Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

• Climate: The Movie New documentary thoroughly debunks the ‘climate crisis’ baloney … again – www.cairnsnews.org 30 March 2024
• Dramatic Recovery Of Coral Calls Into Question Integrity Of Science^J Media  By Chris Morrison, Principia Scientific International, 12 February 2023
• Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise  By Richard Smith, 31 August 2022
• Submission to the Climate Change Bill Inquiry  By Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts, 25 August 2022
• The Australian Academy of Drama Queens  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 3 May 2021
• A Mass Deception Of Virology and Vaccines  By John O’Sullivan, PrincipiaScientific.com, 28 April 2021
• GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE  By Joseph P.Farrell, 3 March 2021
• Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface  By Professor Peter Ridd, an independent scientist, The Australian, 16 September 2020
• We need an inquiry into climate alarmism  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 29 August 2020
• Alarmism in New Zealand  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 25 July 2020
• Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change  By Michael Shellenberger, The Australian, 1 July 2020

New documentary thoroughly debunks the ‘climate crisis’ baloney … again

Climate: The Movie New documentary thoroughly debunks the ‘climate crisis’ baloney … again – www.cairnsnews.org 30 March 2024

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) is a new documentary by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin, who previously in 2007 made The Great Global Warming Swindle. Producer of the new film is climate podcaster Tom Nelson. The Clintel Foundation organised the Dutch premiere of the movie on March 14 in the Figi Theatre in Zeist, The Netherlands. The theatre was fully packed with 570 visitors.

Clintel was not involved in the production of the movie, but helps with the distribution by providing subtitles in many different languages. So far we have: French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Hungarian, Danish. If you want to help making a subtitle in your language, please contact Evert Doornhof, evert.doornhof@clintel.org. The film can be watched on the Youtube channel of Clintel.

Introduction of the movie by Tom Nelson
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.

Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?

The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.

But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.

This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become is a breach of social etiquette.

The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Willie Soon and several others.

The film was written and directed by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin and is the sequel of his excellent 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tom Nelson, a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades, was the producer of the film. #ClimateTheMovie will be available for free at many online locations starting on March 21 2024. Subtitles for numerous languages are currently being created by the Clintel Foundation. Follow @ClimateTheMovie and @ClintelOrg for updates.

=====================================

Dramatic Recovery Of Coral Calls Into Question Integrity Of Science, Media

Dramatic Recovery Of Coral Calls Into Question Integrity Of Science^J Media  By Chris Morrison, Principia Scientific International, 12 February 2023

For decades, scientists and their trusted media messengers have hyped up the temporary loss of coral to promote climate Armageddon and the need for a Net Zero political solution

Last year the story suddenly disappeared from the headlines as coral on the Australian Great Barrier Reef (GBR) showed its highest level since records began in 1985.

Professor Peter Ridd, who has studied coral on the GBR for 40 years, has published a damning report charging that “serious questions” are raised “about integrity in science institutions and in the media”.

The GBR – the reef for which we have the most consistent and longest record – “has never been in better shape”.

Professor Ridd notes that coral usually takes at least five to 10 years to regrow from a major event, so the record high coral levels in 2022 suggest reports of massive mortality events were erroneous.

“An uncharitable observer might conclude that periodic mass coral mortality events, which are largely completely natural, are exploited by some organisations with an ideological agenda and a financial interest,” he observed, adding: “this includes many scientific organisations”.

He said that the periodic mass loss of coral is visually spectacular, emotionally upsetting and makes gripping media stories. The slow but full recovery is rarely reported, he added.

It is often claimed that coral reef systems are particularly sensitive to ‘human-caused climate change’. As the ‘canary in the coalmine’, they have become a major poster scare story in the fight to introduce a command-and-control Net Zero agenda.

Ridd recalls that in 2018, the IPCC wrote “with high confidence” that coral would decline worldwide by 70-90 percent with a 0.4°C increase in temperature, and another 0.5°C would wipe out 99 percent.

These figures have been repeated everywhere, from media reports to school teaching material. But, states Ridd, research has shown that coral bleaching “is part of a remarkable adaptive mechanism that makes coral potentially one of the organisms that is least susceptible to rising temperatures”.

In June 1999, George Monbiot told his Guardian readers that marine biologists had reported 70-90 percent of the coral reefs they had surveyed in the Indian Ocean had just died. Within a year, much of the remainder was likely to follow.

From this, Monbiot concluded that “at least one of the world great ecosystems is now on the point of total collapse”. Monbiot is an acknowledged leader in catastrophic climate prose, but his doom-laden diatribes are repeated endlessly across both science and mainstream media publications.

However, Ridd has much good news to impart. Data are less reliable outside the GBR, but it seems that across the globe there has not been a major drop in coral cover. Data for the East Asia Seas coral bioregion, with 30 percent of the world’s coral reefs and containing the particularly diverse ‘coral triangle’, shows no statistically significant net coral loss since records began in 1985.

The above graph from the Ridd report shows coral on the GBR at its highest level since local records began, despite four much publicised bleaching events.

The author notes that of the 3,000 individual reefs, none have been lost. All have excellent coral, although there are large fluctuations in cover from year to year, mostly as a result of cyclones and starfish predation.

Bleaching is noted to occur when corals expel symbiotic algae that live inside them, often subsequently replacing them with a different species when they recover. The process is said to make them “highly adaptable” to changing temperatures, and most corals do not die. This latter point is “rarely made by science institutions or the media”.

The coral story is a classic of its kind showing how a laudable environmental concern is hysterically hyped to promote an elite collectivist vision of economic and societal change.

Reefs are under threat in parts of the world, but the damage is largely caused by planned human activities Ridd identifies the physical destruction of reefs for the development of ports and airports and quarrying for cement.

It might be noted that such reef destruction has been carried out by Pacific islanders, claiming, often erroneously, that their homes are disappearing beneath the waves due to ‘climate change’ and demanding ‘reparations’ from wealthier nations. The author also notes the recent destruction by China of entire reef tops for military bases in the South China Sea.

On a wider front, Ridd says we cannot expect the coral reef science community to admit that it has exaggerated threats of bleaching or has been wilfully negligent in reporting recent research that show corals’ remarkable adaptability and toughness.

There is little possibility that eminent scientists who have built their reputations on ‘crying wolf’ will suddenly admit they have got it wrong.

“Tens of thousands of jobs depend on the proposition that the reefs of the world will be gone sometime in the future – but not too distant future,” he adds. There are many scientific issues, such as the broader climate debate, “where one can suspect that the scientific advice is not as reliable as it could be, and that the scientists are now mostly motivated by ideology”.

See more here dailysceptic.org

========================

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

 

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise  By Richard Smith, 31 August 2022

Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys “trusted information,” has now taken a step in that direction.

As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later. The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted.

Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted. He is now sceptical about all systematic reviews, particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials. He compared the original idea of systematic reviews as searching for diamonds, knowledge that was available if brought together in systematic reviews; now he thinks of systematic reviewing as searching through rubbish. He proposed that small, single centre trials should be discarded, not combined in systematic reviews.

Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy. What, he asked, is the scale of the problem? Although retractions are increasing, only about 0.04% of biomedical studies have been retracted, suggesting the problem is small. But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials. Many of the trials came from the same countries (Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey), and when John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, examined individual patient data from trials submitted from those countries to Anaesthesia during a year he found that many were false: 100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan. Most of the trials were zombies. Ioannidis concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of zombie trials published from those countries alone.

Others have found similar results, and Mol’s best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted.

We have long known that peer review is ineffective at detecting fraud, especially if the reviewers start, as most have until now, by assuming that the research is honestly reported. I remember being part of a panel in the 1990s investigating one of Britain’s most outrageous cases of fraud, when the statistical reviewer of the study told us that he had found multiple problems with the study and only hoped that it was better done than it was reported. We asked if had ever considered that the study might be fraudulent, and he told us that he hadn’t.

We have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence to the contrary. Some supporting evidence comes from the trial having been registered and having ethics committee approval. Andrew Grey, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Auckland, and others have developed a checklist with around 40 items that can be used as a screening tool for fraud (you can view the checklist here). The REAPPRAISED checklist (Research governance, Ethics, Authorship, Plagiarism, Research conduct, Analyses and methods, Image manipulation, Statistics, Errors, Data manipulation and reporting) covers issues like “ethical oversight and funding, research productivity and investigator workload, validity of randomisation, plausibility of results and duplicate data reporting.” The checklist has been used to detect studies that have subsequently been retracted but hasn’t been through the full evaluation that you would expect for a clinical screening tool. (But I must congratulate the authors on a clever acronym: some say that dreaming up the acronym for a study is the most difficult part of the whole process.)

Roberts and others wrote about the problem of the many untrustworthy and zombie trials in The BMJ six years ago with the provocative title: “The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change.” They wanted the Cochrane Collaboration and anybody conducting systematic reviews to take very seriously the problem of fraud. It was perhaps coincidence, but a few weeks before the webinar the Cochrane Collaboration produced guidelines on reviewing studies where there has been a retraction, an expression of concern, or the reviewers are worried about the trustworthiness of the data.

Retractions are the easiest to deal with, but they are, as Mol said, only a tiny fraction of untrustworthy or zombie studies. An editorial in the Cochrane Library accompanying the new guidelines recognises that there is no agreement on what constitutes an untrustworthy study, screening tools are not reliable, and “Misclassification could also lead to reputational damage to authors, legal consequences, and ethical issues associated with participants having taken part in research, only for it to be discounted.” The Collaboration is being cautious but does stand to lose credibility—and income—if the world ceases to trust Cochrane Reviews because they are thought to be based on untrustworthy trials.

Research fraud is often viewed as a problem of “bad apples,” but Barbara K Redman, who spoke at the webinar insists that it is not a problem of bad apples but bad barrels if not, she said, of rotten forests or orchards. In her book Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach she argues that research misconduct is a systems problem—the system provides incentives to publish fraudulent research and does not have adequate regulatory processes. Researchers progress by publishing research, and because the publication system is built on trust and peer review is not designed to detect fraud it is easy to publish fraudulent research. The business model of journals and publishers depends on publishing, preferably lots of studies as cheaply as possible. They have little incentive to check for fraud and a positive disincentive to experience reputational damage—and possibly legal risk—from retracting studies. Funders, universities, and other research institutions similarly have incentives to fund and publish studies and disincentives to make a fuss about fraudulent research they may have funded or had undertaken in their institution—perhaps by one of their star researchers. Regulators often lack the legal standing and the resources to respond to what is clearly extensive fraud, recognising that proving a study to be fraudulent (as opposed to suspecting it of being fraudulent) is a skilled, complex, and time consuming process. Another problem is that research is increasingly international with participants from many institutions in many countries: who then takes on the unenviable task of investigating fraud? Science really needs global governance.

Everybody gains from the publication game, concluded Roberts, apart from the patients who suffer from being given treatments based on fraudulent data.

Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary.

Richard Smith was the editor of The BMJ until 2004.

==================

Submission to the Climate Change Bill Inquiry

Submission to the Climate Change Bill Inquiry  By Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts, 25 August 2022

Opening Hearts and Minds to COVID Mis-management

On Wednesday 17 August my office hosted 12 hours of interviews with medical, legal and human rights professionals, pharmaceutical experts, lawyers, academics and politicians to focus on the threats to the doctor-patient relationship, treating long COVID and the aftermath of COVID injection injuries.

The mis-management of COVID and the mandating of experimental “vaccines” are global issues.  My national and international guests provided compelling testimony on many deeply concerning issues.  All interviews and transcripts can be found on my website. Below are a few very worthy testimonies.

Brook Jackson: Pfizer Testing Regime
Dr Phillip Altman: Death Data and Fertility Rates
Julian Gillespie: Is the doctor-Patient Relationship Under Threat?
Peter Fam: Human Rights
Professor Iain Benson: Medical Ethics

 

As elected members of parliament we have a shared solemn duty to behave with integrity.

This embraces our duty to ensure legislation and policies are solidly based on accurate and objective data so that the consequences on our constituents and nation are safe, affordable, reasonable and fair.

Yet Attachment 1 shows there has never been, and there remains no, factual scientific basis presented in parliament for legislation cutting or limiting the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. Parliament has never debated the climate science.

The term logical scientific point means the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving causality. Senators and members of parliament have never been presented with the necessary logical scientific points to justify legislating the cutting or limiting of carbon dioxide from human activity. Nor has parliament ever been presented with the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate or weather.

