Document 13
IS THE HYPOTHESIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
CORRECT? A PERSONAL VIEW.
D C Edmeades
AgKnowledge Ltd, PO Box 9147, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand
Agricultural Spokesman for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
INTRODUCTION
Climate change, or more specifically anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is
arguably the major contemporary scientific issue confronting society. It is based on
the hypothesis that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the
atmosphere, and specifically carbon dioxide, as a result of man’s activities, increase
global temperature. Based on this hypothesis the New Zealand gove nment has
developed a policy to mitigate GHG emissions by essentially imposing a cost on
GHG emissions, called the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This legislation is due
to come into force in July 2010. New Zealand’s ETS is unique among the OECD
countries because it includes agriculture and it is for this reason that there is
ACT 1982
considerable research in progress in New Zealand to develop technologies and
management practices to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture.
It appears that many agricultural scientists accept the hypothesis of AGW without
consideration of its scientific validity, excusing themselves on the reasonable grounds
that they are not specialist in this field and therefore must defer to those who are. The
so called “consensus” that “the science is settled” prevails.
Climate science is very complex and covers many disciplines, from basic physics and
chemistry through to geology, oceanography and meteorology. It is doubtful that there
is any one person who has a complete grasp of all the detail across so many
disciplines. This means that it is very difficult for those who are not “climate
scientists” to come to their own conclusion about the veracity of the AGW hypothesis.
INFORMATION
An alternative and simpler approach to the question of AGW is to apply the normal
RELEASED UNDER THE
scientific process of proposing a hypothesis and testing it against the evidence. In this
case the hypothesis is: do increasing concentrations of GHGs, and in particular carbon
dioxide, from human activities, results in an increase in global temperatures. The
question then becomes: what is the evidence to accept or reject this hypothesis? This
is the approach adopted in this paper and six reasons are advanced which collectively
lead to rejecting the AGW hypothesis. These reasons are not developed from a
personal knowledge of the primary scientific literature, but arise mainly from material
available in reviews on this topic.
OFFICIAL Also this is a personal view point in the sense that
others, adopting the same approach, may choose other reasons or place different
priorities and/or emphasis on the various reasons offered.
REASON ONE: Relative Importance of GHGs.
The relative importance of the major GHGs is shown in Figure 1. Others have
reported slightly different numbers, but the fact remains that water, as in water vapour
and clouds, is by far the most important GHG, in terms of its effect on global
temperature. Despite its importance the effects of atmospheric water on global
temperature is not well understood. Of the 8 factors (“forcings” to use the climate
science terminology) listed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) which affect global temperature, atmospheric water has the highest degree of
uncertainly (Singer 2008). Indeed it is not clear whether water has a positive or
negative effect on global warming (see http://www.appinsy.com/Water.Vapor.htm).
The IPCC believe that atmospheric water has a positive effect on global temperatures
Thus, it is argued that as global temperatures increase due to an increase in carbon
dioxide concentration, this in turn will increase the amount of atmospheric water and
hence exacerbate the warming. This logic gives rise to the notion of reaching a
“tipping point” or “runaway warming” The fact that “runaway warming” has never
occurred in the geological past (see Figure 3, 4 and 6) does not support this notion and
is, indeed, evidence to suggest that atmospheric water has a net cooling effect. This is
possibly one of the reasons why the IPCC “predictions” of global warming are
ACT 1982
inconsistent with the empirical observations (see Reason 6).
The other seemingly innocuous question which arises from the relative importance of
atmospheric water is this: why are the mitigation options for minimising global
warming, such as the ETS, focussed on carbon dioxide and methane when the major
factor affecting global warming is water?
The points made above are not in themselves fatal to the AGW hypothesis but they do
lead to some awkward questions about the purpose and effects of the ETS.
Figure 1: The relative importance of the major green house gases (GHG)
(http:/www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse data.thml)
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
REASON TWO: Relative Size of Carbon Dioxide Sinks and Sources.
The relative size of the major sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide are
shown in Figure 2. Once again the question must be posed: if governments are
determined to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, then surely
these other much larger sinks, the land and the oceans, must be considered. Putting it
differently, if there is an equilibrium between all these sinks then surely the land and
the oceans have a very large capacity to mitigate man’s proportionately small
emissions of carbon dioxide? Once again this is not fatal to the hypothesis of AGW
but questions the policy options being adopted to minimise global warming assuming
the carbon dioxide is the cause.
There is also another obvious point to make about carbon dioxide. It is a colourless
odourless gas which is essential to all life on the planet. Indeed if you were arguing
the case to increase the world’s food production, enhancing the carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere would be a good strategy. It is estimated that
doubling in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, as is projected by IPCC,
would increase plant production by about 30% (Bast and Bast 2009). ACT 1982
In this same context it is worth noting that the IPCC projections based on the climate
models (see Reason 6 later) is that the global temperature will increase by 2-4 o C by
2100 due to an increase on carbon dioxide In an agricultural setting this increase in
temperature is similar to the difference in average temperature of the regions Waikato
and Southland. They are equally productive agricultural regions. This general point is
well made by Lawson (2009) who goes on to argue that if the AGW hypothesis is true
then the best policy is not mitigation but adaptation, something that all forms of life
achieve with excellence.
Figure 2: The relative size of th main sinks and sources of carbon dioxide
(http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/green.htm)
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Figure 5. Relationship between temperature anomaly, carbon dioxide concentration and sunspot cycle
length in the northern hemisphere. (http:/www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405)
ACT 1982
Importantly, the paleoclimate record is corroborated by independent historical
evidence. Figure 6 depicts the global temperatures since the last glaciation (about
10,000 years ago), covering the historical period when mankind evolved from hunter-
gatherers by developing agriculture and in time, civilisations. During this period there
have been times when the earth has been warmer than the present (e.g. the Holocene,
Roman and Medieval periods) and it is known for the historical record that these were
INFORMATION
times of greater prosperity, more food and better health (Plimer 2009). As both Plimer
(2009) and Lawson (2009) have noted a planet warmer than today is not something to
RELEASED UNDER THE
be feared.
OFFICIAL
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Figure 9. Temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over Antarctica.
(www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW Part1 PrehistoricalRecord files/imag)
ACT 1982
This lack of cause and effect is more obviously seen in recent data (Figure 10) which
shows that the global temperatures appear to be declining in the last decade despite an
increase in carbon dioxide concentration. This evidence is fatal to the AGW
hypothesis.
Figure 10. Estimated global lower troposphere (bot om line) ground surface (top line) temperature
records over the last 6 years in relation to monthly carbon dioxide concentrations.
(http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/)
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Some argue that this recent period of apparent cooling could be followed by another
period of warming - that may be the case - but equally it can be argued that the period
of warming since about 1850, post the Little Ice Age, is at an end and that future
temperatures could be lower than in the first decade of the 21st century. It is in this
context that recent statements made in support of AGW such as: the last decade is the
warmest in recorded history (e.g. since 1850) have no meaning except to create alarm.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
(2009) provides an interesting perspective on the validity of these scenarios, but
leaving that aside, these temperature projections are inconsistent with the empirical
data (Figure 12). Under normal circumstances such models would be either modified
or discarded. In their defence, the IPCC states that they only make projections, not
predictions, but faced with the obvious conclusion from Figure 11, such semantics
appear worthless.
Figure12. Projected and observed global temperatures (http:/www.scienceandpublicpolicy.com)
ACT 1982
Much has been made by the IPCC that there is a “consensus” and that the “science is
settled”. This would appear to be borne out by the numbers that the IPCC produce;
they say that their reports are the work of many scientists and claim that 4000
scientists support the AGW hypothesis. An analysis of this claim (McLean 2009)
reveals that only about 60 scientists contributing to IPCC’s AR 4 in 2007, explicitly
support the AGW hypothesis. In contrast (Table 1) hundreds of scientists have signed
INFORMATION
petitions explicitly rejecting AGW. Monckton (2007) also discusses the fallacy of the
AGW consensus.
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Table 1: List of petitions and letters including people who disagree with the AGW
hypothesis.
31,478 US scientists including 9000 PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Manhattan Declaration - now over 1100 endorsers
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=3
7&Itemid=54
Letter signed by 103 scientists to UN Secretary-General
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story html?id=164002
Over 650 scientists dissent from AGW consensus
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
60 German dissenters
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than 60-German-
Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo Religion-Urge-
Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
ACT 1982
Finally the IPCC have attempted to give their reports and conclusions credibility by
claiming that they have only relied on peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature.
This appears not to be the case, with recent revelations that some of the IPCC claims
were
based
on
anecdotal
evidence
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-erros-
in). Such is the concern that IPCC has announced an independent review of their
procedures and processes
CONCLUSION
INFORMATION
The complex issue of climate change can be approached as an exercise in hypothesis
testing with H0 being; Do increasing concentrations of GHG, and in particular carbon
RELEASED UNDER THE
dioxide, from man’s activities, result in an increase in global temperatures? It is
concluded that this hypothesis can be rejected solely on the evidence that global
temperatures are not determined by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In
addition the paleoclimate record is consistent with this conclusion; changes in global
temperature both positive and negative have occurred long before the advent of man
and the use of carbon-based energy. The changes in global temperature, sea levels and
glacier shrinkage, since the mid 19th century, can be explained without invoking the
hypothesis of AGW.
OFFICIAL
The other reasons discussed in this paper are not fatal to the hypothesis of AGW but
arise because the hypothesis of AGW is incorrect. They provide collateral support to
reject the AGW hypothesis.
It is concluded therefore that the hypothesis of man-induced global warming should
be treated with scepticism. This conclusion will be reviewed as further evidence is
forthcoming.
References
Bast, Joseph, L. and Bast, Diane Carol. [Eds]. Climate Change Reconsidered. Report
of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Chicago,
IL. The Heartland Institute, 2009.
Carter, Robert M. 2008. Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous
Human-Caused global Warming? Economic Analysis and Policy 38, No 2, September
2008.
Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.j., Moller, J., 1969. One thousand centuries of climate
record from Camp Century on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 166: 377-381.
Lawson, N. 2009. An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming.
Duckworth Overlook, London.
ACT 1982
Loehle, C 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction on Non-Treering
Proxy Data. Energy and Environment 18: 1049-1058.
Magee, B. 1998. The Story of Philosophy. Dorling Kindersley, London.
McLean, John. 2009. The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”: - Author and
reviewer numbers are wrong. http/www.mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
McLean, J., de Freitas, C.R., Carter, R.M 2009. Influence of the Southern Oscillation
on tropospheric temperature Journal of Geophysical Research 114,
D14104,doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
Monckton.
2007.
INFORMATION
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monkton/consensus.pdf
RELEASED UNDER THE
Plimer, I. Heaven and Earth, Global Warming; The Missing Science. Taylor Trade
Publishing, Victoria Australia, 2009.
Robinson, Arthur. B., Robinson, Noah. E., and Soon, Willie. 2007. Environmental
Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons. 12, 79-90.
Schonwiese, C., 1995. Klimaanderungen:
OFFICIAL
Daten, Analysen, Prognosen. Springer,
Heidelberg
Singer, S. Fred. [Ed.]. Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules Climate Change. Summary
for Policy Makers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on
Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008.
Svensmark, Hendrik and Calder, Nigel. The Chilling Stars, A Cosmic View of
Climate Change. Icon Books Ltd, Britain. 2008.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Document 14
Submission on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon)
Amendment Bill
I oppose the intent of this Bil for the reasons discussed below.
