smart of the council. It covers a very large area, but much of it is sparsely populated and the cost of implementing these policies will be a large burden on ratepayers for no discernible benefit. quote.

The West Coast Regional Council wants more scientific evidence to prove human-driven climate change is happening before it will commit to reducing emissions.

The council does not support the government’s Zero Carbon Bill and is the only regional council in the country to reject it.

In its submission, the council said if West Coasters were to commit to emissions targets, “the evidence proving anthropogenic climate change must be presented and proven beyond reasonable doubt”. end quote.

Which will never happen… and even if it does, it is the large emitters that are mostly responsible. Unless China and India really do make serious reductions to their emissions, any sacrifices made by the West Coast Regional Council will be a waste of time and money. quote.

The council’s stance did not impress Hector local Penny Madden, who said in her 20 years in the region the sea changed dramatically.

“I mean it’s lapping right at my sea wall at high tide now and that’s really close.”

Ms Madden had no doubt this was the result of climate change and said the council’s stance was irresponsible and disappointing, but not surprising. end quote.

Coastal erosion has been happening in that area for decades. Probably longer. There is no evidence that it is caused by climate change. Even if it were, anything the council does will make no difference. Does she think planting a few trees and putting in EV charging stations will suddenly make the sea go away? quote.

New Zealand’s representative on the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Brownyn Hayward, said the community should not be written off as “rednecks” who did not understand the issue.

The council submitted that it had limited ability to contribute to reduce carbon levels through tree planting as only 16 percent of its land was not part of the conservation estate. end quote.

Dead right. Most of the land in the area is conservation land and much of that is scrub. If the government is hell bent on planting trees in the area, let them do it on conservation land. Shane Jones is planting 1 billion trees. Put some of them down there as part of that initiative. quote.

It also said it would be challenging for the region to move to fully electric vehicles, because of the need to charge batteries.

end quote.

There are lots of power cuts in the region because of the long distances between power generation sources and end users; this makes power expensive. Transmission losses can be between 5% and 11% in parts of the region. Also, people tend to travel longer distances than in the cities. Imagine if the local doctor could not charge up his Nissan Leaf to save a chronically ill patient because someone had driven into a power pole and knocked out the power supply to his area? It happens all the time down there. quote.

Dr Hayward said the West Coast should be a flag on how New Zealand made the transition to a lower carbon economy.

  MSM news end quote.

Why should it? The area almost certainly produces the lowest emissions in the country. Why make the locals pay more when they will see no benefit at all?

It is refreshing to see a public body standing up to the nonsense spouted by James Shaw and the Green party. The West Coast is, for the most part, the cleanest and least polluted part of the entire country. The Zero Carbon Bill will make little or no difference to the world situation regarding emissions, but it will cost the people of New Zealand a small fortune. Why exactly so many people are buying into this fantasy makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now