Attachment 2 shows that CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and The Chief Scientist have never produced the logical scientific points needed as the necessary and essential basis for climate change legislation. The supporting detailed scientific documents are Attachments 6 and 7.

I acknowledge and thank Senator Arthur Sinodinos as then Minister for Science and his predecessor Mr Greg Hunt for supporting me in arranging for my science and senate office teams to cross-examine government climate science agencies.

Attachment 3 concisely summarises facts explaining that no government, institute, agency or entity of any kind anywhere has produced the necessary logical scientific point. Together with climate scientists and climatologists internationally and within Australia we have held agencies, institutions, universities and individual academics accountable.

Attachment 3 notes that Maurice Strong was the United Nations Under-Secretary-General who triggered and fanned global climate alarm. He did so while having many serious conflicts of interest including being a director / shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange trading global Carbon Dioxide credits and being disgraced for his involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food program. Following allegations of serious breaches of American law he fled from American law enforcement agencies to exile in China. The United Nations Environment Program that he founded and led stands accused of contradicting scientific evidence and causing the avoidable deaths of 40-50 million people from 1972 through 2006.

Attachment 4 reveals the repeated results of two global natural experiments and prove that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect. The associated limited summary of the science introduces concepts explaining why the cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on global or regional climate or weather. Included are basic facts on Earth’s essential, natural atmospheric trace gas that is the focus of legislation before our parliament.

Attachment 5 presents the fundamental basis for policy and legislation and for measuring progress toward achieving legislative aims and targets. This is combined with core questions that are at the heart of senators’ responsibilities to our constituents and I ask the committee to consider and deliberate upon these fundamental questions that must precede any consideration of the climate change legislation.

Attachment 6 summarises the staggering and sometimes crippling cost burdens of climate and energy policies.

Attachments 7 and 8 provide details underpinning Attachment 2. Attachment 7 provides a detailed scientific report documenting our discussions with CSIRO, an entity whose advice politicians claim is the basis for climate and related energy legislation. Attachment 8 cites associated peer-reviewed scientific papers in a scientific and statistical analysis of CSIRO’s presentations of its climate science claimed to underpin legislation. Please note particularly our scientific analyses of Marcott (2013), Lecavalier (2017), Harries (2001) and Feldman (2015) being papers upon which CSIRO relies and note the conclusions.

Attachment 9 provides detailed supporting statistics and analysis for Appendix 6. It cannot be sensibly refuted since the data was professionally and independently sourced from federal and state government budget papers and reports.

The attachments prove that the effect of Australia’s human production of carbon dioxide has never been specified or quantified in any way. Yet sound legislation should be based on quantified and measurable evidence so that we can assess its cost-benefit and measure implementation to track whether the legislation is effective and achieves the desired outcomes.

This is impossible with current climate and related energy policy and the government’s latest climate change bill.

I hope that you, as a fellow member of parliament, share my commitment to doing our due diligence in fulfilling our duty to serve our constituents, state and nation. I hope that the attachments are of assistance to you in fulfilling our duty to the people of Australia.

I would welcome meeting with the committee and welcome an opportunity for me and my team to address the committee in its hearings to afford senators an opportunity to scrutinise our scientific team. We welcome you holding us accountable

Our principal scientist has legally gathered 24, 000 datasets worldwide on climate and energy from peer-reviewed scientific papers, institutes and government agencies including CSIRO and BOM. He is the recipient of an Order of Australia Medal for his services to research.

I hope every member of the committee agrees that in assessing legislation we each have the onus to produce the logical scientific points including the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or weather. As senators and before endorsing legislation we each have the onus to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut as proposed in government legislation currently before the committee and before all senators in parliament.

The attachments reveal the need for detailed scrutiny and serious consideration of all climate and related energy legislation.

Our Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical scientific evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events.

Climate science has been hijacked. Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent-seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens are hijacking our nation’s governance and sovereignty. Alarmingly, once highly regarded agencies such as the CSIRO and BOM, have allowed themselves to become a part of the climate change industry and have failed to provide government with robust competent science advice, upon which to base policy.

There is no logical scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.

This lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable electricity system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, farmers are under pressure, and our once reliable electricity system is on its knees, due to government regulations forcing intermittent wind and solar into the electricity grid.

Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco-anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children.

Nor is the environment safe due to the lack of recycling of many solar, wind and battery components with relatively short working lives and due to other inherently damaging aspects of solar and wind.

I implore you to apply the utmost of analytical and sceptical scrutiny to the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy. The effects of climate policy are historic, and Australia has never before faced such a fundamental and arguably monumental change to our way of life and lifestyle. Your extra scrutiny on the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy could be the difference between millions of Australians suffering if the proposed legislation is passed, or alternatively, having a more prosperous nation if existing climate and related energy legislation is rescinded.

I sincerely hope that your decision on legislation is mindful of the costs and burdens on our constituents, on our nation and on our national security. Your vote if in favour of the climate change bill will prevent sound governance while your vote against the bill will enable sound governance, fairness and integrity.

A mandate for a policy and legislation lacking the claimed scientific basis is a mandate based on lies or misrepresentations. As such it is not a mandate.

Every one of us though has a mandate and responsibility to tell the truth and to vote with integrity.

CONCLUSION

After 14 years studying and investigating climate science, along with in-depth research into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and profound cross-examining of CSIRO and BOM, we know there is no empirical scientific data as evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity has changed or will change temperature or any climate or weather factor.

Importantly, the effect, if any, of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable has never been quantified.

In its presentations to my team and I, the CSIRO stated that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity and that there is nothing unprecedented about our planet’s temperature.  Therefore, there is no scientific justification for any government to introduce policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity.

We are calling for all climate-based policies and subsidies for renewable energy to be rescinded. The consequences of climate alarmism cost the Australian economy in productivity and growth, and in our ability to compete in the highly competitive international arena.

Clearly, it is time to change our approach to climate change.  These Bills must be rejected.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

Enclosures: Attachments 1 through 9

• Attachment 1 – Political Basis Driving Climate and Related Energy Policies
• Attachment 2 – Cross-examining Government Science Agencies
• Attachment 3 – Other Agencies, Institutions and Universities Fail to Prove Causality
• Attachment 4 – Natural Global Experiments Confirm Carbon Dioxide’s Innocence
• Attachment 5 – The Basis for Honest Policy and Legislation
• Attachment 6 – The Savage Economic Burden of Policies Contradicting the Science
• Attachment 7 – Restoring Scientific Integrity
• Attachment 8 – CSIRO Report Executive Summary
• Attachment 9 – The Hidden cost of Climate Policies and Renewables

========================

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 3 May 2021

The green-left Australian Academy of Science has produced another outburst of climate doomism: “The risks to Australia of a 3 degC warmer world.” Nearly 50 years ago the same Academy was assessing the risks to Australia of a cooling world that climate scientists feared might nip crops and leave us shivering under our Doonas. Who would deny that climate science is a slave to fashion? [1]

The Academy report of last March opens and closes with scary pics of fire-blackened bushland. It’s a vanity project, with the authors citing their own works multiple times, especially chair Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (16 self-citations), Mark Howden (11 times) Lesley Hughes (10 times), Will Steffen (10 times), and David Karoly and John Church (8 times). Even Sarah Perkins-Kilpatrick, who is supposed to be reviewing the document, is reviewing herself as she’s cited seven times in the references.[2] Reviewer Jason Evans is cited nine times. Another reviewer is Martin Rice, who works for Tim Flannery’s propaganda outfit Climate Council, but he features only four times in the body of the report.

Perkins-Kilpatrick is convinced by her climate models that warming is turbo-charging everything (but apparently not our cool summer of 2020-21, nor the current deep freeze in the Northern Hemisphere).[3] She’s so confident about the modelling that she’ll mortgage her house and happily bet her kids lives on it.[4] I will necessarily win this bet as the RCPs (Representative Modelling Pathways or official scenarios) she uses are discredited and climate models have overshot actual warming to date by a factor of at least two.[5] I’ll enjoy her house but I promise not to slay her kids.

The above-mentioned Will Steffen’s co-authored piece on “climate tipping points”, was headlined, “The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.” The Nature paper included political rodomontade like:

In our view, the consideration of tipping points helps to define that we are in a climate emergency and strengthens this year’s chorus of calls for urgent climate action — from schoolchildren to scientists, cities and countries.

The Australian Academy’s 3deg scare paper in March, also co-authored by Steffen, draws on that Steffen et al Nature article and re-produces its text and graphics of tipping point “domino effects”. Five months after the Nature paper was published, the journal had to grovel horrifically because the seven apex climate scientists had screwed up.[6] Here’s the grovel – try to restrain your mirth (emphasis added):

Correction 09 April 2020: The figure ‘Too close for comfort’ in this Comment incorrectly synthesized and interpreted data from the IPCC. The graph labelled the temperatures as absolute, rather than rises; misrepresented the levels of risk; misinterpreted data as coming from a 2007 IPCC report; extrapolated the focus of a 2018 report; and was not clear about the specific sources of the data. The graphic has been extensively modified online to correct these errors.

Mercifully, Hoegh-Guldberg, Steffen et al have pasted the corrected graphic into their Academy report, not the discarded FUBAR version.[7] Maybe climate science isn’t so “irrefutable” after all.

Just in case, the Academy has given itself a free card to exaggerate and scaremonger:

We adopted the precautionary principle: if a potentially damaging effect cannot be ruled out, it needs to be taken seriously.

The Academy’s authors failed to heed the devastating critique of their scenario methods in a paper last May led by Roger Pielke of University of Colorado, titled “Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment.”  The Academy paper has about 20 mentions of official but discredited scenario RCP8.5 and about 50 mentions of other RCP scenarios. Typical:

RCP8.5 assumes little mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and is associated with global warming of 4°c or more above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Up to now, anthropogenic emissions have tracked the RCP8.5 pathway most closely…

Graphics misleadingly show the various scenarios as consistent and comparable. And RCP8.5 is used in the body of the report to imagine horrible warming outcomes, e.g. hailstorms, p32.

Pielke, who is not a climate sceptic, says that, at worst, the extreme and implausible projections of RCP8.5 are touted as “business as usual”. He wrote:

The misuse of scenarios in climate research means that much of what we think we know about our collective climate future may be incomplete, myopic or even misleading or wrong, and as such, ‘uncomfortable knowledge’.

Pielke tracked 4,500 scientific papers misusing the most extreme scenario RCP8.5. The dud scenario featured in 16,800 scholarly articles since 2010. In January-February 2020 alone, more than 1300 studies quoted RCP8.5, at the rate of about 20 per day, with serious misuse at the rate of two studies per day.

The consequences of RCP scenario misuse include a myopic perspective on alternative futures and a correspondingly limited view on policy alternatives, the creation of a vast academic literature with little to no connection to the real world, and an unwarranted emphasis on apocalyptic climate futures that influences public and policy-maker perspectives.

The objective of understanding scenario misuse is not to apportion or assign blame, but to understand how such a pervasive and consequential failure of scientific integrity came to be on such an important topic, how it can be corrected and how it can be avoided in the future.

Pielke and co-author Ritchie sheet some blame home to the incestuous connections among prominent climate scientists.

The IPCC scenario process has been led by a small group of academics for more than a decade, and decisions made by this small community have profoundly shaped the scientific literature and correspondingly, how the media and policy communities interpret the issue of climate change.

The Academy paper, with its incestuous group of self-citing authors-cum-IPCC-contributors, could be a case in point.

Their chair Hoegh-Guldberg is a climate activist par excellence. As the ABC put it in a fawning interview in 2009 “Hoegh-Guldberg’s work has been embraced by the likes of Al Gore and David Attenborough” and “his mission now is to travel the globe as he fights to raise awareness of what we stand to lose.” He’s been forecasting the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef from climate change since 1998, when his modelling put the Reef’s demise as early as 2030 – less than a decade from now. He lamented that his science peers were giving his research bad reviews: “They were meant to be anonymous but someone slipped them to me, and they were very scathing …” Climategate’s cynical emails of 2009 threw plenty more light on this “anonymous” and gamed peer-review system.

In the same 2009 interview Hoegh-Guldberg forecast the disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2019. He argued with Andrew Bolt: “This is four million kilometres square of ice that’s disappearing. It’s not a tiny thing! But wouldn’t you say that’s a bad sign?” Fact Check: Hoegh-Guldberg confused square miles with square kilometres – but in any event the ice extent last month was 5.7 million square miles or 14.8 million square kilometres. (Hoegh-Guldberg’s “This is four million kilometres square of ice” could not be more wrong. What he said, but doesn’t mean, is a square with sides of 4 million km to give a total area of 16 trillion sq km.)