Climate Change
Climate fluctuations are continually happening and the major influence of that change is the
sun. It’s influence on the gulf stream La Nino and El Nino, etc. To target taxation on pastoral,
(mainly family) farms is unreasonable in that they cannot pass on their tax cost and are
already facing increased servicing costs from the actions of the NZ government, not to
mention facing volatile and subsidised foreign markets. I feel, as a farmer, unappreciated
and the whipping boy by the government and the public at large.
Those supporting the IPCC narrative of human activity causing global warming have
succumbed to ‘Project Fear’, or have a vested interest, or an agenda to fulfil . These include
the carbon credit a whole new form of currency being bil ions of dol ars traded. I understand
in the 1980s, Exxon Mobil itself started the fossil fuel human global warming narrative.
ACT 1982
Huge manufacturing profits are to be made in alternative green energy. In NZ’s case and
many other countries, this wil be off sourced to China. No wonde they signed up to the
Paris Climate Agreement.
With regards to the viability and construction of wind powered generators, Lord Christopher
Monckton has investigated the cost of these and found it completely prohibitive in that it
requires a 50 percent subsidy just to meet construction, let alone the decommissioning
which is not calculated (refer to https://youtu be/ZH4m-Cs-u3Y). In addition, there is the
impact on seabirds, given the size of the blades are around that of a 747 and the tips travel
at 300 kilometres per hour. Dr Patrick Moore (ex Greenpeace) asserts that he has
‘thousands’ of photos of these dead b rds.
INFORMATION
Then there are solar panels which are the most inefficient means of converting solar power.
RELEASED UNDER THE
Climate deniers
Those that chal enge the narrative of climate change are called deniers which is a sordid
attempt to link their opinions with the Holocast.
Those chal enging the narrative are usually retired professionals, university professors with
doctorates, including Professor Freeman Dyson (Princeton University), Professor Wil iam
OFFICIAL
Happer (Princeton University), Patrick Moore (Foundation Member of Greenpeace), Piers
Corbyn (Astrophysicist), Dr Wil ie Soon and Dr Roy Spencer (previously senior scientist on
climate studies for NASA during the Clinton/Gore administration who was told what to say
during that time, and following his resignation in 2001 is now a Professor at the University of
Alabama). Dr Roy Spencer discusses how climate related measurements were previously
conducted by land based measurements but are now all conducted through satellite.
However, cloud cover frequently distorts these satellite readings and resulting in skewed
1
measurements. He also states that the IPCC has a fundamental flaw in that they are
mandated to find the
human causes of climate change.
Please refer to the video clips below in support:
●
https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4 (Patrick Moore)
●
https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs (Professor Wil iam Happer)
●
https://youtu.be/sXxktLAsBPo (Patrick Moore)
●
https://youtu.be/N2ldNuKZgoA (Piers Corbyn)
●
https://youtu.be/BiKfWdXXfIs (Freeman Dyson)
●
https://youtu.be/Qzf6z-oHP8U (Dr Roy Spencer)
Scientists supporting the climate change narrative
Starting with Al Gore who, on his latest book ‘
Our Choice’ had an altered photograph of
Earth on the cover, where some cloud cover appears to be removed and the cyclones
altered: one in the northern hemisphere spinning the wrong way and another placed on the
equator which is an impossibility.
ACT 1982
Secondly, Professor Michael Mann who made a false statement to a Congressional hearing
on climate change. He also fabricated the infamous ‘hockey stick graph, which
misrepresented the 1930s climate temperatures to maintain his narrative
(see
https://youtu.be/dcdPM5FY8Ug and https://youtu.be/S3f42t4C7XU)
The world media is onto the narrative, for example, as quoted in NZ Herald article on 6
March 2019 under the heading ‘
The Earth is round, and we’re warming it’ by Jim Salinger
and Michael Mann
(https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/art cle.cfm?c id=1&objectid=12209554):
“The BBC has adopted guidelines on their climate-change coverage and agreed:
1. Man-made climate change is real and the most widely accepted view
INFORMATION on the science is that
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is accepted by at least 97 per
cent of scientists working and publishing in the field.
RELEASED UNDER THE
2. Because there is such a powerful consensus, there is no requirement to give climate
deniers a platform. A debate with one expert scientist versus one denier demonstrates a false
balance; to get a genuine balance you would need at least 97 scientists for every three
deniers.
3. There might be occasions where contrarians and sceptics could be included in debates.
OFFICIAL
For instance, discussing the speed and intensity of what wil happen in the future, or what
policies government should adopt to mitigate the problem and adapt.”
Please note, the BBC assertion that 97 percent of scientists accept man-made climate
change is hotly contested.
2
Media and propaganda
The NZ Herald article of 6 March 2019 referred to above includes a photograph of a young
girl holding a placard stating “
You say you love your children, but you are destroying
their future” and the comment below it says “Those who persist in climate denial are being
outright irresponsible to future generations”.
Who is destroying whose future? The ones with the false narrative?
This indoctrination of our young children from early childhood through their teens is
completely out of hand. It is known as ‘Project Fear’. This is a western phenomenon by our
educators and I witnessed the same on a recent visit to London where children were given
time off school to create placards or have readymade placards provided to them to
demonstrate outside Westminster.
It is not confined to schools either. In the 10 June 2019 edition of
Farmers Weekly,
Permanent Forests Managing Director Mark Belton, says “carbon farming and the ETS has
to be sorted in the next 20 to 30 years or its game over”. With a target of zero carbon, where
is the extra CO2 for the extra 200-400,000 hectares of new bush /pine p anting going to come
ACT 1982
from? On this note, we pump extra CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow faster.
The higher the CO2, the better our trees and our pasture wil grow.
Mainstream media has lost any credibility for an unbiased commentary.
Agenda 21 (published by the United Nations - Sustainable Development)
Is the climate change debate linked to Agenda 21 as published by the United Nations?
Impact on NZ Agriculture
The impact on New Zealand agriculture is that productive land is being consumed by forestry
plantings that have a lower return to the New Zealand economy. The onl
INFORMATION y way that they can
sustain their investment i e. cost of land is for a cross subsidy from existing overseas
investments. Furthermore western banks are continuing their quantitative easi
RELEASED UNDER THE ng policies.
Secondly, it squeezes New Zealand young farmers out of a career in agriculture.
As to the financial implications, as discussed above, a tax is a tax is a tax. On this basis
there is less incentive to invest in the New Zealand agricultural industry.
OFFICIAL
Conclusion
The purpose of my submission is to state that I am not in favour of any carbon tax to be put
on the pastoral community of New Zealand. It is premature, the science is not conclusive
and the degree of influence on climate variations has not been quantified, nor quantified for
the world and/or what proportion that liability (if any) is due to New Zealand pastoral farming.
As Disraeli said, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
3
We barely have 5 mil ion people in New Zealand and a large pastoral flock - how do you
compare that to large populations such as India and China? What is our carbon footprint
relevant to?
In addition, I have provided access to information contained in my submission so that
farmers can be informed. Knowledge is key and there are differing opinions, and by looking
at the different opinions you can form your own and be happy with the ground you stand on.
I believe it is important to have a two way dialogue on this in New Zealand. I am very
disappointed in the way mainstream media has presented a bias for human caused climate
change.
I am not aware that there have been widespread meetings that have been held to discuss
these climate issues. It is important to have an open discussion.
The above submission is my opinion based on the information I have read. The information
and links I have included are to the best of my knowledge factual and relevant.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
4
Document 15
Submission on the Zero Carbon Bill (ZCB) : July 2019
Global Warming, Reducing Emissions a Very Expensive Approach to a Non
Problem : Dr Jock Allison, ONZM, (Services to Science, 2000) FNZIPIM
Contacts :
,
SUMMARY:
With all the present hysteria about global warming and the perceived need to commence drastic
emissions reductions within 12 years, there is still no convincing scientific evidence that increasing
atmospheric CO2 is the cause of warming, nor that CO2 is the control knob of climate. While clearly
the world has warmed a little, this has been expected, as it is coming out of a little ice age.
In any discussion on climate change cogniscance of the IPCC statement “In climate research and
modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system,
and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” should be in
the forefront of any consideration.
Three recent lines of research show global warming cannot be confidently attributed to human
ACT 1982
emissions. This is illustrated as a three-legged stool, and
the dis ussion points of this submission are pretty hard to refute
any of them using credible scientific argument. Government and University scientists asserting in
INFORMATION
discussion of the “this does not agree with the IPCC” without any engagement on the actual science
is not a credible course of action. Yet this is precisely what NZ bureaucrats and scientists say when
RELEASED UNDER THE
confronted with new published science which they do not agree with.
BLUE: Water vapour is the main Greenhouse Gas – this is completely uncontroversial ; methane and
nitrous oxide together account for only about 1% of warming, and anthropogenic CO2 causes some
minor warming (Allison & Sheehan 2018 – this paper appended with the submission).
https://www.nzipim.co.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder id=120&File=The%20Journal%20Sep
tember%202018.pdf
OFFICIAL
RED: Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a half-life of only 10 years in the atmosphere, not more than 200+
years espoused by the IPCC (Berry, 2019), It is a short-lived gas.
http:/ www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijao
s.20190301.13
Further the benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2 are not considered by Government, the IPCC, the
media and the general public. The increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years has
1
caused a significant increase in plant growth (probably about 30%) and the “greening” of the world
can easily be seen https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html . Why
therefore would any government take action to reduce atmospheric CO2, which would diminish this
present greening?
GREEN: The IPCC models, which predict 3.6 degrees C warming, + or minus 1.2 degrees (as a result of
doubling atmospheric CO2) are wrong. The correct figure is less than one third of this, 1.0 degree + or
minus 0.2 degrees (Monckton et al., 2018). Monckton discusses this in a video
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxcZ8LEm2A). The actual atmospheric temperature records
also agree with this assessment.
Clearly there is a requirement for an honest debate about the atmospheric physics of the warming
effects of the commonly recognised GHGs, including of course the effects of water vapour, the main
Greenhouse Gas. It is clear that humans can have little effect on the climate and it is naïve to think
that humans through attempting to control or reduce atmospheric CO2. The economic impact of
continuing to adopt strategies towards the above strategies is huge, negative, pointless and
predictable.
The conclusions of this submission do not in any way disagree with policies of cleaning up the
ACT 1982
environment and increasing the efficiency of energy use
1.
Allison & Sheahen 2018
Recently Dr Tom Sheahen and I published a paper in the New Zealand Institute of Primary Industry
Management Journal on the topic of the effectiveness of Greenhouse Gases (GHG),
https://www.nzipim.co.nz/Folde ?Action=View%20File&Folder id=120&File=The%20Journal%20Sep
tember%202018.pdf Pages 3-10.
A simpler representation of the work is an article published in Dairy News, 18 September 2018:
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/dairy news/dairy-general-news/water-blamed-as-big-planet-
warmer
INFORMATION
The main points …
RELEASED UNDER THE
My co-author Tom Sheahen is a distinguished PhD in Physics who Chairs the United States Science
and Environmental Policy Project (https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/tom-sheahen),
and we have been advised in the preparation of the paper by two distinguished Professors of Physics
at American universities: Will Happer, an emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton, currently a
Scientif c Advisor at the White House in the USA. Prof Happer is a well recognised most distinguished
scientist. see ….
OFFICIAL
(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/trump-adds-physicist-will-happer-climate-
scienceopponent-white-house-staff); Professor William van Wijngaarden of York University in
Canada (http://www.physics.yorku.ca/index.php/who-we-are/all-faculty/62-wijngaarden) has also
been a valuable advisor re the science of atmospheric physics.
