Climate Conversation Group

The Carbon Challenge. Whether you believe in dangerous AGW or not, this book presents strong reasons to delay, disable or destroy the ETS. The danger is that warmists will want to strengthen it, ignoring our Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, who says there is no scientific reason for having an ETS, no matter how strong, because it won’t affect the climate. If we ceased all our emissions and returned to a medieval civilisation, still we would fail to affect the climate.

… or is it?

The National government is determined to fire up an emissions trading scheme (ETS) on July 1st, but a new study criticises it forcefully.

NZ sceptics, led by ACT’s John Boscawen, have for some months campaigned against the ETS on scientific and economic grounds, inside and outside the Parliament. But this study by two Victoria University academics – believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – could do more to force a government change of mind than any protest action so far.

Since it comes from within the warmist camp, John Key, Nick Smith and their advisers will, or should, pay it close attention. For it expresses arguments made by supporters of government “climate” policy, so they will be more difficult to dismiss than those of mere “deniers” of “climate change” (whoever they are). Read more… »

The heading dog, symbol for Climate Realists at the Climate Conversation Group weblog, shows how a protest engages the attention of politicians, who all turn to look. The politicians are of course wondering if the nice doggy wants to bite them, but they are also thinking furiously what they might do to change its mind.

Esther and Neil Henderson, the hard-working people behind Climate Realists NZ, want you to know about a major protest march at the Parliament aimed at ending the stupid Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Tues 22nd June, Civic Centre, Wellington, noon — be early

If you can be in Wellington to support the anti-ETS march on 22 June, please give this notice some prominence on your website and spread it around by email.

Please note some of the details have changed slightly from earlier notices — you should use the details given here.

Esther reports that so far they have had an excellent response from lots of people and they are hopeful of a good turnout on the day, with trucks and tractors from the farmers to add colour and noise.

Come along and help make it a “cannot-ignore” event for the politicians!

Below this point is a rough interpretation of Esther’s latest announcement. It’s rough because it didn’t take too kindly to the transition from Word to html. I should spend some time tidying up the html, but it looks quite funky and it does tell you everything you need to know, so I’m not touching it. Contact details are at the bottom.

PS: I did make one change to Esther’s notice. Since there is, strictly speaking, no such time as “12 pm”, I changed it to “12 noon”. I hope Esther forgives my impertinence and I hope they’re not intending to meet at midnight.

Read more… »

Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

Here is a statement issued yesterday by Terry Dunleavy, Hon Secretary of the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

UPDATE 21 June: see end of post

Prime Minister John Key has been asked by a former National Party activist either to rein in his Chief Science Adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, or to change his title to more accurately reflect the professor’s global warming propaganda advocacy activities. Read more… »

The United States Senate meets in the Senate side of the Capitol Building in Washington, DC — to the left of this splendid rotunda.

From the SPPI site comes a remarkable statement from a US Senator reaffirming the primacy of science in the search for truth and emphasising that between the scientific and political arms of the IPCC there are strong contradictions.

Statement by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch Before the United States Senate,
June 10, 2010

EPA Disapproval Resolution

Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Disapproval Resolution of the carbon regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to start off by applauding Senator Murkowski for her strong leadership on this issue, and I stand squarely behind her effort.

To summarize what has already been laid out today, the EPA has released findings that, one, human carbon emissions contribute in a significant way to global warming; and, two, that global warming – which has been going on for about 10,000 years now — is an endangerment to humans. The EPA’s foundation for its proposal relies on the assumption that both of these findings are true.

Mr. President, I was sorely disappointed – but not too surprised – when I learned that the EPA based it’s “findings” almost entirely on the work by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. I have no problem with much of the science produced by IPCC scientists, but I have a real problem with the way that science is summarized by the political leaders at the IPCC and by the conclusions drawn by those same political leaders in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, which is not a science document. And it becomes immediately evident that the EPA relies very heavily on these political summaries and conclusions rather than actual science produced by the IPCC. Because we now have abundant proof that a wide gulf exists between what the science indicates and what the political leaders at the IPCC pretend that it indicates. Read more… »

The eyes of New Zealand mainstream journalists, in print and broadcasting, are deliberately out of action. It is a strange event of mass delusion.

How obvious must the lack of credibility in AGW become before New Zealand’s so-called journalists wake up to it?

Their disconnection from reality now transcends mere embarrassment for the onlookers; it has become actually humiliating, because the only remaining reason for our nation’s professional journalists to hold to the IPCC line on dangerous man-made global warming is an intentional neglect of the facts. Read more… »

The ODT reports Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s speech last night (you’ll remember him, he’s the PM’s chief science advisor).

As expected, the speech seems to have been mainly waffle with few new facts or arguments.

However, the Professor informs us that New Zealand beech trees and swallows are feeling the heat. This is despite Phil Jones’ claim that there has been no significant global warming for 15 years and a slight cooling during the 21st century. It also betrays David Wratt’s claim that future global warming will be less in New Zealand because of the surrounding ocean. More pertinent is the fact that NIWA’s SSS and ESS don’t seem to detect any warming in this country during the past 50 years. So something else must be affecting the swallows, and Gluckman’s ‘science’ (the only factual line in the whole speech) is exposed as being wrong.

Apparently the public is “confused” about the science — “what we know and what we do not know” — and the confusion is all caused by “deniers”. But, Doctor, we have genuine questions… Answer our questions! Beginning with: what’s the evidence?

If Sir Peter gives the PM truly objective advice on climate science, why doesn’t he do the same in his speeches? I think he’s telling John Key just what he wants to hear about global warming, so it doesn’t have to be objective.

There’s more to say about this disgrace.

The NZ Herald reports Nick Smith commenting at the National Party’s northern conference at Waitangi last weekend. He was subjected to some stern questioning about the ETS he insists on installing for us.

He likens the scheme to our contributions to overseas conflicts, reasoning in this way:

“The challenge I give back to you is: when our Anzac troops went to Gallipoli, and when we’ve got our New Zealand troops in Afghanistan, do we really think those New Zealand troops in Afghanistan are going to make a world of difference to the final outcome there?

“No, we don’t. But what we do say, as New Zealanders, and what those Anzacs said in the tradition of New Zealand, is we as a country believe in doing our fair share.”

Nick, the two situations are not comparable. It is ridiculous, one might say even desperate, to attempt to compare them. You see, overseas, we’re fighting with other people. We can actually measure what we do against their efforts.

But with the ETS, we’re not like any other country. Nobody has an ETS like ours. We’re entirely alone.

And we will make no difference to the climate.

Whatever you say it will cost us, it is too much to pay for an empty gesture.