The ABC interviewer spliced in tape of Hoegh-Guldberg addressing a conference in Saudi Arabia (of all places) and saying, “Let’s now change the world.”

Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has provided detailed history on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, under the header, The WWF Activist in Charge at the IPCC (March 30, 2014). Among other things, she accuses him of using “drama queen language”, such as this (you be the judge):

The world is currently facing the greatest challenge of all time … Humanity is at the crossroads. The message is quite simple and the choice stark: act now or face an uncertain, potentially catastrophic future … World leaders can change the history of the planet and directly influence the survival of millions upon millions of people … Basically, the future is looking very gloomy unless we act immediately and decisively.

Laframboise wrote,

The fact that he has spent his career cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was no impediment to him participating in the latest [Fifth] IPCC assessment. The geniuses there decided he wasn’t merely lead-author material, but that he deserved to be placed in charge of a chapter it’s called  The Ocean.

WWF Australia published a spiffy, 16-page brochure titled “Lights Out for the Reef”. Hoegh-Guldberg’s photo and biographical sketch are one of the first things you see. In the foreword, he says that unless we “increase our commitment” to caring for the Great Barrier Reef, it “will disappear.” He knows what the future holds – and he knows it’s apocalyptic. Not content to merely express his own opinions, he presumes to lecture the rest of us. We need to “take action” and “act now.” We need to “deal decisively with climate change.” Behind all of this, of course, lurks a threat: if we don’t follow his advice, we’ll be really, really sorry.

Hoegh-Guldberg’s Queensland University biography lists four reports he did for Greenpeace from 1994-2000. After Laframboise’s post, Hoegh-Guldberg penned yet another tract for WWF, “Reviving the Ocean Economy – the Case for Action – 2015” and the following year he conducted a WWF seminar. The president and CEO of WWF (US), Carter Roberts, recalled schmoozing with him on a diving trip and:

Ove showed us maps tracking elevated levels of CO₂ in the oceans, and how those levels corresponded with the declining health of the world’s coral reefs. If current trends continue, he told us, we will watch corals around the world wink out year after year until the only reefs left alive are found in a small remote spot in the South Pacific…

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd was sacked in 2017 for demanding audits of alleged systemic flaws in Barrier Reef scientists’ methodology. He’s now taken his case to the High Court. As a further example of contested reef science, researcher Dr Jennifer Marohasy has challenged the standard methodology of assessing GBR coral die-back from the window of an aeroplane overflying at 120 metres. She says this is too high to give realistic results and when she has dived or used a drone on the same reefs, she’s found the corals perfectly healthy.

None of the Academy folk doing the 3deg report noticed that they were reinventing the (square) wheel. In 2007 climate guru of the era Dr Barrie Pittock wrote a 16,000-word tract for WWF headed: “Dangerous Aspirations: Beyond 3degC warming in Australia”. It’s full of the same guff and doomism as that of the Academy’s folk, who toiled a year over their “Risk to Australia of a 3degC warmer world” lookalike.[8]

The supposedly dispassionate Academy paper makes no mention whatsoever of nuclear power, and just one passing mention of China – whose emissions will swamp whatever cuts Australia tries to make.[9] The Academy paper appears even more ridiculous when set against the views this month of Obama’s chief scientist of the Energy Department, physicist Steven Koonin, who is by no means a sceptic. He expects only 1degC more warming this century – hardly worth spending trillions to combat and easy to adapt to. Further, he says the scientists, politicians and the media have generated a narrative that is absurdly, demonstrably false. That includes the “extreme weather” meme which the IPCC itself rates as “low confidence” – and which the Academy paper touts at least 27 times. The models can’t even agree on the current actual global temperature to within 3degC while claiming 1 per cent precision on key variables. The modellers’ guesses on the temperature impact of doubled  CO2 have not improved in 40 years and are now diverging even more widely, Koonin gripes.[10] The darling of catastrophists circa 2019 was David Wallace Wells with his scare book The Uninhabitable Earth. But even he is calling on fellow activists to revise their advocacy “in a less alarmist direction.”

The Academy – its members are overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded – wants to force Australia’s blue-collars, tradies and non-public servant middle classes into unpalatable and dark-green lifestyle changes. One example: “large-scale adoption of EVs [electric vehicles].” Let’s check the data (the report does not).

EV sales last year were just 6,900, up a mere 182 cars on 2019. That 6,900 total was not even 1 per cent of car sales. To date in 2021, EV sales (excluding Teslas at $73,000 upwards but including hybrids) are just 0.6 per cent. Last year 50 per cent of sales were fat gas-guzzling SUVs, up from 45 per cent in 2019. The Academy wants to push us into EVs via government subsidies and by penalties/restrictions on normal cars.

Ponder the  EV handwaving by the Academy, as evident in the passage below, taken from Academy paper March 31, 2021 (emphasis added):

On current estimates, lifetime costs of electric vehicles (EVs) are similar to those of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and are likely to fall further.

Now check back into the real world, as described in a Federal Department of Industry, Science and Energy paper published last February:

Currently, closing the total cost-of-ownership gap with battery electric vehicle subsidies would not represent value-for-money. Analysis shows that this would be expected to cost the taxpayer $195-747 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, depending on the vehicle type and usage. This is high when compared to the Emissions Reduction Fund price of $16 per tonne of carbon emitted. This translates to around $4,500 to $8,000 over the life of the vehicle, or around 10-40 cents per kilometre over a 10 year vehicle life.

The Academy leaves it to the omniscient government to fix the “adjustment challenges” to jobs and industries arising from its pro-EV policies. Otherwise, “Australia will be left with an inefficient car fleet, dependent on mostly imported oil, for many years to come.” What’s “inefficient” about my little family car Hyundai i30 (price new, $23,000)? It carries us like a charm on a whiff of petrol.

The Academy calls for “an immediate halt to new thermal coal mines and coal-fired power stations” and expects the bureaucracy to somehow find coal workers better jobs or earlier retirement. But anyway, it cites its own author, economist John Quiggin,

Thermal coal mining is not a major employer in Australia’s overall labour market and most employees in the industry have skills that make them employable in a wide range of industries. Only a small number of communities, mostly in central and northern Queensland, depend critically on coal mining…

Those thermal coal miners whom the Academy is happy to disappear, number about 20,000, out of about 40,000 coal miners in total, plus, of course, their household and commercial dependents. Nevertheless, the Academy continues:

Many coal-dependent workers and communities will be better off under a compassionate, pro-active transition program than by simply carrying on with ‘business as usual’ (Wiseman et al. 2017).”

Professor John Wiseman works at the dark-green end of Melbourne University at its Sustainable Society Institute. The title of one of his co-authored publications, “The Degrowth Imperative: Reducing energy and resource consumption as an essential component in achieving carbon budget targets” gives the flavour. “Degrowth” means reducing living standards like GDP per capita. As Wiseman’s co-author, Samuel Alexander, puts it, “And can we come together to build resilient, relocalised economies as globalised, carbon capitalism comes to an end in coming years and decades?” Wiseman’s also a writer on climate change and mental health, e.g. “And while many people feel grief and despair about the prospects of climate change, others see transformational hope…”

The Academy report starts with a full-page 230-word kow-tow to Aborigines, including a homily by Aboriginal Dr Emma Lee, one of the 15 members of the expert panel of authors. (The Academy signed up to a “Reconciliation Action Plan” in August 2019 to burnish its woke credentials). Dr  Lee told a conference in March about living in Country with ancestors “every day watching our midden sites along the coast getting washed away with increasing tides.”[11] One of the oldest-tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. CSIRO says it shows 160 years of sea rise there totalling a mere 13.5cm, or about two-thirds of my palm and fingers. A more precise study put the rise there at 1mm a year or 10cm per century. I had no idea that modern Tasmanian Aboriginals could so closely detect the tides increasing.

I checked other recent Academy reports for apologies for squatting on Aboriginal land, without success. One report reviewing “Decadal plans for Australian Astronomy” has 90 words of acknowledgements to whites but not one mention of Aborigines or the pioneering work of Aboriginal astronomers , now being dinned into Australian schoolkids by the ABC and officialdom.

How left can the Academy get? Last November it bagged President Trump and threw in its lot with the doddering fraud Joe Biden:

He will restore funding to environmental and climate programs and, most importantly for Australia, pressure other nations to raise their emissions reductions ambitions…

The [Trump] administration has also harmed the free movement of scientists and ideas. Travel restrictions have made it more difficult for foreigners from different countries to work or study in the US… Rising concerns about Chinese technological advancements have resulted in investigations into links between US-based scientists and China, leading to Chinese claims of McCarthyism—a claim familiar to Australians” (My emphases).

What? Why is the Academy recycling propaganda from China intended to minimise the Communist Party’s wholesale stealing of Western know-how? I sought clarification from the Academy but got no response. [12]

And what’s behind the Academy saying that the China-alleged “McCarthyism” is a “claim familiar to Australians”? That comment appears to derive from a Senate committee hearing last October. Liberal Senator Eric Abetz asked three Chinese-Australian researchers whether they were prepared to “unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship”. One of them, a Labor candidate for Melbourne’s deputy mayor, later called the question “race-baiting McCarthyism.” [I make no suggestion that the three witnesses are in any way disloyal]. The Venona code-breaking transcripts proved that in the US, Senator McCarthy was not just imagining nests of traitors within the post-war establishment.

The Academy’s climate doomism is squandering prestige built over half a century. Someone there should have run a check on its 3degC warming nonsense before the Academy does any more damage – to itself.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

 

[1] The fourteen Academy people wrote sagely in 1976, “We conclude that there is no evidence that the world is now on the brink of a major climatic change. There is ample evidence that the world’s climate has changed widely during the geological past, and while there is every expectation that it will continue to change in the future, the time scale of these changes is in the range of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years rather than decades or centuries.” (My emphasis).

[2] There is scientific etiquette that a reviewer does not review his/her own prior publications, yet here we see senior climate scientists doing just that.

[3] The UK is copping its frostiest April in at least 60 years, CO2 notwithstanding, according to its Met Office.

[4] At 1.10.00secs in the video.

[5] IPCC’s Third Report 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )

IPCC’s Fifth Report, 2014: 111 out of 114 model runs showed temperatures above actual data. [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[6] “The Australian Academy of Science comprises 550 Fellows whose common link is their exceptional scientific achievement.”

[7] Fouled up beyond all recognition.

[8] The Pittock biography incorrectly credits him with a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which the ABC’s Sophie Scott elevated even further to describe Pittock as a “Nobel Prize winner”.[8]

[9] China, pretending at the Paris talks to be a less-developed country, intends to reach peak emissions only in 2030. It’s burning more than half the globe’s thermal coal consumption and is planning or starting 247 gigawatts of new coal-fired power, six times the total coal-power use of Germany and equal to about 80 Loy Yang power plants.

[10] The last official IPCC statement was a footnote in IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. SPM page 16. It reads ‘No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.’

[11] at 1.24.40sec.

[12] In a marvellous each-way bet, the Academy’s anti-Trump document says

• This analysis has the endorsement of the Secretary for Science Policy, President and Chief Executive of the Australian Academy of Science.
• “Views expressed in this feature remain those of the authors.”

=======================

A Mass Deception Of Virology & Vaccines: Case Proven?

A Mass Deception Of Virology and Vaccines  By John O’Sullivan, PrincipiaScientific.com, 28 April 2021

Last year we posted an article that triggered both ridicule and debate. It dared to question the accepted narrative of viruses and vaccines; that COVID19 did not exist and terrain theory would topple germ theory when the world awakens from the nonsense of the fake pandemic. Is the passage of time vindicating us?

Today, a clear and undeniable fact persists to annoy the defenders of Louis Pasteur’s theory and undermines all the claims that COVID19 is a deadly virus requiring mass global vaccinations as a remedy.

Have you ever questioned Germ Theory? Our whole society is based on it. The whole medical profession – especially virology – is based on it. It is why they give us vaccines.

One year on, the Achilles Heel for medical science and virology remains: no lab anywhere in the world has provided a gold standard isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – alleged to cause COVID19 – a supposedly novel respiratory disease but with identical systems to colds and flu.

Our own inhouse expert, Dr Saeed Qureshi, has been at the forefront of exposing that telling omission. It is why we are strong supporters of the Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI).