Our paper is most important because …
2
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
The IPCC computer models conveniently “park” the water vapour to one side and then
assume that this acts as a “feedback which “amplifies the effect of the other GHGs by about
3 times. The facts are that the water vapour molecules are evenly mixed throughout the
lower atmosphere, and absorb radiation coming back from the Earth’s surface in all the
same areas as do the other GHGs. All of the GHGs compete and interfere with each other in
the same space.
b. The Greenhouse Gases, water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) are similar size molecules and have a similar absorptive capacity.
c. The concentration of water vapour is very small at the poles and rises to about 4% in the
tropics. We have taken a for-example of 15,000 parts per million (ppm) in our paper as a
working “for example” average, a conservative assumption. In the atmosphere CO2 is 410
ppm, methane 1.8 ppm, and nitrous oxide 0.3 ppm. (Yes!, a Greenhouse Gas of only 1.8 ppm
is supposedly responsible for 35%+ of New Zealand’s total emissions, and N2O at only 0.3
ppm a further 15%)
d. The relative warming effects, or Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of the various GHGs
promulgated by the IPCC are CO2 = 1; Methane = 28; and Nitrous Oxide 260 -300. This is
ACT 1982
clearly nonsense. Tom Sheahen addresses this in “How to Deceive With Statistics :
Distortions With Diminutive Denominators” see
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/how to deceive with statistics distor
tions due to diminutive denominators html .
Further Allen et al (2018) conclude that methane as a short-lived gas (totally unaccounted
for as a short-lived gas in IPCC reports) and has a minimal effect only as a GHG. Professor
David Frame at Victoria University is a co-author, and his advocacy has had some effect on
NZ Government policy. These authors agree with the conclusions of Allison & Sheahen, that
methane is a minor contributor only to any warming, but the fact that they include the IPCC
Scenario GCM Models n their calculations is of concern. Again as with the IPCC it is clear
that they have little understanding of atmospheric physics.
INFORMATION
The IPCC ignores water vapour as a participant in the competition / interference to absorb
photons of heat radiated back from the earth. As noted previously the Computer models
RELEASED UNDER THE
conveniently “park” the water vapour molecules (like Humpty Dumpty on a wall) and then
bring them back in via a mathematical calculation assuming an amplification effect of about
three times Simply, this is not how the atmosphere works, water vapour is well mixed and
all of the GHG molecules are in the same situation competing to absorb the heat from the
sun, radiated back from the earth’s surface.
e. The Earth is not heating up dramatically as suggested by government science, the media and
the many local government declarati
OFFICIAL
ons of “climate emergency” around New Zealand, and
world-wide. There has been about 0.8 to one degree warming in the last 150 years as the
world comes out of the Little Ice Age. Over the past couple of decades there has been little
warming (see https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climatemodels-versus-climate-reality/ ).
The observed warming is not unusual in comparison with recent well documented warm
period such as the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm
Period, see Figures 3 and 4 below. Clearly the world’s climate is not unusual, and for only
about 10% of geological time (the last 600 million years) has it been as cool as it is today …….
4
https://i.stack.imgur.com/HxERL.png
ACT 1982
Figure 3 : World temperature and CO2 levels over Geological Time
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Figure 4 : Most of the last 12,000 years has been warmer than today, all without significant fossil
fuel use. Data from Greenland Ice Cores.
Only in the last 150 years have fossil fuels been a factor in the world’s emissions, huge fluctuations in
world temperature due to “natural variation” have occurred in the past 12,000 years. “Natural
5
variation” in temperature and climate seems to have departed the consideration of most advocates
of climate change where now, almost every adverse weather event is blamed on climate change.
The two Figures below show the world temperature record measured by satellites or balloons, in the
lower atmosphere. These are the most accurate measure of temperature, which unlike the surface
temperature records:
i)
cover almost the whole globe, unlike the land-based temperature records, which cover
about 25% of the globe only.
ii)
doesn’t have the biases of the predominantly “urban”-based temperature records that
have the well-known UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects from the build-up of heat in
concrete, asphalt etc., which makes nights warmer in urban areas
iii)
are not subjected to continued corrections, many of which have years later been
imposed in statistical treatment of surface station data resul ing in an accentuation of
warming trends.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
Figure 5 : Satellite and balloon atmospheric temperature, real data versus Climate Computer
Model Estimates.
A further illustration of the trophospheric temperature from satellites and balloons is in the figure
below. Apart from two significant EL Nino spikes in 1998 and 2016, temperatures are not rising
OFFICIAL
markedly (http://www.drroyspencer.com/).
6
Figure 6: The satellite and balloon record of atmospheric temperatures from 1979 :
ACT 1982
There has been a modest warming since 1979, but only at a fraction of the rate suggested by the
Computer Models upon which all of the climate / warming concern is based. Certainly very little
warming in the last two decades.
The IPCC Computer Models are clearly not working, they are running very hot, . From February 2016
to September 2018, the atmospheric temperature has dropped by 0.7 degrees C.
Methane and nitrous oxide are able to absorb heat only in an area of the electro-magnetic
spectrum where there isn’t a huge amount of heat emitted from the earth, and where there is
almost total saturation of water vapour (remember methane 1.8 ppm versus water vapour 15,000
ppm) – see diagrams in the Allison & Sheahen paper.
We conclude, therefore, that particularly methane and nitrous oxide (reputedly responsible for
INFORMATION
about half of New Zealand’s emissions) are very minor contributors only to any global warming
effect. These gases should therefore be removed from New Zealand’s GHG Inventory, or at the very
RELEASED UNDER THE
least included at a level commensurate with their real effect.
This is very important information, particularly when our politicians say they want all policy to be
“evidence based”, and yet they are convinced that global warming / climate change is real, and
that humans cause it. Clearly this is incorrect.
New Zealand scientists Drs Andy Reisinger and Harry Clark from the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas
OFFICIAL
Research Centre at Palmerston North (AGGRC) have been publishing information contending that
methane from livestock can be responsible for up to 25% of the world’s warming.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gcb.13975
Methane from ruminants is only about 16% of all the methane going into the atmosphere – see
Figure 7 below.
7
Figure 7 : Sources of atmospheric methane. Ruminants are cattle, sheep, goats etc 2/3 of the total
is due to human activities.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409 methane/
ACT 1982
In New Zealand methane and nitrous oxide are assessed as about 50% of our total emissions
(excluding water vapour). Our paper, (Allison & Sheahen, 2018) shows that these gases have a
minimal GHG effect, so small to be almost irrelevant in GHG effect in the atmosphere. New Zealand
concentrating on these gases, and modelling and then planning the reductions that need to be made
to have various effects in the future is meaningless:
a) The way the GWP values are calculated is scientifically unsound, and the derivation of the
high values have been discredited as a result of faulty calculation.
b) The putative reductions required for methane from cattle in New Zealand come from only
16% of total methane emissions on the planet see Figure 7. Anthropogenic sources of
methane account for 67% of all methane emissions into the atmosphere, ruminants making
INFORMATION
up about 15% of the total, or 22% of the anthropogenic share. Now methane is 16% of the
anthropogenic emissions (excluding water vapour, see Figure 1) or 3.5% of the total. If now
RELEASED UNDER THE
we take water vapour into account, and conservatively use this as 80% of the total
Greenhouse Effect then methane = 0.7% of the total Greenhouse Effect. Similarly, nitrous
oxide considered to be about 37% of the effect of methane (Figure 1), = 0.26% of the total
Greenhouse Effect.
c) Methane and nitrous oxide therefore not more than 1% of the total Greenhouse Effect,
when represented by the IPCC and governmental scientists as up to 25% of the world
OFFICIAL
anthropogenic GHG contribution, and in fact about 50% of NZ’s emissions.
d) Reisinger & Clark estimation that animal emissions of methane and nitrous oxide could be
responsible for up to 25% of the world’s warming shows that computer models can be made
to say anything the author(s) like?
e)
Thus we overestimate our country emissions for methane and nitrous oxide by about 25
times (see the next section on CO2 emissions). We have had a comprehensive, expensive
8
and totally inaccurate debate re GHG emissions particularly for the agricultural sector
based on totally erroneous assumptions. To pass laws where New Zealand starts to pay for
carbon emissions based on a yet undetermined carbon price, based on such over-
estimates is economic suicide.
f)
If we consider that cattle make up about 85% of total estimated world ruminant emissions,
and the developed countries make up about 25% of the total cattle numbers, and then
account for the removal of the USA from the Paris Agreement, this means that the
developed world has about 14% of the numbers which might be assessed for accounting for
agricultural GHGs. About 75% of the world’s cattle and sheep are in undeveloped countries,
which under the Paris Agreement 2015, are not expected to significantly reduce emissions
until after about 2030, or at such time that each country has developed sufficiently to raise
the standard of living of its population to a level that would deem it to be classified as
“developed”.
Further Article 2, 1 of the Paris Agreement states ……….
1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its
objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the
ACT 1982
context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by :
a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C
above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the increase in temperature
to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industr al levels, recognising that this would significantly
reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster
climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that
does not threaten food production, and
The topic
“In a manner that does not threaten food production” is a whole new arena for
discussion particularly relevant to New Zealand, where the carbon footprint (emissions / unit of
INFORMATION
production) are lower than anywhere else in the world. Certainly, it is implied in the simplest of
terms that policies resulting in reduced food production should not be considered in climate change
responses. There is no indication that Government and industry has or is considering the
RELEASED UNDER THE
implications of Article 2, 1 of the Paris Agreement??
New Zealand with only about a 1% numerical share of the world’s cattle, and less than 3% of the
total world ruminant emissions, means that our agricultural industry is responsible for about 0.5% of
the world s methane going into the atmosphere (see Figures 1 and 7).
Thus making allowances for ruminant
OFFICIAL emissions in New Zealand when no such recognition at all of
65% to 70% or more of total world ruminant emissions is being made, let alone financially accounted
for and accordingly paid for, will likely have significant negative effects on all economic indicators in
our economy. All this achieved without having any possible effect on the world’s warming and or
climate. This can be recognised as only “virtue signalling”. Potentially, New Zealand will be paying
billions of dollars or spending billions of dollars on other activities to alleviate a tiny percentage of
world ruminant emissions, when most flocks and herds will not only, not be measured, but also will
not be assessed as part of “other country” commitments.
9
The world will be unable to reduce emissions anyway?
The effectiveness of the world in reducing CO2 emissions since the Kyoto Protocol negotiations
started, is sobering considering the heroic assumptions now being made by the IPCC with regard to
what the world might achieve in GHG reductions in the future, required so temperature increases of
1.5 or 2 degrees C respectively, might be avoided. Whether one agrees with the policy of reducing
CO2 emissions or not, world countries have shown that they either have no intention of reducing
emissions or have little intention so to do.
From 1990, the baseline date for Kyoto, the world’s total anthropogenic emissions increased by 60%
to 2013, were then pretty stable in 2014, 2015 and 2016, but increased again by 1.6% in 2017, and a
significant 2.7% in 2018. Under the Paris 2015 Accord, “Developing Countries”, which are now
responsible for 62% of the world’s emissions, are allowed to keep developing while they improve
standards of living for their populations. China has signalled it will double emissions by 2030
(+29.5% of world emissions now), and India has signalled it will increase 3X by the same date
(+13.6%). The other undeveloped countries can be expected to increase total world emissions by at
least 10% by 2030 as they try and improve the standard of living. With such a scenario the world is
looking at about a 55% increase in world emissions from the presently designated undeveloped
countries by 2030.
ACT 1982
Further, with the USA out of the Paris Accord (14.5%), that eaves 23.5% of presently estimated
emissions for the developed countries who are supposed to committing to rigorous emissions
reductions scenarios. Not to mention also they are supposed o proportionately support a $US100
billion Green Climate Fund each year from 2020.
This will not happen.