Moreover, as our corrupt governments and media keep telling us, cases and deaths from COVID run into the millions but we note a strange corresponding collapse in reported cases and deaths from influenza. How is that possible?

Did the novel virus somehow act as an antidote to other respiratory diseases that have plagued humans for millennia?

Hardly.

 

So, as this is the anniversary of our publication of the controversial article,  it behoves us to take stock.

Herein we post the empirical, proven outcomes. The most telling of which, in terms of discrediting virology as pseudo science, may be in this German video presentation of a controlled experiment that exposes a cornerstone of virology as not only unreliable, but patently false.

As reported in thefreedomarticles.com:

“German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus. Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.”

Watch the video by Dr Stefan Lanka and Dean Braus and judge for yourselves:

If these lab tests are validated elsewhere, then it would seem that Drs Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Judy Wilyman, Qureshi, et al. are vindicated.

They have shown us that virology incorrectly states – without proof – that viruses originate outside the body, then ‘hijack’ the RNA or DNA of the cell, and then replicate whilst attacking cells indiscriminately.

If this were true, viruses would replicate endlessly, eventually attacking all healthy cells, but they do not. We know that antibodies, a type of white blood cell, regulates the virus.

There exists no video evidence of viruses hijacking cells, except for 3D renders, and animations based on theory

As so-called “conspiracy theorist” the aforementioned mavericks stayed true to the scientific method and insisted upon actual verifiable proofs as to the nature and cause of the most economically devastating pandemic in modern human history. Their persistence and methodological acumen appear to have saved the world from an evil Big Pharma lie that has corrupted medical science for over half a century.

As thefreedomarticles.com neatly puts it:

“When modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes:

“All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations … All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”

” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”

“These control experiment have never been carried out by the official  “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”

In other words, the studied cells and tissues die with or without the presence of a virus in exactly the same way; therefore, the virus cannot be the cause of the morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, this exactly what many health experts have stated, namely that there are only two causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity.

• Viruses are not living organisms or living microbes
• Viruses do not have a respiratory system, nor a nucleus or digestive system
• Viruses are not alive and viruses are not contagious
• Thus, the fear behind COVID19 is wholly unwarranted

At Principia Scientific International, our words live or die by the scientific method. If claims cannot be verified empirically then they should be taken with a grain of salt. Viruses do not multiply on their own. When added to fertile petri-dishes that sustain cellular life, no additional viral protein structures appear.

Dr Lanka has yet to share all the experiment’s details including SOPs, copies of original run sheets, batch records, solutions, concentrations, incubation times, etc. of the CPE experiment. For that reason, we pose the title of this article as a question. It awaits wider confirmation.

Likewise, we urge the medical community to hold true to Koch’s Postulates: if there is no isolation of a virus, there is no purification. Without purification you have only speculation – and that is not solid science!

About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.

=====================

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE?

 

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE  By Joseph P.Farrell, 3 March 2021

 

If you’re a GMO seeds proponent, or an employee of Mon(ster)santo or I.G. Farbensanto, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Our warning was that by trying to create genetically modified crops that would repel pests, that nature would adapt to the modifications faster than research laboratories could adapt GMOs to nature’s adaptations, thus rendering them not only potentially obsolete, but by creating a pest problem, endangering the food supply (and don’t forget those falling crop yields-per-acre that the University of Iowa documented a couple of years ago with respect to GMO yields: falling yields + higher costs to maintain GMO crops = GMO failure, and cost effectiveness makes natural seeds over the long term a better investment. Now it’s officially come home to roost, according to this article shared by B.:

The coming obsolescence of GMO seeds

There’s much to note about this article, but there was one thing that it stated that leaped out at me:

For the $55 billion genetically modified seed industry, the news hasn’t been good lately. The great “successes” of Bt corn and cotton seeds are turning to failure as insects such as corn rootworms and cotton bollworms are developing resistance to the GMO crops. As a result, farmers have to spray more toxic insecticides to kill the resistant insects.

The situation has become so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed phasing out more than 40 varieties of Bt corn and cotton over the next three to five years as a way to reduce the insect resistance.

Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant GMO soybeans are facing massive weed resistance problems. With U.S. farmers spraying 300 million pounds of glyphosate on their fields each year, weeds have naturally developed resistance. Monsanto and other biotech companies’ solution was to develop new GMO seeds that would work with dicamba and 2,4-D herbicides, which are more toxic than glyphosate and prone to drift, causing damage to other crops.

The result has been a disaster. Dicamba has damaged millions of acres of non-dicamba tolerant soybeans as well as other crops, fruit orchards, millions of trees, and gardens in the past four years. The largest peach producer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees to dicamba drift damage. He sued Monsanto, now Bayer, and won a $265 million settlement. One farmer even murdered another over a dicamba drift dispute.

GMO seeds are failing because GMO technology is short-sighted and supports a failing system of agriculture. GMOs still dominate U.S. corn, soybean, and cotton production but I believe their days are numbered. They are going against the trends in agriculture, which are toward regenerative and organic methods.

A growing number of farmers are focusing on practices to build soil health such as planting cover crops and diverse crop rotations and grazing livestock. Because of those practices, regenerative farmers find they no longer need the GMO seeds, and they are also able to slash their use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.(Boldface emphasis added)

“… a failing system of agriculture”: Let those words sink in. And let the other words “the result has been a disaster” sink in too. But wait, there’s more:

The main point is that soil health and regenerative practices are the leading trends in agriculture today, and as farmers journey on the path to soil health, many don’t see the need to plant GMO seeds.

GMO seed technology was designed to work with a system of industrial agriculture whose toxic effects—pesticides that threaten human health, depleted and eroded soils, polluted waterways from fertilizer runoff, greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, among others—are becoming more apparent and threatening to the world. As more farmers move away from this system toward regenerative and organic practices, the use of ag chemicals and GMOs will fall away.

Biotechnology proponents point to the emergence of gene editing, and say that new gene edited seeds and crops will be developed. They say these crops will increase crop yields, produce more nutritious foods, reduce pesticide use, and help to “feed the world.” Wait, wasn’t that the promise of the “old” GMO seeds? Gene editing supporters say the technology is precise. But a study published in Nature magazine last July found that gene editing of human embryonic cells caused “chromosomal mayhem.” That isn’t precise. Similar genetic mayhem has been seen in gene edited rice and other crops. Gene edited crops will have the same problems as the older GMO crops, and consumers will likely reject them.(Boldface emphasis added)

In other words, human genetic tinkering is creating chaos in agriculture; think of the growing number of stories about adverse reactions to the mRNA covid “vaccines” and transfer that to crops and you get the picture: we are playing with systems which in spite of our vaunted “science” we do not yet completely understand, and in our rush to “play” with them and “improve” them, are creating a mess, possibly one that could threaten the food supply. And in both cases, crops and “vaccines”, the model used is one to maximize profits of a few big corporations. Why sponsor hydroxychloroquine for covid, when it’s so cheap, when profits can be maximized for a “vaccine” which comes with all sorts of health risks. Why sponsor ordinary seeds, when GMO seeds and their associated pesticides are so much more expensive, and can maximize profits?

Similarly, note the response to these models: “organic” crops and “holistic” medicine. In other words, more and more involved in the practice of farming or medicine are turning away from technological and artificial fixes more natural ones. Note that Russia, for example, not only turned very deliberately away from GMOs, but that its vaccine is not an experimental one tinkering with messenger RNA and human genetics.

And also note the response of “Big Agribusiness” (or as we like to call it here, I.G. Farbensanto or Mon[ster]santo) and Big Pharma (or as we like to call it, Muck Pharmaceuticals) to those who’ve opposed their agendas: Mon(ster)santo would sue farmers if one of their plants was spotted on their fields (meaning that Mon[ster]santo was actually spying on people), and Muck Pharmaceuticals? Well, it’s a curious thing that so many holistic doctors were being murdered in the years running up to the covid planscamdemic, and we all saw how apopleptic some doctors and media became at the mere mention of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin d, or zinc.

So yes, perhaps we need a new model of doing things. One that isn’t anti-science, but skeptical of rushed scientism, of rushed promises of “a better world” and “cures” without adequate testing and skepticism. In this, the whole GMO panacea has been a lesson in the dangers of rushed technologies, lack of inter-generational testing, and bought-off and corrupted “corporate science” and media promising the utmost safety of their witches’ brews.

Or to put that lesson more succinctly, no more Mon(ster)santo’s, and no more “Operation Warp Speeds” either. And here’s the good news:

The good news is that a seed industry independent of the big biotech/pesticide companies—Bayer, BASF, Corteva, and Syngenta—is growing stronger, worth an estimated $10 billion. This includes organic seed companies such as Albert Lea Seed, Great Harvest Organics, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and others. There are also seed companies emerging to meet the demand for non-GMO corn including SureFlex Hybrids in Minnesota, Spectrum Non-GMO in Indiana, Hybrid85 in Nebraska, and De Dell Seeds in Canada, to name a few.

Now, hopefully, we’ll see the emergence of doctors’ and physicians’ consortia that will treat their covid patients with things other than questionable “vaccines”. We’ve seen a few individuals questioning the whole narrative, but the whole idea of other points of view should, perhaps, become a business model.

======================

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface  By Professor Peter Ridd, an independent scientist, The Australian, 16 September 2020

 

Editor’s note: Professor Ridd was sacked by James Cook University, Queensland, for challenging some university colleagues regarding the accuracy of their reports concerning the Great Barrier Reef.  Ridd challenged this in court and won a resounding victory in which the judge castigated JCU. An appeal by JCU was lost based on some convoluted points.  Ridd is escalating an appeal to the highest Australian court.  Over $760,000 has been collected for Ridd’s appeal in a Go-Fund appeal. Ridd is pushing in particular for a far better level of quality control in science.

The Senate committee inquiry into the regulation of farm practices impacting water quality on the Great Barrier Reef has yielded some remarkable confessions by science institutions about the state of the reef. It has been the first time many of the scientists have been asked difficult questions and publicly challenged by hard evidence. They have been forced out of their bubble.

It was revealed by Paul Hardisty, boss of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, that only 3 per cent of the reef, the “inshore reefs”, is affected by farm pesticides and sediment. He also stated that pesticides, are a “low to negligible risk”, even for that 3 per cent.

The other 97 per cent, the true offshore Great Barrier Reef, mostly 50km to 100km from the coast, is effectively totally unharmed by pesticides and sediment.

This has been evident in the data for decades but it is nice to see an honest appraisal of the situation.

Why has this fact not been brought to the public’s attention in major documents such as the GBR Outlook Report produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Why has everybody been deceived about the true extent of the problem?

AIMS was also forthcoming on other important points. Records of coral growth rates show no impact from agriculture. Large corals live centuries, and have annual growth rings like trees. They record their own rate of growth. If farming, which started about 100 years ago on the reef coast, was damaging the it, there should be a slowing of the growth rate. The records show no slowing when agriculture started a century ago, or when large-scale use of fertiliser and pesticides began in the 1950s.

I have written previously that AIMS has been negligent in not updating the GBR-average coral growth data for the past 15 years. We have the scandalous situation that there is data going back centuries – but nothing since 2005. AIMS claimed coral growth rates collapsed between 1990 and 2005, due to climate change; however, there is considerable doubt about this result because AIMS changed the methodology for the data between 1990 and 2005. At the Senate inquiry, under some duress, AIMS agreed it would be a good idea to update this data if the government will fund the project.

Updating the coral growth rate data will be a major step forward. It will prove or disprove the doubtful decline between 1990 and 2005. It will also give the complete record of how the GBR has fared in the past 15 years, a period when scientists have become more strident in their claims that it is on its last legs.

Hardisty, to his credit, has recently implemented red-blue teams within his organisation to help with quality assurance of the work that AIMS produces. A red team is a group of scientists that takes a deliberately antagonist approach to check, test and replicate scientific evidence. A genuine red team is a far more rigorous quality assurance approach than the present system used in science – peer review – which is often little more than a quick read of the work by the scientist’s mates. What AIMS has done internally is similar to what I have been proposing – an Office of Science Quality Assurance that would check, test, and replicate scientific evidence used for public policy.

Unfortunately, Hardisty’s commitment to quality in science was not reflected by many other important witnesses at the Senate inquiry. Many are in denial and resorted to shooting the messengers. An extract from a letter signed by Professor Ian Chubb, a former Australian chief scientist, was read out by Senator Kim Carr.

Disputing the conventional wisdom on the reef was likened to denying that tobacco causes cancer, or that lead in petrol is a health risk. Worse still, the reason sceptics do this, apparently, is “usually money”. Scientists such as Dr Piers Larcombe, the pre-eminent expert on the movement of sediment on the reef, with decades of experience, is thus written off as a corrupt charlatan.

It is scientific “cancel culture”. It is easier than confronting Larcombe’s evidence that farming has very limited impact on the GBR.

It is customary to be very cynical of our politicians, but it was senators Roberts, Rennick, Canavan and McDonald who forced some truth from our generally untrustworthy science institutions. Only our politicians can save us from them.

The evidence about the reef will not be buried forever. All the data indicates agriculture is having a negligible impact on the reef, and recent draconian Queensland legislation against farmers is unwarranted. And this issue will be influential come the Queensland state election on October 31.

(Professor) Peter Ridd is an independent scientist.

======================

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism

 

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 29 August 2020

I hope you are sitting down; this foray into political and media madness over bushfires and climate change starts with recognising some excellent, forensic journalism by the ABC. Investigating last summer’s devastating Gospers Mountain fire, journalist Philippa McDonald took us to the very tree where the fire is believed to have been started when it was struck by lightning in a thunderstorm.

McDonald used this to give us the brilliantly counterintuitive opening line; “It began not with fire, but ice.” In a series of reports, McDonald and her team retraced the history of the fire over a number of weeks, how it was almost extinguished by rain, how bushwalkers in the wrong place at the wrong time thwarted a backburn that might have stopped it, how another prescribed burn got out of control and destroyed houses, and how a fortuitous wind change stopped it encroaching on suburban Sydney.

We might quibble with some of the alarmist language — repeating the silly new “megafire” term and pretending that when fires meet they join and get bigger when, in fact, this reduces the number of fronts and total length of fire perimeter — but overall the reporting was factual and admirable because it explained the many variables in fire behaviour and the factors that can influence whether a fire can be contained or extinguished before weather conditions turn it into an unstoppable beast. Surprisingly, and refreshingly, the reports did not dwell on climate change.

When it comes to our bushfires climate change is so close to being irrelevant, it should hardly warrant a passing reference — we have always faced disastrous bushfire conditions and always will. If climate change makes the worst conditions either marginally more or less common, it matters not; we still need to do the same things to protect ourselves.

In previous articles I have detailed the leading scientific analysis showing the main precondition for the NSW fires — a long drought — cannot be attributed to climate change. Unless climate activists want to argue Australia could do something to alter the global climate sufficiently to reduce our bushfire threat, they are exposed as cynical campaigners who used the sure bet of bushfires to advance their political scare campaign.

The NSW bushfire inquiry released this week took a dive into the climate science — as it was tasked to do — and found, predictably enough, that climate change “clearly played a role in the conditions” that led up to the fires and helped spread them. But thankfully it did not waste much time on climate in its recommendations, merely suggesting climate trends need to be monitored and factored in.

Apart from exercises in politically correct box ticking — Indigenous training for evacuation centre staff so they are “culturally competent”, wildlife rescue training for firefighters, and signs to promote ABC radio stations — most of the recommendations were practical. Better equipment for firefighters, more water bombers, more communication, public education and most importantly, a range of suggestions on fuel reduction around settled areas and planning controls on building in fire prone areas.

The bottom line has always been obvious: the one fire input we can control is fuel, so where we want to slow blazes or protect properties, we must reduce fuel. Planning is also important to prevent housing in indefensible locations, but one crucial phrase missing from the report was “personal responsibility”.

Houses on wooded hilltops or surrounded by bush cannot be protected and their residents should not expect others to risk their lives trying to do so.

People must be educated to clear extensively around properties, sufficient to withstand not a moderate fire but a firestorm, otherwise they must be prepared to surrender their homes and escape early.

“Hazard reduction is not the complete answer,” said report author Mary O’Kane. “People do need to take responsibility, they need to realise that if they live in certain areas it can be very dangerous, and we try to give a strong message of, if you are in a dangerous area and there is one of these big, bad megafires, the message, is get out.”

O’Kane is right, of course. But it seems a hell of a waste to hold a full inquiry only to be told we should do more fuel reduction, be careful where we build houses, and get the hell out of the way rather than try to fight firestorms. We knew all this.

The push for an inquiry was largely driven by the climate catastrophists. Remember, they wanted to blame the blazes on the axing of the carbon tax, and on Scott Morrison. It was inane and rancid stuff.

They will be at it again, this fire season. They love making political capital out of disasters, although they go as quiet as Tim Flannery when it comes to full dams and widespread snowfalls.

The area of land burned in the Australian summer has now been revised down by 25 per cent, and the claims about wildlife deaths revised downwards too, to factor in the mind-blowing realisation that animals actually escape fire when they can — birds fly, wombats burrow, kangaroos hop and even koalas can climb to the treetops and escape all but a crowning blaze.

Remember we had articles in The Guardian, The New York Times, and on CNN and the BBC, saying the bush might never recover. Take a drive through the Blue Mountains, Kangaroo Island or the Australian Alps and see how their predictions turned out.

The sclerophyll forests of southern Australia are not just adapted to fire, they are reliant on it. Therefore, the wildlife also is reliant on it for the rejuvenation of the vegetation — why does basic ecology escape the climate activists? If it is any comfort, the same madness is now playing out in California. Similar climate, similar history of bushfires, and the same maddening political debate. With fires burning more than a million acres in northern California this month, the state’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, sent a recorded message to his party’s national convention; “If you are in denial about climate change, come to California.” The trouble is that while these are bad wildfires, they are not unusual in the natural and settled history of that environment.

Like the Australian bush, the redwood forests that US journalists suggest are being destroyed by fire, depend on fire for propagation. Just like here, one of the issues has been the suppression of bushfire by human interference, leading to the unnatural build up of fuel that can explode when a wildfire does get away in bad conditions.

Environmentalist and author of Apocalypse Never; Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger says the climate is warming but the impact of this on fires is overstated. In an article for Forbes.com he quoted Scott Stevens of the University of California, Berkeley, saying climate change is not a major factor, as well as other experts scoffing of the idea that severe fires are anything new.

“California’s fires should indeed serve as a warning to the public, but not that climate change is causing the apocalypse,” wrote Shellenberger. “Rather, it should serve as a warning that mainstream news reporters and California’s politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth about climate change and fires.”

Ditto for Oz. I have detailed previously how Fran Kelly told ABC audiences in November that “the fire warning had been increased to catastrophic for the first time ever in this country” — but that was wrong, wildly wrong.

Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John accused his political opponents of being “no better than arsonists” and other Greens and Labor MPs said Australia’s climate policies were exacerbating bushfires. Insane as this might be, it was amplified rather than interrogated by most media.

The thick smoke haze in Sydney was portrayed as something “unprecedented” — if it has not been on Twitter before it must never have happened — but a quick search of newspaper files found similar bushfire-induced shrouds in 1951, when airports were closed, and 1936, when a ship couldn’t find the heads.

Fires in rainforest areas of southern Queensland and northern NSW were not “unprecedented” either, with archived reports noting similar fires in the spring of 1951 and even the winter of 1946.

Despite 200,000 media mentions of “unprecedented” tracked by media monitors across December and January, the facts showed none of this was new. Greater areas were burned in 1851 and 1974-75, and human devastation was either as bad or worse on Black Saturday in 2009, Ash Wednesday in 1983, Black Tuesday in 1967, Black Friday in 1939 and Black Thursday 1851.

Bushland was not destroyed forever, koalas were not rendered extinct and Scott Morrison was not to blame. We should have an inquiry into climate alarmism, political posturing and media reporting — we would learn a lot more from that than we have from relearning age-old fire preparedness from yet another bushfire inquiry.

CHRIS KENNY

 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR (NATIONAL AFFAIRS)

Commentator, author and former political adviser, Chris Kenny hosts The Kenny Report Monday-Friday 5pm, and Kenny on Media, 8.30pm Friday, on Sky News. He takes an unashamedly rationalist approach to national a… Read more

=====================

Alarmism in New Zealand

Alarmism in New Zealand  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 25 July 2020

Fear is a natural survival instinct and arguably more motivating than logic and reason. It can also be used to great effect to shift the mindset of communities and nations.

While such manipulation is, of course, not uncommon, what is surprising is how blind societies are to recognising when fear is being used as a tool for political persuasion.

We recently saw this in the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic when the Prime Minister used alarmist computer modelling to justify her “Captain’s Call” to lock the country down.

Claiming “tens of thousands of New Zealanders” could die, the PM rejected Ministry of Health advice to stay at Level 2 for 30 days, and imposed what we now know to be the most stringent policy response in the world.

Instead of relying on cost benefit analyses and regulatory impact statements from trusted government agencies to inform her decisions, the PM chose inaccurate computer models that grossly exaggerated the number of deaths.

It has now been revealed that the modelling she relied on did not take into account the contact testing and tracing that was central to the health response being implemented by Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director General of Health.

The explosion of predicted deaths that resulted, was then used by the PM to scare the country into accepting her hard-line lockdown.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has used scaremongering to force her policy agenda onto the country. Her whole response to climate change has been based on fear.

Climate change is, of course, a natural process influenced by a wide range of factors including the sun, clouds, and ocean currents. Throughout history, the Earth’s climate has been far hotter than it is today and far colder. Sea levels have been far higher and far lower. Carbon dioxide – the trace gas used by plants to manufacture food – has existed at far higher atmospheric concentrations and far lower.

But the United Nations’ climate models that are being used to redefine economic policy around the world, only focus on the minuscule proportion of carbon emissions produced by humans. In doing so, they disregard not only the 97 percent of carbon dioxide produced from natural sources, but also the overwhelming influence that other crucial factors such as the sun have on the climate.

These alarmist models, which blame climate change on humans, are being used by politicians – including our Prime Minister – to implement the UN’s socialist agenda: state control of all economic activity through the regulation of carbon emissions.

Fortunately, most scams motivated by scaremongering are eventually exposed – often by the very people who pioneered the movements before they were captured by political extremists.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Michael Shellenberger is a leading American climate activist, who, having promoted global warming propaganda for almost three decades, has decided to stop the lies:

“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

“Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’; Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;  Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level; Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change; Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels…

“I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.”

Michael Shellenberger explains how difficult it has been to speak out against the climate scare:

“I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis’.

“But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public…

“But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said ‘The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.’ Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed ‘Climate Change Kills Children…

“As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change. Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened. I thus decided I had to speak out.”

While Michael Shellenberger deserves credit for speaking out and exposing the misrepresentation, those activists who lie should be held to account – particularly by the media. It is therefore regrettable that so many in the media have decided their interests are better served by aligning with the popularists, rather than adhering to the bedrock values of their profession.

Prime amongst New Zealand’s serial alarmists is the Green Party’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw. Not only does he knowingly describe carbon dioxide – the cornerstone of life on earth – as a “pollutant”, but he also continues to claim that as a result of climate change, adverse weather events are getting worse, which is another alarmist fabrication that is simply untrue.

But as the late Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University Professor who had been a lead author for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained, for advocates of climate alarmism the truth is not a priority: “…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.  That entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Fearmongering, of course, has been an effective tool to manipulate the public throughout history.

The myth that population growth will deplete food and resources, and ultimately destroy the planet, can be traced back to the writing of the Reverend Thomas Malthus in 1798.

These idea gained unprecedented traction following the 1968 release of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, an entomologist at Stanford University. The book incited such fear of overpopulation that it triggered waves of repression around the world.

The facts, however, tell a different story. Population growth has been slowing for more than three decades. Forty years ago, while the average woman had between five and six children to ensure the survival of the next generation, she now has between two and three. Women are having fewer children because better healthcare means that most babies now live to grow up. As a result, half of the world is already below the long-term replacement level.

Concerns over ‘peak oil’ have also been in and out of vogue over recent decades. Driven by the theory that the world would run out of oil, the reality is that scarcity has been the result of geopolitical disruption rather than resource depletion.

The Club of Rome, an Italian-based think tank established in 1965, investigated resource scarcity in their highly influential book The Limits to Growth. Using computer modelling, they forecast apocalyptic economic and environmental disaster.

Ironically, it has now become clear that, contrary to what they were predicting, the best way to improve humanity and the environment is through more growth, not less. As countries improve their living standards, so too they improve social, economic and environmental wellbeing. It is the resourcefulness of free markets to innovate and maximise the efficient use of resources that results in a progressive improvement in living standards.