Clearly the path to mostly renewable energy by 2030 or 2050 is not achievable. The world is still
relying on fossil fuels which still make up more than 80% of total world energy use. Further, the
academic IPCC reports never factor in the benefic al effects of CO2, (increased plant growth) or take
note that perhaps half of the world’s food is produced with the help of fossil fuel derived fertilisers.
All of this shows just how removed from reality governmental bureaucrats, politicians and scientists
are when promoting the huge reductions in the world’s emissions in a much shorter timeframe be it
INFORMATION
2030, or 2050. RELEASED UNDER THE
If we take these data on achievement above back to our very small example here in New Zealand
with supposedly only 0.17% of the world’s emissions, the spending billions on emissions reductions
to control climate change doesn’t seem to make much sense from any viewpoint. Anything New
Zealand will spend on “climate change” will be a total waste of money (which, as a country below
halfway down the OECD’s income / capita tables, we don’t have) and will have no effect on climate /
warming. Further, most of the developed countries that are the most bullish about the need to take
action about climate change – the EU, for example – are all already falling behind their ambitious
OFFICIAL
GHG reduction targets. See …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/11/few-countries-are-meeting-paris-climate-
goals-here-are-ones-that-are/?utm term=.4222f6520a8b
10
2.
The next big thing in Climate Change Research : CO2 is a Short Lived Gas
There is a fatal flaw in Climate Change Research regarding the human effects on the percentage
atmospheric CO2 and how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere : Dr Ed Berry has had a distinguished
career in climate physics see https://edberry.com/exb/dr-ed-berry/
The whole of the global warming world scare is predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic
emissions of CO2 resulting in an increased and increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
are causing the world to warm. Further, CO2 is claimed by the IPCC to have a long half-life in the
atmosphere, with some claims that 15% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere for ever. Such
claims indicate an astonishing ignorance of atmospheric physics. This is the belief of the United
Nations and the IPCC, and as almost all countries have signed up to this belief – Rio Earth Summit
1992, through to the Paris Agreement 2015, making Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate
Disruption now Government Policy throughout the world.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Dr Berry has developed a model for the flows of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on the decay /
disappearance rates of radioactive C14 CO2 in the atmosphere after all the nuclear testing in the
Pacific and elsewhere. He has recently published a paper ……
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.201
ACT 1982
90301.13 the main conclusion of which is “
That human CO2 makes an insignificant increase in the
natural level of atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, nature, not human CO2, is responsible for changing
the climate”
These data on the rate of disappearance of labelled CO2 in the atmosphere define for us the
situation for normal C12 CO2 (note: carbon has a molecular weight of 12, with 6 neutrons and 6
protons in the nucleus, while C14 has 6 protons and 8 Neutrons formed as a consequence of nuclear
explosions in the atmosphere. See diagram below)
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
C14, in the atmosphere as C14 CO2, will react chemically and physically in the same way as the normal
carbon in the atmosphere C12. Therefore, C12 CO2 has the same half-life (rate of disappearance) from
the atmosphere as the C14 CO2. Also, there is no way to differentiate between the CO2 from human
11
activities, i.e. burning fossil fuels, and all other natural sources of CO2 going into the atmosphere at
any time. i.e. more than 95% of CO2 going into the atmosphere is from natural sources.
In the years 1946 to 1962 there was an increase in C14 in comparison with C12 (the carbon in CO2), in
the atmosphere. C14 is an isotope and has a molecular weight of 14 from the addition of two
additional neutrons to the nucleus of the C atom, this being caused by the atomic explosions in the
atmosphere. (https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/preprint-a-fatal-flaw-in-
global-warmingscience/)
Figure 8 below shows the rate of disappearance of C14 CO2 from the atmosphere after 1960 from two
sites, one in New Zealand, one in Austria. The atomic explosions in the Pacific gave a very elegant
way of labelling an injection of CO2 into the atmosphere , and subsequent recording of the rate of
disappearance assumed to be mainly through uptake by plants and the oceans.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
Figure 8 :
C14 data before and after the above-ground atomic bomb tests. The natural concentration
of C14 CO2 is defined as 100%. The pMC percent scale is “percent of modern carbon” where
“modern carbon” means the level in 1950. The white circles mark the half-life times.
The concentration atmospheric C14 CO2 halves every 10 years, then so too will the other C12 CO2
which make up the majority of all CO2 in the atmosphere.
OFFICIAL
CO2 is, in effect, plant food, and the higher the concentration in the atmosphere, the faster plants
grow, and also with greater water use efficiency. The chemical equation is shown below:
12
Figure 9 : Photosynthesis in plants which use atmospheric CO2, water and sunlight to
synthesise sugars
For most of geological time, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been much higher than the present
day, for millions of years in the range of 2,000 and upwards. A level of more han 150ppm is required
for plants to grow at all, and as the concentration increases, plants grow faste . If the level of
ACT 1982
atmospheric CO2 was to double, then plant growth worldwide would increase by about 30%.
Significant “greening” can be observed worldwide already from space – a result of the 45% increase
in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times. This is an outstanding result for the Earth, not the
impending disaster of rising CO2 widely promoted
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
It is generally agreed that only 5% of CO2 added to the atmosphere during each specified time period
is from human sources (probably a bit less).
This is a very different si uation from that which the IPCC claims (including New Zealand scientists
advising the Government). The IPCC claims:
INFORMATION
a) all of the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm (pre-industrial, about 1850) to 410 ppm
today is due to human activities
RELEASED UNDER THE
b) the half-life of CO2 ( .e. C12 CO2 which makes up about 99% of the CO2 in the atmosphere) is
200+ years or more, often quoted to be more than 1,000 years
c) 15% of human CO2 will stay in the atmosphere forever, ……….
These are all wrong.
The latest science from Dr Ed Berry shows that as a result of applying the climate physics embodied
OFFICIAL
in the C14 decay graph above, human CO2 cannot be responsible for all of the CO2 increase in the
atmosphere since pre-industrial times.
On this basis, therefore, human CO2 cannot possibly be the “control knob” of global warming. Any
efforts to diminish atmospheric CO2 through emissions reduction programmes cannot be expected
to have any demonstrable effect on the climate.
13
The calculated levels of CO2 from the decay rates defined from the study of the C14 after nuclear
testing gives the results illustrated in the graph below:
ACT 1982
So, the human activity-derived CO2 in the atmosphere presently is 18ppm, not the 125ppm from
human activity from 1850 as the IPCC contends. The data concerning rates of disappearance of C14
from the atmosphere have been published previously, but not considered re the application to
climate change and atmospheric physics To summarise ……
a) human-derived CO2 emissions adding only 18ppm to the atmosphere can make little
difference to warming and or climate change
b) reductions of the human-derived emissions will not make anything but a miniscule effect
on temperature,
INFORMATION
c) human-derived CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are of little significance to temperature,
i.e. global warming / climate change / climate disruption
RELEASED UNDER THE
3. IPCC Climate Models Overestimate Warming by Three Times :
The third part of this three-legged stool is analysis of the GCM Climate Models, work that Lord
Christopher Monckton and a few others have been doing for a very long time. The GCM Climate
OFFICIAL
Computer Models are supposed to represent the physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean,
cryosphere and land surface, and are purported to be the most advanced tools to simulate the
climate response to increasing levels of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
Clearly the models are spectacularly unsuccessful in estimating warming, as seen in Figures 5 and 6.
Yet surprisingly it is these alarmist scenarios for world warming that have been adopted virtually
without question by world governments and the media. Lord Monckton has over several years been
working on the mathematics behind the assumptions in the GCM Models. They have found ..........
14
a) the IPCC estimate that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, or the expected temperature
increase from the doubling of atmospheric CO2) is 3.6 degrees C + or minus 1.5 degrees C,
b) after allowing for the omission in the IPCC models (as Monckton put it “they forgot about
the sun” - in fact the feedback to the incoming solar radiation), the ECS is only 1 degree C +
or minus 0.2 degrees C. So, no problem. The problem of climate change has disappeared. An
increase in temperature of another one degree, most of which we have had already is really
quite beneficial.
c) The result from the allowance for the feedback in b) above agrees with the data in Figure 5.
The summary of the ESC estimated from the Climate Computer Models, the IPCC and reality
is depicted in the chart below.
ACT 1982
If it is accepted that the Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption scare is over
based on the information contained within this submission, then a very large number of jobs,
established science institutions, governmental departments and university departments, plus
the finance to run these is at stake worldwide. Clearly the information presented with this
INFORMATION
submission doesn’t agree with the so-called conventional wisdom or consensus. However, the
discussion is really about atmospheric physics, Lord Monckton presented the results at an
RELEASED UNDER THE
International Conference in Portugal in July 2018 and has submitted the paper for publication in
a climate science journal. A more detailed Monckton et al paper can be supplied on request.
Certainly an arrogant response “that your data do not agree with the findings of the IPCC” as has
been proffered by several local scientists, not an acceptable scientific discussion.
Government would be sensible to open up the debate and include international experts to
confirm whether or not “the science is settled” as the climate change establishment and
OFFICIAL
governments frequently assert. The present climate belief system has more to do with politics
than science, and the assertions of senior UN officials “that the whole climate change process is
a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world” – Christine
Figueres.https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/climate-change-signals-part-of-
socialist-plot/news-story/a29d692e6efed92606cdf4e56315c0be
Let’s sort the science out, and not commit to unnecessary expenditure which will have little
effect on either the levels of atmospheric CO2 or the climate.
15
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
16
1
Document 16
Man-Made Global Warming
M Davison. 15 7 2019
“The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd;
indeed in view of the silliness of mankind a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than
sensible.” -British philosopher Bertrand Russell
“Never have so many, be conned by so few, for so much”
In New Zealand terms it is akin to sheep following each other towards and over the cliff.
Global Warming is “a struggle in which all standards of truth, morality and science have long
been sacrificed to the desired ends.”
“Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. We did not pass it on to
our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for protected, and handed on for them
to do the same.“ Ronald Reagan
ACT 1982
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the greed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its
inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” “ For a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying lift himself up by the handle” Both
from Winston Churchill.
See UN IPCC new rules - Paragraph 3, Section 6 The Real Agenda – “international climate policy is
not even about the environment The doyens of the UN say that the agenda has nothing to do with
controlling the climate, it is about redistributing wealth from richer to poorer countries. See
https://www.youtube.com/wa ch?v=TdoRvly02Bo and https://www.cfact.org/2017/05/22/can-we-
discuss-the-climate-without the-hysteria/
INFORMATION
This paper is not about pollution which is a different issue. Very few people do not support cleaning
up pollution. We don’t need fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, or smog forming volatile
RELEASED UNDER THE
hydrocarbons. But CO2 is not a pollutant, and there is no reason to control it.
For half a century now, conservatives have been mainly losing the political and cultural wars with the
left because they do not understand what their adversaries are up to.
Global Warming is but a part of this horrendous program to destroy democracy and freedom and run
the world with unelected socialist bureaucrats, unbelievable corruption and deceit. (Meaning “The
OFFICIAL
New World Socialist Order” so desperately sought.) Most people have no idea what is going on and
leave it to mainstream media to tell them. Unfortunately mainstream media, all over the world, is in
the other camp.
Whenever nations have gone down the path being prescribed it has led to disaster.
2
Contents
Page
1. Executive Summary
3
2. Purpose
4
3. Facts – how much the globe has really ‘warmed’ in the last 25 years
5
4. Carbon dioxide – a naturally occurring gas
6
5. Climate change science – the inconvenient truth for IPCC
10
6. What’s really going on with climate events
14
7. The real agenda – redistributing the world’s wealth
16
ACT 1982
8. Some historical observations in relation to popular opinions
18
9. Consequences for New Zealand
19
10. Conclusions
20
11. References
21
12. Appendices
1 Temperature Manipulation.
23
2 CO2 to and from the Atmosphere.
3 Data man pula ion
INFORMATION
13 And So On. - June 2019. No experimental evidence for the significant
RELEASED UNDER THE
anthropogenic climate change.
26
OFFICIAL
3
1.0 Executive Summary. Climate Change and the New World Order. July.
2019
The whole Global Warming / Climate Change saga is part of an insidious political scheme that has
been worked on for over half a century by those of the world who are determined that world
socialism run by the UN, or a similar body, is the way we all should be governed. There is no
consideration to the cold facts that such a system has been tried on various scales over the last
millennium, and it has always failed spectacularly, and mostly with dire corruption, carnage and
bloodshed. Furthermore, there is only one system that has systematically improved the living
standards of billions of people, and that is democracy and capitalism.
Global Warming is “a struggle in which all standards of truth, morality and science have long
been sacrificed to the desired ends” Specifically, but only in part, ea ly temperature records
have been fraudulently adjusted downwards and later temperature records have been
fraudulently adjusted upwards.
Climate Change etc. is part of the biggest and most successful scam known to mankind.
The rest of the scam is the establishment of a “New World Sociali t Order” to get rid of
ACT 1982
democracy, redistribute the worlds wealth, and have unelected beaurocrats running every
aspect of our lives. Climate issues are only to scare the world populations into paying.
In the end the truth will prevail. Communism / Socialism does not work. But It took Russia
~80 years to get rid of communism
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the greed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its
inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” “For a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Both
statements from Winston Churchill.
Most of the right of the political spectrum have no idea what is, and has been, happening.
The whole concept has been taught in schools and universities all over the world for many
decades. It is entrenched in law and custom all over the world. An overwhelming majority of
“millennium” and similar aged people have no idea what it is really all about but believe
INFORMATION
emphatically that it is the only way to have government. They will stop at nothing to achieve
the fantasy. It is power at any cost including assassination.
RELEASED UNDER THE
CO2 has been labelled a pollutant causing climatic disturbance, where, in essence, it is the
very basis of life on earth. Life begins with photosynthesis, with carbon, oxygen and
hydrogen. Yet we are required by ill-informed naive politicians to contribute trillions of
dollars to reduce CO2
The science behind the logic of this is flawed and unverified. It is claimed that a consensus of
scientists agree with global warming, and that CO2 drives the climate. This has been
debunked over and over again. Science is not consensus, if it is, it is not science. Recent
OFFICIAL
independently peer reviewed papers tell the story as it is. C02 does not cause significant
warming or climatic issues. Yet the UN want $100,000,000,000,000 ($100 Trillion) to stop
C02 doing what it does not do.
4
2. The purpose of this paper
The globe is not warming any more than it has for centuries and contrary to widespread belief,
increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from mankind’s activities is not contributing to, or causing
calamitous climatic events. Man-made, or ‘Anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) is simply not
occurring. Furthermore, it is not agreed that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly from
human activities anyway. Human activities only contribute ~3% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere
the rest comes naturally and there is nothing mankind can do about the natural release of CO2.
Global warming, (now Climate Change,) is a scam and a hoax. It is being used to generate fear and
panic and for political power. Those behind the movement use it to control people's beliefs and for
financial gain. The fact that more than 130 governments signed (at the Rio Earth Summit – 1992)
that humans caused global warming (no evidence then – see “Groupthink”
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf ) and now we have more than
190 countries signed up. Thus, Governments fund their own departments, Universities, and
research institutions, NGOs of many descriptions – Greenpeace Friends of the Earth etc etc., and
thus the scam continues. The MSM love the stories of impending doom, and thus wide coverage.
ACT 1982
Plus the education sector teaches the schoolchildren about climate change and has done so for 25
years+.
Groupthink is a pattern of known psychological behavior whereby, - 1. A group of people come to
share a particular view or belief without proper appraisal of the evidence, - 2. This leads them to
insist that their belief is shared by a ‘consensus’ of all right minded people, - 3.
Because their belief
is ultimately only subjective and on shaky foundations, they then defend it only by displaying
irrational, dismissive hostility towards anyone dar ng to question it.
So an uninformed and unquestioning mass of the world’s population has fallen victim to significant
propaganda, causing widespread misconception. Global warming and climatic change campaigners,
largely the United Nations’ Independent Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), have mounted one of the
most well funded, massive propaganda campaigns in history – and with a very compliant media on
INFORMATION
their side. The IPCC was set up with the mandate to study “human causes of warming”. Specifically
excluded was ‘natural’ variation. Thus if there was no anthropogenic signal of effect, they would all
RELEASED UNDER THE
not have a job!!
However, in informed countries, there is a ground swell of global warming refutation and surging
numbers of climate realists. In the USA, the lies of Al Gore, who netted hundreds of millions of
dollars advocating global warming, have been revealed, and the Gallup Poll, a widely recognised
barometer of American opinion, shows environmental concerns about global warming do not even
register as a concern recently. Twenty five years ago it used to be right up near the top of the list of
OFFICIAL
concerns. Furthermore, currently, over 65% of the American public do not trust the media to report
accurately. The warming skeptics (realists) are now making progress with large sectors of the world
finally getting to grips with the reality of what has been going on. Britain abolished its Dept of Energy
and Climate Change on 14 July 2016. India will not sign the Paris Accord. China will do what she
wants to, which will be nothing. Except in the meantime, or for as long as China likes, they will build
100,s of new coal fired electric generating plants. Trump, his new Vice President nominee, and most
of the republican party are “global warming”, now called “climate change”, now “climate disruption”
5
skeptics, in that they do not believe that humans and CO2 drive the climate. Trump will stop paying
IPCC of the UN. (Estimated to be $24b / year) and pull out of the Paris accord. The best news is that
in 2019, countries all over the world are voting to get rid of parties that push “Climate Change.”
legislation. N.B. Australia. It is critical that trump wins the next Presidential Election. ( but becoming
increasingly likely.)
This paper collates information to show how the current levels of local widespread belief in
manmade global warming have come about. It provides clear evidence that the existing political
agendas in New Zealand and elsewhere should cease. Politicians who can not be bothered to read
this paper do so at their political peril.
3. Facts – how much the globe has really ‘warmed’ in the last 25 years
Global warming is not happening to any greater extent than it has for hundreds of years and has not
occurred at all in the 18 years prior to the recent el nino effect. This el nino effect, which has now
passed, is correcting to a cooling situation. In 2017 the global temperatures declined by ~0.60
ACT 1982
degrees C. In reality it took about 50 years for the temperature to go up by that amount.
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) is a world leader in processing and analysing microwave data
collected by satellite microwave sensors. The RSS mission is to provide research-quality geophysical
data, including temperature data, to the global scientific community.
The RSS graph below dated November 2014 charts global mean temperature change. It clearly
shows the consistency of those 18+ years. - 18 years of no global warming. 20 Years ago it was
predicted that by now the world would be i revocably warming up by 5-10 degrees and the sea
levels would be a meter or more above what they are now. So much for the, effectively useless,
computer models used by IPCC of the UN. None of their predictions over 30 odd years have come to
be.
INFORMATION
It is important to note that these data are in the atmosphere, not ground based climate stations, and
thus we do not have the problems of UHI, and constant correcting of the data (manip
RELEASED UNDER THE ulation) to
cause more apparent warming.
OFFICIAL
6
4. Carbon dioxide
Physics and Chemistry don’t change they were the same billions of years ago.
CO2 is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring gas. It is the basis of most forms of life on the planet
as it is necessary for photosynthesis, which allows plants to photosynthesize, which in turn nourish
animals. It is currently naturally in the earth’s atmosphere as 0.04 % of ‘air’ – 400 parts per million
which is one 25th of 1%. CO2 has increased from 350ppm to 400ppm over the last ~50 years, but this
is inconsequential given it has been as high as 7000ppm in past geological time, of the earth’s air in
the past with similar temperatures as today.
Importantly, CO2 is produced by the decomposition of plant matter, and released from the oceans
and other natural processes including volcanoes. A minor amount is produced by man – man-made
CO2 emissions are about ~3% of all sources of CO2 going into the atmosphere (please see Appendix
B) and read Ed Berry, https://edberry.com/blog/
Historically and for millions of years CO2 levels have been over 3000ppm on this planet and
ACT 1982
sometimes around 7000ppm. Ice ages occurred during these times, as did todays temperatures. It is
hard to determine what “normal” is. The temperature of the earth was much hotter than at today
for long periods. See ………
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
The much higher levels of CO2 had no correlation to the planet’s temperature – life kept evolving
normally. According to IPCC, the more recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (of just ~50ppm)
7
will dramatically warm the planet with catastrophic climatic implications. The IPCC claims that most
of the warming is caused by increases in C02 from burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, CO2 emissions
must be reduced – and at huge cost. This is flawed thinking.
“Increasing CO2 by just 50ppm, or even doubling it, would not make any significant difference to
anything on this planet, other than making plants grow faster.” Dr Patrick Moore, Cofounder of
Greenpeace, who is now a global warming realist says (2013) “the optimal level of CO2 for plant
growth is 1600 ppm, four times higher than the level today. 400ppm is a starvation diet for plants
and they die under 150 ppm.” Moore (2014) also says “This is why greenhouse growers purposely
inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a
40-80 per cent increase in growth. The idea that it would be catastrophic if CO2 were to increase is
preposterous.”
Prominent physicist Freeman Dyson (Dyson 2015) a world renowned Physicist ex Princetown : “It
would be crazy to try to reduce CO2 – Earth is growing greener as a resul of carbon dioxide - I like
carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It's good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon
dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.” (10-15% more global greening shown on 2017
satellite pictures over the last 20 years)
ACT 1982
Ian Plimmer an Australian Geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne, (See
Plimmer,) states –
“The volcanic eruption in Iceland, in just 4 days negated every single effort you have made in
the last five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
There are about 200 active volcanoes on the plane spewing out this Crud at any one time
EVERY DAY
Mt Pinatubo in 1991 spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the
entire human race has emitted in al its years on earth.
The bush fire season across western USA and Australia alone will negate human’s efforts to
reduce carbon in our world for the next 2-3 years. And it happens every year.
We don’t hear about “Global Warming” (It is now “Climate Change”)
INFORMATION
Emission Trading Schemes achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer and they will
not stop volcanoes erupting, that’s for sure.”
RELEASED UNDER THE
The world is obsessed with the issue that CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 410ppm over about 150
years. However this 40% increase disappears into oblivion if you include the major Greenhouse gas
of water vapour which IPCC chooses not to include directly. A conservative estimate of the water
vapour concentration is 15000ppm. Methane is miniscule so we have CO2 and water vapour going
from 15280ppm to 15410ppm (less than 1%) and that will cause the end of the planet!!
OFFICIAL
For recent relevant work on Greenhouse Gasses refer to work done by Jock Allison and Thomas
Sheahen.
8
Historical graphs of CO2 : Temperature (Berner & Kothavala, 2001) show:
INITIAL CO2
TEMPERATURE
DATE
LEVEL
CHANGE IN CO2 LEVEL
CHANGE
480m years
-3000 ppm – to 4000
ago
7000 ppm
ppm
No change at 22 deg C
450m years
+500 ppm – to 4500
ago
4000 ppm
ppm
22 deg C to 12 deg C
There is no direct link between man-made fossil fuel emissions and global temperature on two
counts. Firstly, it is not agreed that increased CO2 is a consequence of man made fossil fuel
emissions and secondly, there is not agreement that CO2 warms the globe to any significant amount
anyway. Ed Berry’s calculations show that human CO2 accounts for only about 18ppm of the
increase in CO2.