What is also bizarre is that while in the 1970s climate computer models predicted that the burning of fossil fuels would trigger another ice age, nowadays they are claiming the exact opposite – that the burning of fossil fuels will cause the planet to dangerously overheat.

This contradiction has not stopped our politicians – with fossil fuels identified as the villain, their policy response of an increasing carbon levy, has effectively imposed socialist state control over all economic activity.

When the Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister introduced their Zero Carbon Act last year, they boasted about imposing the harshest restrictions on carbon emissions of any country in the world. Then last month, they amended the Emissions Trading Scheme to cap carbon emissions, causing the price of carbon to jump from around $25 a tonne to $33.

At $25, New Zealander motorists were paying an ETS levy of around 4c for every litre of petrol they bought. At $33, the levy is now around 7 cents a litre, and at $35, it will be around 9c a litre. Such price hikes will flow right through the economy, increasing the cost of living.

The Climate Change Minister expects carbon prices will go much higher.

Meanwhile the price of carbon has had a major impact on vegetable affordability, especially tomatoes. With hothouses no longer economical in some areas, local growers are being forced to close. As a result, New Zealanders will see an increase in produce imported from countries with no carbon costs.

With the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change specifying that measures introduced to enable countries to meet their carbon targets must not reduce food production, Minister Shaw is clearly breaking the rules.

Governments can only get away with imposing socialist control under the guise of climate change because of their scaremongering. Endlessly claiming that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming, they promote renewable energy as the only sustainable alternative.

In a controversial new film, Planet of the Humans, which climate activists have tried to ban, filmmaker Michael Moore provides a devastating indictment of the renewable energy scam, explaining it is not clean, green, nor sustainable, but is more destructive than the energy sources it seeks to replace.

The film shows how wind, solar and biofuel projects destroy wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands.

It exposes bogus claims about the benefits of renewable energy and explains that electricity for a small city of 50,000 households requires 15 square miles of solar panels, along with wind turbines, and a huge array of batteries – or a coal or gas power plant – for nights and cloudy days.

Paul Driessen, a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow has reviewed  the film and describes the turbines:  “Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not.”

While some of the film’s conclusions are questionable, Michael Moore raises concerns about the merits of alternative energy that alarmists have conveniently ignored: “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing all of this.

Although dissenting voices are not yet dominating the debate about climate alarmism, there is enough concern for political leaders to stop the headlong rush into policy extremism and exercise some common sense judgement.

With New Zealand already struggling to recover from the harsh lockdown, the last thing this country needs is climate policy based on scaremongering to undermine our fragile economic recovery.

========================

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change  By Michael Shellenberger, The Australian, 1 July 2020

I have been a climate activist for 20 years but on behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created.

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide ­objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”;

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”;

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;

Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003;

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska;

The author’s new book.

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California;

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s;

The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level;

We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter;

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change;

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels;

Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those ­conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the Inter­national Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

Green beginnings

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to ­invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I ­referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his ­research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.

Turning point

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists ­reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a ­nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity ­extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal ­apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.
• The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.
• 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent.
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent.
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions.
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the ­financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.

The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.

Reality bites

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to ­believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

A real crisis

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people [Editor’s note 1: There is compelling evidence this figure is grossly inflated due to dubious practices and methods of measuring] and shattered economies around the globe [Editor’s note 2: It is the related governmental regulations that have ‘shattered economies around the world’, not COVID-19].

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.

The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and ­environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely ­important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning ­author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science, Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love’: a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist and progressive felt the need to speak out against the alarmism. I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Michael Shellenberger is president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organisation. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, published by Harper Collins

=======================

Links to previous articles

• • The Sun Has Gone Into Lockdown  By Michael Snyder, 19 May 2020
  • Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G  By Michael Alexander, Natural News, 20 February 2020
  • I Survived Communism. Now, It’s Back, Veiled as ‘Environmentalism’  By Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer, 11 February 2020
  • Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” As Pseudoscience  From HumansAreFree.com, 8 February 2020
  • Global Warming, meet Creationism  By Ian Plimer, The Spectator, March 2020
  • ARE YOU READY TO LEAVE THE U.N. AND THEIR AGENDA  From The Marshall Report, 27 June 2016
  • 7 Major Earth Changes, the real cause for alarmismBy Michael Snyder, Zerohedge, 17 January 2020
  • Great Barrier Reef coral testing ‘flawed, needs fix’, says Peter Ridd  By Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 2 January 2020
  • Great Barrier Reef truth may be inconvenient but it is out there  By Professor Peter Ridd, The Australian, 2 January 2020
  • Climate Change Alarmism Is A Despicably Anti-Human Ideology  From HumansAreFree.com, 28 December 2019
  • The dangerous winds of trying to prevent climate change  By Duggan Flanakin, Canada Free Press, 26 December 2019
  • Is the reef really dying  By Greg Bearup, The Australian, 21 December 2019Media panic on climate, bushfires and a vacation  The Australian editorial, 19 December 2019
  • COP25, an epic cop-out  By Damian Wilson, RT.com, 17 December 2019
  • The Deliberate Deception to Demonize CO2  By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist, 12 December 2019
  • Feeding the Fat Green Pigs  Published by the Saltbush Club, www.saltbushclub.com. 29 November 2019
  • Climate alarmists are brazen opportunists preying on misery  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 21 November 2019
  • NZ’s Zero Carbon Bill  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 26 October 2019
  • The madness of Extinction Rebellion  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 12 October 2019
  • Climate activists recruiting child soldiers  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 30 September 2019
  • Letter to UN, There is no climate emergency  There is no climate emergency, 23 September 2019
  • Climate change signals part of socialist plot  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 12 July 2019
  • Climate activists are the establishment  By Nick Cater, Columnist, Spiked, 22 June 2019
  • Sciences Untold Scandal,Professional Societies Promote the Climate Change Scare  By Tom Harris, Dr Jay Lehr, 27 May 2019
  • New Zealand’s Labour Government suicidal Climate Change plans  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 17 May 2019
  • Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf  By (Professor) Peter Ridd, The Australian, 26 December 2018
  • An ideological mess of monumental proportions By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 6 July 2018
  • New Zealand is killing its economy by green zealotry  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR Weekly, 27 June 2018
  • James Cook University trashes science and ethics  By Dr Walter Starck, Quadrant Online, 4 June 2018
  • Why, Twenty-One Times Why  By Dr Walter Starck, Quadrant Online, 3 May 2018
  • Adani opposition ignores reality of world’s energy needs from coal and oil  By Julian Tomlinson, The Cairns Post, 8 March 2018
  • Chilling fact is most climate change theories are wrong  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 8 March 2018
  • Greens show their true colour, red  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 12 February 2018
  • The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 17 January 2017
  • Progress versus ‘progressives’, Greens have lost the plot  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 9 January 2018
  • After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’  By Michael Bastasch, 26 November
  • Understanding the modern Green movement  Two articles: Nick Cater, then Greg Brown, The Australian, 21 November
  • Climate change is ‘the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated’  By Steven Mosher, 18 October 2017
  • Australia’s broadcaster, ABC, is guilty of soft treason  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 23 October 2017
  • Abbott’s speech tells it like it is on global warming  By John Stone, The Australian, 17 Oct 2017
  • Cairns Post editorial, 171012  By Julian Tomlinson, The Cairns Post, 12 October 2017
  • Climate evangelists reduce debate to a binary farce  The Australian newspaper Editorials, 11 and 12 October 2017
  • A common-sense way through the climate conflict  By former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, form The Australian, 10 October 2017
  • Recycling, a guilt-suppressing eco-fad  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 3 October 2017
  • The poor are carrying the cost of today’s climate policies  By Matt Ridley, from The Rational Optimist, 1 October, 2017
  • Climate Change Science Implodes  By Mike Adams, via HumansAreFree, 23 September 2017
  • The Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught cooking the books yet again  Maurice Newman, The Australian, 19 September 2017
  • Beware Greens’ scaremongering  By Ben Pile, Spiked Online, 16 September 2017
  • Media’s silence of the climate scams  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 1 August 2017
  • Paris climate dreams as India stays real  By Gary Johns, The Australian, 14 July 2017
  • Cairns Post Editorial, Julian Tomlinson, 170622 Cairns Post Editorial, 22 June 2017
  • Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong  By Clive James, The Australian, 3 June 2017
  • Cairns Post editorial, 25 May 2017 Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 25 May 2017
  • Green lunacies that literally cost the Earth  By James Delingpole, The Daily Mail, 20 February 2017
  • Is Climate Alarmism Governance at War with the USA  By Leo Goldstein, from Watts Up With That website, 11 January 2017

• • derailing-the-marrakech-express  By Michael Kile, Quadrant Online, 20 November 2016

• • finally-warmists-find-a-real-threat  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 15 November 2016

• • cp-editorial-on-agw-distortions-011116 – by Andrew Bolt, Going cold on climate science, 1 November 2016

• • cp-editorial-271016  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 27 October 2016

• • bjorn-lomborg-take-those-organic-food-claims-with-a-grain-of-salt  By Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 16 October 2016

• • like-all-cults-climate-alarmism-will-fail-when-its-prophecies-dont-materialise  By Peter Campion, 14 September 2016

• • Young Heads Filled With Green Mush  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 3 August

• • Brexit threatens Climate Gravy train – time for Clexit  By Jo Nova, joannenova.com.au/, 3 August 2016

• • Golden rice, the miracle crop Greenpeace hates  By George Harrison, Spiked Online, 23 July 2016

• • A fantasy green-tech future  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 19 July 2016

• • The positive effects of CO2 – there is no crisis  By Anthony Watts, WattsUpWithThat  website, 23 June 2016

• • The Reef’s Self-Serving Saviours  By Dr Walter Starck, Quadrant Online, 19 June 2016

• • Exaggeration, hyperbole and even lies, by Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 2 June 2016

• • How climate and environmental propaganda works  By Paul Driesson, Townhall, 3 May

• • How Greens kill off industry by stealth  By Alan Oxley, Quadrant Online, 31 March

• • Are Environmentalism and Global Warming Effectively Religious Socialism  By Dr. Tim Ball, 23 February 2016

• • The economic costs of excessive environmental legislation  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZ Centre for Political Research, 18 February 2016

• • Climate change, CSIRO realigns after groupthink fails  By Michael Asten, The Australian, 12 February 2016

• • Climate change science RIP  By Don Aitkin, 7 February 2016

• • Bureau of Meteorology needs to open its records to audit  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 1 February 2016

• • http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/ Joanne Nova, 21 November 2016

• • Chilling climate of UN control  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 28 December

• • Paris talks – agreeing to dodge democracy – By Ben Pile, Spiked Online, 19 December

• • Ruinous water plan based on environmentalist lies  By Ron Pike, Quadrant Online, 18 October 2015

• • Global warming zealots blamed for deadly diesel fiasco  By Steven Glover, The Daily Mail, 25 September 2015

• • Killing people versus cheating EPA regulations  From Zerohedge, 22 September 2015

• • Oxfam’s real agenda – destroy Australian coal industry  By Henry Thomas, Quadrant Online, 14 September 2015

• • The Green Scare Problem  By Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 14 August 2015

• • Nobel Prize-Winner dissents on global warming claims 1 July 2015

• • Greens destroy world’s wildlife  By Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 7 July 2015

• • Greens infiltrate the classroom  By Gary Johns, 1 July 2015

• • Climate science, the settled careerist variety  By Walter Starck

• • Why the Left needs climate change  By Steven Hayward, Forbes, 13 June 2015

• • IPCC is to science is what FIFA is to soccer  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 9 June 2015

• • Terrible news for climate catastrophists  By James Delingpole, 6 June 2015

• • 25 years of dud tipping point predictions  Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 19 May

• • The Greek Orthodox Creed of Warmism  By Michael Kile, Quadrant Online, 5 May

• • Are you now, or have you ever been, a climate contrarian  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor of spiked, 2 May 2015

• • Putting the acid on the Great Barrier Reef doomsayers  By Patrick Moore, The Australian, 13 April 2015

• • Flashback 1971, burning coal will cause ice age  By Michael Bastasch, 7 April 2015

• • UN, depopulate the planet to combat climate change  By Steve Watson, 7 April 2015

• • Time to Put Warmists Under Oath  By Walter Starck, Quadrant Online, 3 April 2015

• • ‘Greens’ plans to return to the Stone Age  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 31 March 2015

• • Global warming consensus claim fraudulent  By Richard Tol, The Australian, 25 March

• • When environmentalism becomes a crime against humanity  By Ivo Vetger, 18 March

• • To be ‘green’ or progressive, you can’t be both  By Tim Black, Spiked, 14 Mar 2015

• • EPA Chief cannot answer climate questions  Editorial, Investors Business Daily, 7 Mar

• • GM, the scientific argument is over  By Matt Ridley, The Times, 5 Mar 2015

• • Montana bill kills UN’s Agenda 21 by KLXF.com, 25 Feb 2015

• • The ‘Green Blob’ is threatening lives in Africa  By Matthew Holehouse, 24 Feb 2015

• • ‘Science’ destroys its own credibility  By Garth Paltridge 17 Feb 2015

• • The biggest science scandal ever  By Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 7 Feb 2015

• • How to make a pyre of the bush  by Roger Underwood, Quadrant Online, 8 Feb 2015

• • Beware, ‘green’ danger ahead   by Andrew Montford, The Spectator, 6 Feb 2015

• The left’s gravy train derailing  by Maurice Newman, The Australian

Editor’s note: This post comprises several communications from climate specialist and expert fraud investigator John Rofe of Auckland, New Zealand.  Each email was sent to a wide range of politicians and media. 