ACT 1982
Australia introduced a carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions which was repealed by the Abbott
government. This effort to reduce carbon emissions saw Australians pay a whopping $24.47 billion
to reduce global warming (theoretically) – by just 0 004% (Robson 2013). The justification for the
Carbon Tax was to reduce carbon emissions to stop global warming. Even if the world was warming
up, the effects of the Carbon Tax were virtually nil. The New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme
should be disbanded or the country will waste mon y similarly. It is likely the new NZ government
will spend over $30 billion on climate change in NZ over the next ten years. The returns on which will
be zero. Think what $30 billion would otherwise buy.
Reducing CO2 emissions requires huge cost. Currently the amount of money being spent globally,
supposedly to reduce ‘man’s carbon footprint’, is in the trillions of dollars per year (Bell, 2015). Yet
ridiculously, it has not been scientifically proven that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause
INFORMATION
either significant global warming or climatic disasters.
RELEASED UNDER THE
There have been increasing numbers of papers which don’t support the global warming mantra, for
many years now ……… https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-
papers-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/ There are PROPERLY peer
reviewed papers showing the relationship between CO2 and climate. But it is the other way round to
the warmists view. It shows there is no significant relationship between global warming /climatic
events and CO2. A properly peer reviewed paper showing the warmist way round does not exist
because it does not happen.
OFFICIAL
NIPCC publications here are relevant. (Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
9
Also - Official Press Release.
On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding James P. Wallace III, John R. Christy, and Joseph S. d’Aleo
Abridged Research Report
Second Edition, April 2017
“A just released peer reviewed climate science Research Report has proven that it is all but certain
that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false. All research was done pro bono. There
has never been any scientific justification that CO2 is a “pollutant”. CO2 is the gas of life!
This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a
statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. The
tropospheric and surface temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many
different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to
say, if regardless of data source, the analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be
considered highly credible.
The USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the previous Obama administration was
very unpopular for huge numbers of environmental regulations and they classified (without scientific
ACT 1982
justification) CO2 as a pollutant.
The above analysis results invalidate EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, (CO2 is dangerous!) including
the climate models that EPA has claimed can be r lied upon for policy analysis purposes. (The
endangerment finding is just rubbish along with the computer models.) Moreover, these research
results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is, natural factor,
impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be
concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. The authors of this
report claim that there is no published, peer reviewed, statistically valid proof that past increases in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record
setting temperatures and IPCC climate models fa l to meet this test.
In summary, enormous sums of money have been used to reduce a gas which is 97% produced
naturally by the planet itself, to supposedly reduce global warming and related climatic disasters.
INFORMATION
Mankind’s effort to control a non-problem with a non-solution is ridiculously nonsensical. A lack of
questioning and understanding of the real science is widespread.
RELEASED UNDER THE
It is bizarre that the whole IPCC “science” claims CO2 is the main Greenhouse Gas when water vapor
and clouds sometimes make up to 90% of the green house gasses effecting temperatures and are
not directly considered. Water vapor is by far the largest proportion of greenhouse gasses. There is
much information available to substantiate this and considering the enormity of the oceans on this
planet, it is very logical.
OFFICIAL
The current NZ Government wants to be a world leader paying into this cesspool. It will make us all
in New Zealand look very stupid. One might have hoped that the National Party might try and stop
this but – no, they want to join the present government on the issue.
10
5. Climate change science – the inconvenient truth for IPCC and the New
Zealand Government
The IPCC is the primary proponent of dramatic global warming yet its argument is fundamentally
flawed because of the way it selectively uses science and manipulates data to support its views. The
IPCC has its Terms of reference (“human caused”), and thus is at the beck and call of the UN
representing all countries in the world. Simply they do not consider “natural variation”. The
particularly concerning areas include:
-
the lack of consideration of views opposing its own (true science considers opposing views)
-
the nature of IPCC’s existence is a conflict of interest
-
manipulation of data
-
political funding biases, and political “finding” biases, as the final text of the “Summaries for
Policy Makers” are written by the bureaucrats from various countries who don’t necessarily
know anything about climate!!
There is no question about climate change. It changes all the time and has done so naturally for
ACT 1982
centuries. This is not however, reflected in the IPCC’s selective use of science’. It’s manipulation of
research data and opinion has fueled an extremely biased view that does not reflect the planet’s
actual climate.
True science is empirical and replicated – it (not the way of the IPCC) constantly probes, doubts,
investigates, examines, and welcomes dissen . Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did
not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has
published five reports since 1990 The No 6 is a special report, coming up, next year, the draft is
written, and out for review, not that any dissenting views will be considered.
It is claimed that a 97% consensus – that global warming is both occurring and man-made – exists, in
spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or nominal warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41 of
INFORMATION
them actually cla m global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that’s an alarming or 0.3 of 1%).
There is a whole lot of references re the 97%. Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
RELEASED UNDER THE
Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK’s Science and Public Policy Institute has released an
exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made
global warming is just 0.3%, not the 97% claimed by the global warming whiners. The review of the
lot is https: /www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-
about-global-warming
OFFICIAL
Dr. Arthur Robinson, Robinson Arthur 2014, is a distinguished chemist and cofounder/president of
the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), was honored in Las Vegas at the Ninth
International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) with the Voice of Reason Award presented by
The Heartland Institute. In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson was one of the principal organizers of
the Petition Project, an effort to demonstrate that the claimed “consensus” of science in favor of the
belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming does not exist.
11
In two campaigns (1998-1999 and 2007) the Petition Project gathered signatures from more than
31,000 scientists, physicians, and engineers (including 9,029 with Ph.D.s) who reject global warming
alarmism and the draconian measures claimed to be necessary for the entire planet.
The IPCC is a conflicted institution.
“by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest.
Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes
changing the climate for billions of years. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of
warming, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on
the side of the apocalypse. The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of
climate change, or, preferably, it should be dismantled.”
For about 30 years, the IPCC’s climate predictions have been hopelessly inaccurate. In addition to
not welcoming nor considering dissenting opinions, there has been an increasing and continuous
legacy that data has been manipulated. The predictions have all been completely wrong because
they are simply based on manipulated programming of computers.
There are countless examples of data manipulation (please see Appendix C). The levels of deception
stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering
ACT 1982
with data would see the culprits jailed. As a comparison, consider an IPO prospectus seeking billions
of dollars from the public without verifiable scientific information in it – let alone manipulated data.
What has been happening can not be considered other than as serious fraud and NIWA is complicit.
As just one example, suspicious data records from Paraguay were found to have been changed from
a downward temperature trend to an upward one (from a decline of 1 deg C to an increase of 1.5
deg C). Not only for three initial weather stations investigated but subsequently for a number of
other weather stations in the area. Worse still they then used these upward temperature records to
apply to tracks of the globe where no records have been kept. There are many many examples of the
manipulation of data, one could write volumes on this!
In relation to this, Christopher Booker Snr (an English journalist and author) states, -
“
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will
INFORMATION
shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire
panic ultimately rested – were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the earth as having warmed much
RELEASED UNDER THE
more than the actual data justified.”
www.wattsupwiththat. (Claimed to be the worlds most viewed site on global warming and climate
changes.) has v good papers showing that the weather stations mostly don’t meet the criteria for
accuracy. See http://www.surfacestations.org/ and more thorough refs. Watts et al researched
weather station data in the USA - Poor sited stations were near airports, urban or semi urban based,
where aircraft, housing and roads warm up the air. On which basis the warming is actually about
1/10th of final adjusted figures.
OFFICIAL
USA Republicans are now claiming they will investigate (climate related) data tampering by NASA.
Needless to say, numerous reputable commentators thwart the accuracy and relevance of the
‘science’ claimed by IPCC:
12
IPCC reviewer, Dr Don Easterbrook, (Easterbrook D) on IPCC report No 5 says (2013)
“it isn’t
science at all – it’s dogmatic, political propaganda – the IPCC report must be considered the
grossest misrepresentation of data ever published”
Exposing IPCC computer models, forecasting experts Green and Armstrong (2014) state
“our
audit of the procedure used to create IPCC scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89
relevant forecasting principles”
“Premeditated murder of science” is how Climatologist Dr Tim Ball (Ball T, 2013) describes
the IPCC’s 95% certainty that CO2 is causing serious global warming and climatic disasters
Climate Depot’s Mark Morano (2010) states 1000 of the so-called convinced man-made
global warming scientists reported as supporting the Global Warming mantra, were in fact
then skeptics. It is also relevant that when career scientists want to keep getting paid, they
mostly do not come out as skeptics until after they retire.
Curry (2014) says;
“as temperatures have declined, the climate mode s have failed to predict
this decline, and so the IPCC has gained confidence in (its predictions of) catastrophic
ACT 1982
warming. In other words the more they are wrong about nearly everything, the more
confident IPCC officials have become that they are ight about nearly everything”
However those that dissent or disprove global warming find it difficult to have their view aired.
Subsequently, even despite the significant lack of IPCC integrity, a large proportion of people and
media continue to believe dramatic global warming is occurring. Most media editors are reluctant to
publish skeptical views. The IPCC like to make it heresy to question their message – they ‘shoot the
messengers’ and are embarking on a program to personally discredit, and if possible have funding
cut off for, any scientist disagreeing with their fabricated consensus and more recently they had
asked Obama to prosecute and jail “deniers”. These are desperate measures and completely fit the
definition of Groupthinkers. (Page 4 paragraph 3). For Science and Global Warming, Obama would
be the worst President that the US has ever had!
INFORMATION
It is important to note the IPCC gets hundreds of times more funding from weak misguided
RELEASED UNDER THE
government sources, than any climate realists. Look at Joanne Nova
http://joannenova.com au/tag/climate-money/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate money.pdf and
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/the skeptics handbook IIj-sml.pdf The direct costs excluding
subsidies for alternative energy projects to the US government is calculated to be spending $22
billion USD per annum ($42,800 a minute), for scientists to do endless research on man-made global
OFFICIAL
warming. Natural causes of global warming, far more significant than man-made effects on global
temperature changes as previously noted, are not included. According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell
(2015) the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion every
year – three times larger than the entire USA federal budget deficit
.
There is a tangled web of political activity and bias at play distorting the real truth. Paul Driessen
(2010), a senior policy advisor with the Committee for ‘A Constructive Tomorrow’ says:
“The climate
13
change scientist – government – environmental – industrial climate complex is well funded and
powerful. But it is also arrogant and dishonest and its assertions are so far removed from reality that
they can no longer survive scrutiny and challenge. The time has come to end its attempt to control
our lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards and life spans.”
Local politicians (local politicians simply do not know what to believe, they don’t understand any of
it) are unable to provide true scientific verification that CO2 can cause drastic global warming or
severe climatic problems – because it is impossible for them to do so. They will refer to ‘consensus
science.’ As they are bound to do when the Govt Departments they are supposed to rely on continue
to spout out the continuing mantra, The political agenda is based on fabricated information that
does not stand scrutiny. It is unbelievable that politicians do not demand unquestionable scientific
evidence before imposing huge crippling taxes that do nothing but provide jobs for bureaucrats and
make us poorer. Real consideration of the above points effectively shoots the IPCC to pieces.
ACT 1982
However in spite of all this, Marlborough Distr ct Council planning meetings have incorporated
unending changes to the Marlborough Environmental Plan to try to ensure that all this nonsense
carries on for another 25-50 years
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
14
6. What’s really going on with climatic events.
According to IPCC “every weather event, is now the result of global warming, or “climate disruption”
caused by humans and rising CO2. Etc.
There is currently no global warming. Prior to 20 years ago there has been some warming, but
nothing outside normal variation as illustrated by previous temperatures, and calamitous climatic
events are not increasing and are often doing the opposite of predictions.
A summary of what’s really going on with climatic events around the world:
Ice – The IPCC claim Antarctica’s ice is melting, when in fact there is near record ice in Antarctica
Antarctica sea ice recently hit a 35-year record high (National Snow and Ice Data Centre) and in
January 2015 is 44.6% more than the 1981-2010 average. However some melt is reported since
2015. Some volcanoes under the ice may not be helping but the last two years global temperature
decline wont do much for melting. Ice in the Arctic has also been increasing in recent years (Swart
et al 2015). Currently Artic ice is reported to be up 22% on 2012 levels.
ACT 1982
Snow – Recently a world record 24hr snowfall of 100.8 inches in 18 hours occurred in Italy
(www.weather.com; “Italy winter storm dumps impressive 24 hr snowfall”). The previous record was
75.8 inches in 24 hours. The USA has had hundreds of record low temperatures in the last few years
(USA Today -
‘Coldest Air In Decades’, 2015).
Climate Depot’s Mark Morano states (2013);
“Extreme weather is failing to follow ‘global warming’
predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends in
the USA. Extreme weather is at or near historic lows.”
Hurricanes – Recent hurricanes in the USA still do not match 1933 in overall energy. The 4 worst
decades for major hurricanes in the USA were 1890’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s. There also is much
more infrastructure in the way of hurricanes than historically so.
INFORMATION
Tornadoes – The USA tornado count has plummeted to record low levels.
RELEASED UNDER THE
Droughts – New research confirms human CO2 is not causing a global drought increase - ‘Droughts
in the USA are more frequent and more intense during COLDER periods’ (Legates, 2014).
Floods – Professor Roger Pielke’s paper titled ‘Are US Floods Increasing? The Answer is Still No’
(2011) shows flooding has not increased in the USA over records of 85 to 127 years (Hirsch & Ryberg,
OFFICIAL
2012). The world’s ten deadliest floods all occurred before 1976. i.e. before the so called high man-
made CO2 in the atmosphere (Hirsch & Ryberg, 2012).
USA Heat waves – The frequency of 90 deg (Fahrenheit) days in the USA has plummeted with three
of the five mildest summers occurring since 2004 – In the last two years, global temperature
declined by ~ 0.65 deg C
15
Wildfires – 2014 was the quietest fire season of the decade according to data from the National
Interagency Fire Centre and USA forest fires are nearing historic lows. Californian wild fires of Oct
2017 are not historically unusual and 1933 remains the worst year for many years.
Sea levels – Sea levels have not risen any faster than normal since levels have been recorded and
actual sea levels are doing the opposite of IPCC model predictions. Globally, scientists with solid
empirical-based backgrounds claim there are severe problems with many of the 2007 IPCC
predictions. Namely, that many of the predictions are ‘flat-out false, based on the IPCC's political
agenda, or wildly inflated by failed climate models’. Houston and Dean (2011) state that the IPCC
prediction of dangerously high acceleration of sea level increases is likely both a combination of
invalid climate models and desired political outcomes. They discovered that the actual tidal gauge
measurements over the last 80 years show sea level increases are decelerating, not accelerating and
currently we can expect 100 - 200mm sea level rise over the next century. IPCC predictions have at
times been in the meters. The question may be asked What is the difference between a sea level
rise of 200mm /century and a seal level rise of 4metres / century? The answer is “Computers”
Temperature – As demonstrated earlier, satellite data confirms that, apart from recent el nino
ACT 1982
effects, we have had ~20 years no warming. Post el nino is putting the world into cooling mode.
(Down .65deg C 2017. )
For New Zealand a recent review of our temperature records reveals what many have thought for
years in that NIWI have been playing with the numbers. Weather data station information has been
adjusted and in some cases there is no record of what adjustments were made. Furthermore
seriously compromised data from two stations were not adjusted for Urban Heat effects. (being
sited in the CBD of Wellington and Auckland.) See “A Reanalysis of Long Term Surface Air
Temperature Trends in New Zealand” 2014 C.R. de Freitas et al.”
The reality of the paper is that if we take out the two compromised stations and assess rural only
stations we get .
2 degrees warming per century instead of figures of .91 degrees warming per
century which NIWA claim. Or 1.0 degrees in the news media of 20 Oct 2017.
INFORMATION
Furthermore Tasman Crop Met Report (Winepress Issue No 258 May 2016) reports on page 6 for
RELEASED UNDER THE
Blenheim NZ. (- How could this be? We are supposed to have had the hottest years ever for every
year.)
Season
Long
15/16
14/15
13/14
12/13
11/12
34/35
74/75
89/90
80/81
97/98
Term
Av
Mean
14.99
15.49
15.55
15.59
15.34
14.62
16.28
16.16
16.11
16.00
15.99
OFFICIAL
Temp
Rank 1930-
19th
14th
12th
25th
60th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
2015
16
Unmanipulated global warming is in the vicinity of 0.3 degrees C per century. Overall there has been
no warming recently and there are no facts to support the concept of dramatic global warming or
increased climatic disasters.
7. The Real Agenda – Redistributing the world’s wealth
The real agenda has been admitted by senior IPCC officials and it has nothing to do with climate. The
UN wants to increase its power and wealth to have increasing control over people’s lives. It is
preplanned UN run socialism that is the end game. The climate issues are to frighten the populations
of the world into committing huge funding to the UN. However, as this paper shows, CO2 causing
run away global warming and climatic disasters is discredited and now thanks, to Donald Trump, the
USA which was supposed to pay most of the money is not going to do so. The cards are finally
starting to fall over.
It has, for decades, been the preplanned dramatic expansion of bureaucracy and totalitarianism
enabling unelected officials in the UN, the EU, and in any independent state tha can be conned into
the scam, to control almost every aspect of people’s lives. They don’t like capitalism, they want a
“Socialist New World Order” and they say so.
ACT 1982
IPCC, Working Group III, Co Chair, Ottmar Eden, and Christina Figuerras also, admitted that
international climate policy is not even about envi onmental protection, it is about
“how we
redistribute the world’s wealth” (2010). Decades in the making, the IPCC is very close to succeeding
in an irrevocable way. They want to destroy capitalism. The plan was to bolt it all together at the
IPCC conference in Paris in December 2015 and have a new world order of the world committed to a
crazy debilitating tax scheme that would be irrevocably agreed to, with UN beaurocrats ruling our
lives with countless PC regulations
The man-made global warming project has been instigated into schools and universities and there
are even entire courses available on the subject. (That don’t consider that the world is not actually
warming any more than it has for centuries.) Children and students are being taught that man-made
INFORMATION
global warming science is settled and not to be questioned or even discussed (Tice, 2015). The
AGENDA 21, this Agenda 21 came up at Rio 1992, and has been incorporated already into the
RELEASED UNDER THE
operation of many of NZ’s cities and Councils. It stands for UN Agenda for the 21st Century, is being
forced onto schools. It has been banned by some states in the USA but is being pushed very
aggressively. There is no shortage of people to push the agenda. The education flows through
primary, secondary schools, and then universities, etc. It follows that those who question the
matters get marked down in examinations and fail their exams. University students then vote for
more of the same and it is self-perpetuating – and the taxpayer keeps paying trillions of dollars per
OFFICIAL
year to have more and more well-paid unelected bureaucrats running people’s lives. It is also in our
legislation, judiciary, universities, local government, not to mention national government, most
peoples’ thinking, it is everywhere, and those that don’t agree, apparently, should be in jail.
World wars have been caused by much lesser issues and the problem is that most thinking people
don’t want to go down this path, but we are being forced to do so against our will. Throughout
history, over the last few hundred years and on numerous occasions, whenever democracy is
dumped there is always carnage and bloodshed. That is why I write this paper.
17
What is going on is nothing to do with climate. Simply put it is the manipulation of scare tactics to
enable the old world idea of socialism /communism to be imposed through the UN and EU.
Communism failed in Russia and many other countries in the world. It does not work.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from
somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work bec use the other half is going to
take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because
somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of t e end of any nation.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
18
8. Some historical observations of popular opinions
We are forever hearing from the IPCC that “the consensus of scientific option”, is as presented by
IPCC, quoted by Governments and local governments. It is all invasive.
John Michael Crichton, an author admired for his meticulous scientific research, said (2003)
“I regard
consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped dead in its
tracks. Historically the claim has been the first refuge of scoundrels. It is a way to avoid debate by
claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agree on
something or other, reach for your wallet because you are about to be had. There is no such thing as
consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Eisenhower
"We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself
become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” See
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/12/26/eisenhowers-less-famous warning-government-
ACT 1982
controlled-science-12219
Fueling ‘consensus thinking’, are plenty of enthusiastic activists in the world, who demonstrate
and/or sign petitions about environmental ‘concerns’ without any profound knowledge of what they
are demonstrating about. USA TV program, Penn & Teller (2006), at a climate change meeting,
sought to ban ‘di-hydrogen monoxide’ because
“it is in our akes and reservoirs, used by pesticide
companies, we wash fruit with it and it gets into our food supplies. It causes excessive sweating and
excessive urination.” Hundreds of people signed the petition ‘to help save the planet’ from this nasty
chemical without recognizing di-hydrogen monoxide (H2O) is water!
These examples substantiate and explain how multitudes have flocked after IPCC dogma without
genuine consideration of the underlying truth.
INFORMATION
The Paris Accord on CO2 and global warming, requires about $100,000,000,000,000, (100 Trillion
dollars) to be paid in to the UN etc. by the end of this century. This is to prevent the world warming
RELEASED UNDER THE
up by 0.2 degrees C. The USA, with about 5% of the world’s population, and 25% of world GDP was
in line to provide most of this. The USA will not be participating in that nonsense and nobody else
seems to be paying anyway. Why New Zealand wants to rush to Carbon Zero is beyond belief. It will
achieve nothing and cost many billions of dollar
Bjorn Lomberg - “Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press
release)”
OFFICIAL
………. https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-
promises https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/09/lomborg-impact-of-current-climate-proposals/
19
9. Consequences for NZ
NIWA advises our government and many local governments as well, and the government is all signed
up! Advised in the first instance by scientists who saw their day in the sun! NIWA has adopted all
the flawed IPCC dogma. Both National and Labour have gone along with it all. National and Labour
would be well aware of the commitments that their govts had signed! Not to mention the Greens.
No one can come up with
independently peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the IPCC. The
IPCC claim that they only deal with peer reviewed papers, but these are “pal” review (wouldn’t it be
good if we all kept our jobs forever!) Quite simply because what they claim to be happening is not
happening.) None of the IPCC projections over 30 odd years have happened.
The whole saga is based on computer models, and these are all running hot! It is unimaginable that
politicians all over the world can run with this fraudulent presentation to relieve global tax payers of
the incredulous $100,000,000,000 without proper independent scientific back up. It is pathetic.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=A194675EB8E5BEEC4B84593E9DB987F81
2635ABF&thid=OIP.ZLgWwCYoD12r0T7kR_35DQHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfact.org%
OFFICIAL
2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2F90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-
628x353.jpg&exph=353&expw=628&q=temperature%2c+real+versus+computer+models&selectedin
dex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,6
20
Man-made global warming legislation is going into our national and local body laws, all Kiwis pay
extra taxes on fuel, the Emission Trading Scheme will further hamper the country, planning decisions
are being based on IPCC projections.
Over the last 50-60 years, NZ has fallen from the top 2-3 countries in the world in GDP per capita to
number 21 and the NZ$ has devalued by some 300% against the $US. It is totally ridiculous for this
country, or any country, to be pouring huge sums of money into the non-solution to a non-problem
that reducing carbon emissions is to global warming. The return on the massive funds expended will
be zero or negative. Where are the politicians who will wake up to what is going on?