Editor’s notes: Sadly, most politicians and media people as well we many scientists still espouse the false ‘climate change’ unsupported propaganda.  A quote from the text below rather than the truth may turn out to be the trigger for these people to change their minds:   ‘The truth will always out.  Your problem is that it will come out on your watch and forever affect your reputation.’ NB some diagrams could not be transposed from the original text to this post.

Dear politicians,

It is a new year.  I wish you all the health wisdom and courage to execute your duties this year.  Your biggest problem is that you now own the climate fraud that Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw knowingly inflicted on us all.

The issue at hand is very simple.  You will only understand the truth about the climate fraud which your Parliament supports, if you take the hour or two to read this email and attachments.   Before you read the unpleasant truth about the fraud you support, I would like to reprint the results of the NASA satellite records taken from the web site of the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s custodian of data as of 4 January 2024.  Now both warming alarmists and critics of the fraud alike, agree that 2023 was the hottest year since satellite records began…(ref. https://www.drroyspencer.com/ ) What we disagree over is whether human carbon emissions have any relevance in Earth’s weather.  I can prove it is impossible because a small reaction in the evaporation of surface water which influences the concentration of atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and precipitation will within minutes and hours eliminate any increase in carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over any period.

But…. To quote Dr Roy Spencer,”2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2023 was +0.83 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2023 anomaly of +0.91 deg. C.

The following plot shows all 45 years ranked from the warmest to coolest.

The linear warming trend since January 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).”

The temperature cannot possibly be higher today than it was during previous times such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period or even the 1930’s.  So there is still no climate emergency.  Meantime, human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide continue to increase and these will continue to increase whatever we do.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is based solely on the proposition that human carbon emissions cause climate change.  The fact that this is impossible is why, when they are asked to justify their actions, previous New Zealand Ministers of Climate Change always wrote that they are taking action because we once agreed with the UN IPCC that we would do so.  In the next breath they say they follow the science.  However, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) is promoting the dogma of those members of the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum which set up that organisation in 1988 and it has never provided any empirical scientific evidence to support it in any of their reports – It places total reliance on the opinions of those people it has rewarded for agreeing with its own opening hypothesis.  That is not scientific by any definition.  Such a big lie could not have endured without people in high places personally benefitting from it.  For them, they easily distance themselves from the actions of the puppet UN IPCC which is run operated under the auspices of the United Nations itself.  However, the same private sector globalist influencers presently control both the US Government and the mainstream international media and via their political and media puppets they ensure they also have their foot on the throat of the New Zealand public. 

But science is solely about being able to produce empirical scientific evidence to support a theory.  For Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, not only is the core theory impossible but now Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Auckland, Dr Geoffrey G. Duffy FRSNZ has been providing his unequivocal evidence to absolutely disprove it for four years – as discussed in his frequently circulated video at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p8JqRqRBC4

His work is supported by dozens of other scientists. Globally, the fraud is only supported by a minority of real scientists.  Within New Zealand, the members of the NZ Climate Science Coalition and the Environomics Global Trust write to you from time to time to explain the vast body of science which shows the impossibility of the UN IPCC’s dogma. Their correspondence is based on physics, atmospheric chemistry, geology, meteorology and so on.  But as I am both a beneficiary of your fraud and an experienced fraud investigator, all I seek to do is to nail the lid shut on its coffin before our economy is trashed by the effects of the Zero Carbon Act 2020, its offshoot, the Climate Change Commission and their pointless zealotry.  I accept the work and calculations of Professor Duffy, but only after proving by observation of daily official weather data that, as he asserts, within minutes and hours a minor change in atmospheric water vapour modifies any and all effects of a change in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide over centuries.

The Government, the media, academia and those promoting the false UN IPCC narrative for personal gain simply ignore the truth and ensure it can never be heard.  The truth is not changed by suppression. The truth will always out.  Your problem is that it will come out on your watch and forever affect your reputation.

 I have spent 20 years investigating this fraud on my own time and to my own family’s cost.  During this time, I have been met with a barrage of lies and obstruction from the same people that you use my taxes to reward for lying to you.   NIWA, Ministry of Climate Change, NZ MetService, are implicated.  At best they are sophists and many of them are likely to be ignorant, rather than persons of fraudulent intent.   All are captive of the fraud they promote because they would individually lose their jobs if they did not promote the fraud.  However, a consequence is that you now have a huge problem with civil service, academia and our education system. None are trustworthy.

I worked out a system to validate the work of Professor Duffy from the observation and analysis of officially published weather data.  His evidence is compelling but requires confirmation by observation.  Observation of gases which are invisible to the human eye make the deception and mass panic of the public easy.  But I am not allowed to publish my research by the same media that are captive to the fraud which you are unknowingly if purposefully inflicting on farmers and businesspeople.  This is because you sanction it with your legislative provisions. By the end of this email, you will understand how you can disprove the fraud for yourself. I am not able to persuade the fraudsters or sophists to debate my allegations because they have no way of disproving the real evidence so they refuse any and all invitations. Nor can I bring them before the courts because you have silenced the court by obliging it to enforce the Zero Carbon Act 2020 which enshrines the deliberate fraud within New Zealand law.  I have named those responsible (Ardern, Shaw and their fellow-travellers) for the fraud after warning them beforehand.  Despite four years of either active or passive complicity with this fraud by the NZ Serious Fraud Office, no-one has ever protested that I am defaming them.  The fraudsters and sophists alike have already corrupted our education system.  The fraud is coordinated by the most powerful international agency of all – the United Nations, via its offshoot the UN IPCC.  Yet it is still a fraud, and it is your fraud from this year onwards.  In New Zealand the productive sector is being systematically milked by sophists who are employed as Climate Change Commissioners, or acting for the many organisations that benefit from the fraud (Just like I do).

I come to you with clean hands and with the kind of proof that you can throw in the faces of the fraudsters if you are to save our country from their predations.

The problem for you is that New Zealand has signed up to international agreements to commit this fraud, despite the fact that anyone can now interrogate the New Zealand weather data and prove for themselves it is a fraud.  In law any contract shown to be based on fraud is nul and void.  So repudiate it and explain why that is necessary to our trading partners.  In New Zealand the truth is more obvious.

Some years ago, German economist, Dr Ottmar Edenhoffer who was then a Chairman of that year’s UN IPCC deliberations said at the Cancun COP session that governments must forget about climate policy being to change the climate, because its dominant role is income redistribution between rich and poor nations.  So this is a fraud that is being promoted by people who not only own and/or control the mainstream media but who pay for the scientific opinions they want, in the sure and certain knowledge that when discovered, they are too big to jail.  It is the megalomaniacs of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) who want open access to every world market and blanket exposure to a level of corporate income tax on net profits that does not vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  They don’t just go to COP junket after COP junket in their 400 private jets for no reason.  They are there to monitor progress from their lackeys to global governance, open access to all world markets and one common income tax rate.

Few if any environmental economists like Dr Edenhoffer have spared any thought for whether the science supports their perspective or not.  Arguably President Obama got his Nobel Peace Prize for supporting the fraud. (He certainly didn’t get it for doing anything to promote world peace.) The theory itself, only exists for them as if it were an immutable fact. The fact they are deluded is someone else’s problem (such as the high-country sheep farmer who goes broke and watches their hard-won land slip back into scrub). As a result, all OECD governments have been led into the world of Alice in Wonderland by charlatans, where the impossible is now mandatory.  It is based on a fake climate emergency about which – even if it was a climate emergency – humans can never do anything to influence the outcome.

For economists like Dr Edenhoffer, they do not question the self-serving presumption that human carbon emissions influence climate change, despite most numerate people able to see from the arithmetic alone, that is impossible.  The UN IPCC’s delusional presumption meets a ready market. For all UN bureaucrats any move towards an enhanced role for their office must always be good.  If some scientists agree, then their conscience is clear and their ends justifies the means of getting there.  Dr Edenhoffer and his team presume (on the basis their delusions are correct) the cost of one tonne of CO₂ emissions will cost USD140 today and in 2100 it will cost USD800.  Further, and even more ominously, they treat the atmosphere as “global commons” for which total military and regulatory coordination will be required. In other words, taking absolute control of us will be deemed essential in order to save the planet.

(Ask any farmer what will happen at a carbon cost of USD140/tonne?  How about a future at USD800/tonne?  Should they hang themselves in the barn now, or wait until their family is destitute?)

The supposedly altruistic reasoning makes an impossible theory regarding the climate seem a valid and indisputable justification for globalised control of the air we breathe.  If you doubt this nonsense, please view the elegant garbage contained in this video clip.  The entire UN IPCC dogma has become reliant on grotesque lies:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCq1Pvo4WE

At 18 minutes into this video, Dr Edenhoffer claims that control of the “commons” (that he believes is essential to avoid runaway global warming) is superior to all private property rights. 

(Now try telling that to farmers and property owners!   Do you politicians really know what you are getting us into by letting lunatics run the economy?)   Remember please that from mid 2018, our home-grown “lunatics” Ardern and Shaw were first warned beforehand and then every month since, that they were committing fraud.  Yet they are still lying to the NZ public.

 The world changed on 1 January 2024 when 5 countries joined the BRICS+.  They are now in a position to either reject or moderate the frauds run out of the UN.  (After 75 years it would be amazing if any such institution was corruption-free.  You may recall that the predecessor to the UN was found to be full of flaws in similar fashion, and therefore unable to prevent WW2)

No wonder OPEC+ is joining BRICS+.  From a political point of view, few countries which understand that natural causes that are responsible for climate change will buy the proposition that humans can alter Earth’s climate.  They are already ganging up to change things.  The Biden/Kerry delusional regime has lost the USA its global hegemony on this subject alone, in one fell stroke.  From January 2024 the USA will be held accountable by its seemingly equally, if not more-powerful peers.  But as human carbon emissions are known by the majority to have no effect on climate, there will be no concerted effort to reduce their atmospheric concentration (so it will grow further), even though the majority of those countries led by pragmatists will seek out substitutes for fossil fuels. As a prominent leader of our Nation it is important to not only understand the fraud coordinated by the UN IPCC and actively driven by the WEF and their client politicians (such as the US Democratic party in USA – Obama and Gore with their “peace prizes” and Clinton, Kerry and Biden – Biden as a sort of enforcer ), but also the changing geopolitics and international order has already moved from unipolarity to multipolarity.  This video below is tangential to the climate fraud but at less than 10 minutes long, I believe you will find it very informative and  essential viewing… The world has changed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W_ihJeZkhY

The rational approach from individual OECD scientists who concur that the official climate narrative is a scam, requires great courage. They all face a choice to stand with the UN IPCC- mandated lie and get paid for service to the fraud, or to object, and thereby to be out of work and to be marginalised and ostracised.  Meanwhile cowardly politicians step aside of join the feeding frenzy at the trough.  In the USA, only 31,487 eminent scientists held out:

www.petitionproject.org

The NIWA whistleblower who elicited my support in 2004.

I was introduced to the fraud in Q1, 2004 by a senior NIWA scientist who abandoned his entire career and told me that he was going to work for his brother-in-law’s catering firm – labouring until he found a new vocation.  He was a highly qualified and highly regarded atmospheric chemist.  This process of honest people being put out of work has continued since then. Every year I have watched more and more scientists opting out. Likely, many more do stay “in the closet”, unprepared to air their convictions and instead confining their research to narrow silo’s that stay away from the core lies. 