We are not a rock star economy. In 2014 the New Zealand Productivity Commission expressed
concern about low living standards and problems affecting the long-term drivers of growth. Paul
Conway, Director of Economics & Research at the Productivity Commission wrote: "New Zealand's
broad policy settings should generate GDP per capita 20 per cent above the OECD average, but the
actual result is more than 20 per cent below average. We may be punching above our weight, but
that’s only because we are in the wrong weight division!" These comments were before the effect of
commodity prices collapse, including dairy prices. Our economy is not strong as National MPs kept
telling us and the current government will make it even worse.
ACT 1982
We now have stopped all exploration for fossil fuels, we have company tax at levels over 50% higher
than many major countries, our forecast GDP figures are dropping disastrously, the National Party
wants to join labour on ‘Climate Change’, we are heading to the socialist new world order and all
that that entails. I pity the next generation
.
10. Conclusions (All referenced through the paper.)
The world is not warming any more than it has for centuries and not at all for 18-19 years.
For Marlborough - 2017, the local research center has 2015/6 as the 19th hottest year on
record. NIWA continues to claim record hottest years all the time.
CO2 is not causing significant global warming
CO2 exists naturally in air – 97% of it is produced by the planet naturally
INFORMATION
It is not agreed that man’s activities are causing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere
There are not increased climatic disasters occurring
RELEASED UNDER THE
Fraudulent data manipulation is rife
The biggest scam the world has ever seen is happening – NZ is spending $billions on the
nonsense There will be zero return on those $billions. ‘Never have so many been conned for
so much, by so few’
The UN IPCC has a very serious political agenda masquerading as preventing global warming
The great socialist plan has been progressing for 40-50 yrs. The Global Warming Fiasco is but
a part of it.
OFFICIAL
The results of the plan are in our legislation, our universities, our schools, our local body
planning rules, and untold beaurocracy want to destroy democracy and rule our lives. They
even say so.
Existing carbon reduction programs should be abandoned
All national and local body legislation should be purged of the influences of these sources.
It is all a very serious problem and most of the population have no idea it is going on. But it most
definitely is.
21
11. References
Ball T, Dr Tim. Former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg
Bell, L. Forbes Magazine March 2015 - see http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/400137-new-reports-there-no-global-
warming.html. New Reports: There Is No Global Warming – Political Forum
Berner, Robert A, and Kothavala, Zavareth – Carbon Data taken from Yale Study ‘GEOCARB III A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2
OVER PHANERZOIC TIME’. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, published by American Journal of Science Vol 301
February 2001 P 182-204 Graph shows temperature; CO2 over long period and confirms CO2 fell 7000ppm to 3000ppm and increased
from 4000ppm to 4500ppm with quoted temperature.
Booker C. Christopher (2015). English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has
contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.
Coleman J (born October 15, 1934) is an American TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel. He has retired from
broadcasting after nearly 61 years, working the last twenty at KUSI-TV in San Diego.
Crichton J , John Michael MD, (1942 – 2008) was an American best-selling author, physician, producer di ector, and screenwriter, best
known for his work in the science fiction, medical fiction, and thriller genres. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and
many have been adapted into films.
Curry J, Dr Judith, US Climatologist, Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of
Technology ‘STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES’ Hearing on “The President’s UN Climate Pledge” 15 April 2015 [email address] ACT 1982
de Freitas C.R. School of Environment, University of Auckland. Dedekind M O Research and D velopment, BCD Consulting, Auckland NZ
& Brill B.E. P.O.Box 399 Paihia NZ “A reanalysis of Long Term Surface Air Temperature Trends in New Zealand. “ 2014
Driessen P. (2008) Senior policy advisor with the Committee For A Construc ive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise –
a non-profit public policy institutes that focus on energy, the environment, economic development and international affairs. Author of
Green Power, Black Death (Merril Press, 2010) and co-author of Energ Keepers, Energy Killers (Merril Press, 2008).
Dyson Freeman FRS (born 15 December 1923) is an English-born American ][6] t eoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his
work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/05/27 new-rec mmended-interview-with-renowned-princeton-physicist-freeman-
dyson-dispels-global-warming-hysteria/#ixzz3dM84pAEC
Easterbrook J, Dr. Don J. Geologist Emeri us Professor at Western Washington University, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, has authored ten
books and 150 journal publications. Presented 31 research papers at international meetings in 13 countries outside the USA
Gallup Poll. See www.gallup.com
INFORMATION
Global Warming Policy Foundation (2014) – A ‘unique all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while
open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the
policies currently being advocated.’ http://www.thegwpf.org/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-
RELEASED UNDER THE
thought/
Goebbels P; Paul Joseph (1897 – 1945). German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany (1933 – 1945) known for his
zealous orations and virulent anti-Semitism. One of Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devoted followers. Strongly supported the
extermination of the Jews when the Nazi leadership developed their ‘Final Solution’.
Green, Kesten C. and Armstrong, J. Scott (2014) – University of South Australia and University of Pennsylvania, Director and Editor of
forecastingprinciples.com
Hirsch, R.M. and Ryberg, K.R., 2012.
‘Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels?’ Hydrolological Sciences
OFFICIAL
Journal, 57 (1), 1–9.
Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses.
Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. New paper finds sea level rise has decelerated
44% since 2004 to only 7 inches per century – Published in Global and Planetary Change
Legates, Dr. David. 2014. Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware. STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
Monckton C. Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, SMOM (born 14 February 1952) is a British public
speaker and hereditary peer. He is known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate, and for his
22
invention of the mathematical puzzle
Eternity. In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to his advocacy of climate
change denial views on the European Union, and social policy.
Moore P, Dr Patrick. Cofounder of Greenpeace and now global warming realist
Morano M. Marc (born 1968) is a conservative American publisher. He has worked on different assignments in the Washington political
scene but is best known as founder of the website
Climate Depot a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Morano was
born in Washington, D.C. and raised in McLean, Virginia. He has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science.
Currently serves as Communications Director for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and executive editor and chief
correspondent for the award-winning ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Morano spearheaded
the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus dissenting scientists and the follow-up 2008 report of 650-plus scientists dissenting man-
made global warming fears; by 2010, a new 321-page “Climate Depot Special Report” listed over 1,000 international scientists who had
turned against the UN IPCC. Morano's EPW website won a Golden Mouse Award in 2007 for improving communications between
Members of Congress and their constituents. In February 2010, Accuracy in Media awarded Morano their annual Reed Irvine Award
alongside Andrew Breitbart and in July 2010, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness announced it would award Morano that year's Petr
Beckmann Award.
Penn & Teller Environmental Hysteria 2003. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw Dec 6, 2006 ‘Penn & Teller get hippies to
sign a petition that bans water’ 2.9m views as at May 2015
Pielke, Roger A, Sr (born 1946). An American meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change environmental
vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean – atmosphere interactions, and Large Eddy/turbulent boundary
layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also inve tigates on the global, regional,
and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.
Pielke, Roger A, Jr. (born 1968). An American political scientist and professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of
ACT 1982
the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and
Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 200 Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford
University's Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.
Plimmer, Ian Rutherford is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences , professor of mining geology at the University of
Adelaide and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies . He has published 130 scientific papers , six books and
edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Robinson Arthur Dr. Arthur Robinson, a distinguished chemist and cofounder/pre ident of the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine (OISM), was honored recently in Las Vegas at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change(ICCC9) with the Voice of
Reason Award presented by The Heartland Institute
Robson A, Dr Alex ‘Austalia’s Carbon Tax, an economic evaluation 2013 – N.B. unemployment also went from 604,000 to 720,000,
emissions increased, and electricity price ro e approximately 20%
Russell B, Bertrand Arthur William - 3rd Earl Russell, OM FRS was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social
critic and political activist.
INFORMATION
Salby, M. Atmospheric scientist see http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-
sources/#sthash.GVc8E jO.dpuf
RELEASED UNDER THE
Swart et al. 2015.
‘Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea – ice trends.’ Nature Climate Change
Tice, P. (2015)
‘Schoolroom limate Change Indoctrination.’ Wall St Journal.
USA Today 2015.
COLDEST AIR IN DECADES, Arctic cold front is responsible for the coldest temperatures in almost two decades in many
USA cities. Temperatures in some areas have not been this low since the arctic outbreaks of January 1997, February 1996 and January of
1994.
Watts Up With That? The world s most viewed site on global warming and climate change
OFFICIAL
23
12. Appendices
Appendix A
Temperature change fabricated by NOAA purposefully “cools” the historical monthly figures
prior to 1951 then purposefully “warms” the historical monthly records. The combination of
“cooling” and “warming” is done to promote ideas that modern warming is accelerating.
ACT 1982
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
24
Appendix B – CO2 to and from the atmosphere
ACT 1982
Summary Appendix B (IPCC information 2001) from the above information.
CO2 Going into the atmosphere
1.Global Gross Primary Production and respiration
119 GT
2.Oceanic release
88
3.Fossil Fuel Combustion and industrial processes
6.3
Total CO2 going into the atmosphere
213.3GT
% from Fossil Fuels and industrial processes
2.95%
INFORMATION
Long term range of CO2 in the atmosphere 280ppm to 7000ppm.
RELEASED UNDER THE
Current level of CO2 in the atmosphere ~ 400ppm
The IPCC theory is that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from
350 ppm to 400ppm is going to cause Armageddon.
There is no historical correlation between high atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, or climatic
disasters.
OFFICIAL
25
Appendix C – Data Manipulation
There are numerous concerns regarding manipulation of data in relation to reports and general
information regarding ‘global warming’.
Three themes are apparent (Morano, 2015):
(1) Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather
than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) These scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific
inquiry
(3) Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and
dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data'
The following are some of the concerns posted by Morano (2015):
Weather station temperature claims overheated, report claims: U.S. temp record ‘U.S. has been
systematically overinflated due to faulty data manipulation and ‘encroaching urbanity 'They started making
what they called corrections after the year 2000, which turned the USA emperature trend from completely
flat to fairly steep warming. The corrections were changing the temperature record. Several large adjustments
ACT 1982
hadn't been documented at all, boosting readings by as much as 1 5 degrees over older measurements'
All Claimed July Warming In The US Is Due To Data Manipulation SHCN has adjusted recent US July temperatures upwards by 1.5 degrees F, relative to the 1890s. The adjusted
July graph shows about 1.5 degrees of warming since 1895
'. Meteorologist D’Aleo: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation
Flashback: Meteorologist Anthony Watts ‘In the business world, people go to jail for such manipulations of
data’ Watts: 'Is history malleable? Can emperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly
seems to be the case here, where is the temperature for July 1936 reported ... changes with the moment'
‘Adjustments breathtaking – to Arctic temperature record – is there any ‘global warming’ we can trust?
INFORMATION
UK Telegraph on new climategate: ‘Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’
RELEASED UNDER THE
Climategate 2.0: ‘Scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on
deliberate manipulation of facts and data’ Climatologist: Global Temperature and Data Distortions Continue — ‘manipulation of temperature data’ CBC’s Rex Murphy Unloads About ClimateGate: It ‘pulls back the curtain on pettiness, turf protection,
manipulation, defiance of FOIA, loss or destroyed data and attempts to blacklist’
OFFICIAL
26
13. AND SO ON
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
June 2019
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the
influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give
a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the
green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large
ACT 1982
sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong
negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves
that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
Just plain fraudulent manipulation of data by IPCC which is used by NIWA to advance the fraudulent
cause by convincing politicians that the whole package is scientifically valid. NIWA are complicit.
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL
Document Outline