The dispossessed and downtrodden fight back on the basis of logic from any one of a number of scientific disciplines – physics, atmospheric chemistry, geology and so on.  But few have discussed or debated the evidence of Professor Duffy, and none have realised that I can prove Professor Duffy is right.  They all object because the proposition that an increase in tiny, provably impotent trace gases can overcome the global system which has endured for countless millennia, dominated by natural forces (a theory that is totally preposterous).  How could it be accepted with no evidence?  The answer is – as pointed out earlier – because it is promoted due to fraudulent intent by parties who are too powerful to name and people who are too wealthy to jail (some with wealth even greater than that of the New Zealand Government).

Those enjoying unquestioned use of the right to stop others using fossil energy has led to a break between Russia’s President Putin (formerly a Klaus Schwab acolyte) and the WEF globalists.  Putin publicly accuses them of plotting to end all democracies in favour of a global technocracy that is totally dominated by Western oligarchs.  This break with the WEF and President Putin’s 2024 chair of the BRICS+ group of nations now has profound consequences.  Meanwhile, unless he is either jailed or assassinated, it seems past POTUS Trump’s intention to end US membership of the 2015 Paris Climate Accords may again be implemented. Just as it was during his first Presidency.

For promotion of their climate fraud, the UN IPCC now has a head start – not that it will have any influence over the weather or climate.  To repeat for emphasis.  For 30 years they have claimed a fake scientific consensus regarding their self-serving theory about the science.  The minority of compliant pseudo-scientists now owe their jobs, incomes and promotions to their own active promotion of the fraud.  Because of rigid political, scientific and media enforcement of that fake consensus, no one needs to provide any evidence to support the factually impossible notion that human carbon emissions can either influence or cause climate change. No person feeding at the climate trough will ever mount an argument against me because there are no arguments founded upon empirical scientific evidence.  Debate is banned.  Four or maybe five Nobel Prizes have been awarded to people promoting the fraud.  The reason why there is no empirical scientific evidence to support the Labour-Greens fraud in New Zealand is because what is impossible doesn’t ever happen in nature.  Solar irradiation and its moderation by the terrestrial water cycle which is ruled by gravitational forces are far too powerful to be influenced by minute traces of relatively impotent greenhouse gases.

There exists one overarching problem which affects human civilisation.  That is the spectre of exponential human growth eventually facing total collapse, due to the depletion the huge but finite planetary endowment of key mineral resources.  The loss of access to critical finite and depleting resources, including but not limited to oil, gas and coal threatens our civilisation and while the BRICS+ and the OPEC+ countries reject the climate fraud, they obviously have a good understanding of the need to migrate away from present reliance on fossil fuels over time.  The idea of leaving 80% of oil gas and coal in the ground ( suggested by many) is something that humanity may have little control over.  Extraction and processing costs are escalating, and resource quality and/or energy output is declining, so at some point, 50% may (if one takes the 1956 work of Dr Marion King Hubbert on peaking resources)  become unprofitable to extract by comparison with other options of a more sustainable nature.  However, getting to the point of adequate diversification may take considerably longer than 2050.  It is clear that this matter is an issue that OPEC+ countries are focused on because they are seeking to manage their collective rates of supply in order to maintain prices and thereby offset vacillations in global demand and thereby provide supplies to enable the transition to be completed. 

The one thing that the transition to renewable energy options requires, is to have a stable cost and price target for securing the funding and capital costs, so that viable alternatives can be implemented. (Disclosure: This is the focus of my international portfolio of investments in renewable energy technologies, projects and resources.)

So the likes of Russia and China are chasing renewable alternatives while the OECD is chasing pipe dreams, while lying to and frightening our children.  This fraud is setting science back 50 years and taking us all along for the ride.

Meantime the core arithmetic used by UN IPCC and globalist fraudsters (including our own political leaders) is wrong.  There are only about 50 billion tonnes of annual human carbon emissions per year (only 137 million tonnes per day), so they cannot possibly have any effect on a climate system driven predominantly by sunlight and its evaporation of about 1.15 trillion tonnes of surface water per day.  Our emissions are only 0.0012% of either the daily rate of evaporation, cloud formation or precipitation.  It is the rate of change in daily evaporation, humidification, condensation and precipitation which determines our weather from time to time and from place to place.  That has influenced Earth’s climate for millennia as Earth’s orbit of the sun and its own activity has fluctuated.

Earth’s surface water endowment consists of about 1.338 billion cubic kilometres of salt water, wherein the oceans accumulate tiny daily increments of heat from all sources (or lose it to provide a thermal lag effect).  Earth’s water endowment does not deplete as its atmospheric cycle is a closed loop, all H₂O being held by gravity to Earth’s surface. The only other material influence – than sunlight – on sea temperatures and the rate of evaporation of water, is sub-sea volcanism.  80% of all volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are below the ocean surface and their generated heating impact flows around in ocean currents.  The attempt by pseudo-scientists and UN IPCC to ban atmospheric water vapour as the sole omnipresent and omnipotent greenhouse gas is easily disproven and shown up for the fakery that it truly is.  That is prima facie evidence of deliberate fraud.

Just consider human gullibility in the face of such an authoritatively mandated fraud.  If the UN IPCC was correct then none of us could be alive today because the mechanism for moderating heat gain and loss which has worked in the face of natural disasters for hundreds of millennia would have already proven too ineffectual to cope with the biggest asteroid strikes, volcanism or forest fires. 

The climate fraud is the simplest of all shell games and it relies on multiple layers of trickery to confuse the public.

 This fraud began as a shell game with only one pea under one of several shells.  That most plausible pea was the possible influence of cumulative human carbon dioxide emissions.  But that has been shown false for more than 100 years due to experimentation which found it subject to both the Beer-Lambert law of physics and the Henry law of solubility of gases.  The second much less plausible pea was introduced – cumulative human generated methane emissions.  But even if atmospheric methane doubled over more than 100 years, that would have an eventual (theoretical but not practical) temperature effect of only about +0.05^o Celsius, and it is child’s play for water vapour to moderate that.  So the third and absolutely impossible pea under its own separate walnut shells of sophistry was added in the form of fake carbon emissions called nitrous oxide.  The chemical name for nitrous oxide is N₂O, so it has no carbon atoms at all.  It was only added because it is a pollutant and that justified the fourth “liar’s pea” under other walnut shells which introduces a range of sophistry encouraging the deliberate lie that human carbon emissions are all nasty pollutants.

But after two weeks or so, methane oxidises to become water vapour and carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is the stuff of life and not a pollutant at all. 

One level of seemingly official trickery is hard for intelligent children to cope with.  Four levels has even confounded HRH King Charles III despite him understanding that his breath can feed pot plants (but not his sister, HRH the Princess Royal or their late father).

If you are still duped after reading this email, I submit you do not have the intelligence to sit in Parliament and deliberate laws on behalf of us all.  As a tip, think of this fraud in terms of simple arithmetic.  I will explain…

In New Zealand, for about 30% or more of the time, we can look up and see blue sky. The blackness of space which appears bright blue to us, is the result of sunlight being diffused amongst the molecules of atmospheric water vapour.  Alternatively, regard either the white, the grey, or the black of the different thicknesses and shades of clouds above us.  The diffusion of the sun’s incoming electromagnetic irradiation by Earth’s water cycle is so powerful that in minutes or hours any influence of human pollution, or benevolent discharges by any means, is reflected by minor changes to the approximately 13 trillion tonnes of H₂O suspended above our heads which constitutes an ocean in the sky.  It may not seem like it, but the majority of that 13 trillion tonnes is the atmospheric water vapour that is invisible to the human eye, most squashed in by gravity. It is below the cruising altitude of Air NZ jets.

Not only does water vapour change density from place to place in minutes, but even young children can understand the influence of rapid changes in cloud cover and what happens when it rains.  It is summer.  On a sunny day by about 11am, the beach sand is too hot to walk on with bare feet. Once the sky clouds over the heat quickly dissipates, so the sand is then warm to the touch.  When it rains the sand becomes cold to the touch.  If it has rained heavily during the previous night, look for the sand at daybreak to be colder than even the seawater.   

Now consider the effect of solar irradiation.

For 150 million kms since solar radiation is first emitted by the sun, the sunlight loses nothing before delivering about 1,365watts per square meter of electromagnetic radiation to Earth’s outer atmosphere.  Yet the sun’s radiant energy is almost halved by the time it hits and heats Earth’s surface. The three gases that humans emit a portion of, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide vary from place to place by only between 418ppm to 450ppm between them and these are relatively impotent compared with water vapour because they only influence one or two band widths of radiation to a tiny degree; therefore, they have an unmeasurably small weather effect from day to day.  The influence of water on both Earth’s surface and in its atmosphere varies by a great deal within each day and at each location solely due to heat. So it is officially measured and reported on each hour.  This is both the heat required to cause evaporation and once evaporated the temperature of the air determines how much water vapour the air can hold. If the air is frigid the amount of atmospheric water vapour may be as low as 2,000ppm.  In New Zealand’s mid-latitudes, it is between 7,000ppm to 13,000ppm, but in the tropics its density even reaches as high as 40,000ppm.  Because it varies so quickly from place to place and from time to time, the worst fears of the UN IPCC come into play.  Their fraud is so easily disproven. This is because we can measure the impact of a change in actual humidity (expressed as grams of water per kilogram of air) in New Zealand.  By measuring its temperature effect each day and by measuring how much heat is lost at night by comparison to the level of water vapour, we can measure its true effect as a greenhouse gas.

How did we get conned that tiny changes in traces of the three relatively impotent, atmospheric greenhouse gases (for which only 5-6% of total annual emissions can even be attributed to human activity) could change the climate over the last 30 plus years, and thereby somehow change the weather.   The science is simple, but the fraudsters lie about the science and pervert the scientific method. So we need to go back to first principles and carefully observe from published temperature data, what happens every day.

Weather only happens on a daily 24-hour cycle as the Earth rotates to alternatively face towards and away from the sun.   All atmospheric gases are invisible but on days when the sky is blue, the difference in the level of water vapour is often the only thing that determines the difference in the rate at which Earth’s surface heats (remember the sand on the beach).  This determines the maximum daytime temperatures and the water vapour, cloud and precipitation influence the rate of overnight heat loss.  This can be measured for pairs of New Zealand towns that are less than 300kms apart and which lie on the same latitude and are at the same altitude.

Fortuitously, New Zealand is to Climate Science what the Galapagos Islands are to the science of evolutionary biology.

As a result, this phenomenon visible in the published weather data each day for pairs such as New Plymouth and Napier, Whanganui and Hastings, Westport and Blenheim, Hokitika and Christchurch? 

Visibility is because New Zealand is a country located in the Westerly wind belt of the South Pacific Ocean.  The country consists of a narrow chain of islands arranged over 1,000kms, located from 35^o South to 47^o South with a spine of high hills and mountains dividing the towns paired (as listed above) by common latitude and altitude.  As 90% or more of Earth’s evaporation occurs over the oceans, its incrementally denser clouds of invisible water vapour is typically driven ashore in the form of humid air, cloud and rain from the Tasman sea to the West coast towns.  Driven up-slope, the air loses most of its moisture by the mountain tops and is thereafter drier.  When the wind direction changes to come from an Easterly quarter, the air within and above Eastern towns is more humid than that of the Western towns in the pair.  It is not the Foehn effect which causes this.  The Foehn wind is nothing other than dry air which was chilled during ascent and stripped of its moisture by, or at the top of the hills or mountains it has passed over.  In New Zealand generally water vapour (which varies in density at various heights) is 24 times the atmospheric density of the human influenced greenhouse gases and each molecule has five times the radiative potency of the three human-influenced greenhouse gases (combined) for incoming sunlight and ten times the potency for restricting outgoing infrared radiation into space.  Because water vapour also has 28 non-radiative weather effects that the human-influenced greenhouse gases do not have, it should therefore (at least in theory) have thousands of times the effect of the human-influenced greenhouse gases on daily insolation and overnight heat loss.

To repeat again…New Zealand is to climate science what the Galapagos Islands are to the science of evolutionary biology.  This is because of our geography and the juxtaposition of coastal settlements which are on opposite coasts (East and West) and are separated by high hills or mountains. On a fine day in Hokitika (on the West Coast), its typically higher residual actual humidity will ensure not only that Hokitika has a lower maximum temperature than Christchurch (on the East Coast) on a similarly fine day, but also that the overnight heat loss will be far less.  Recently and probably due to my writing that Auckland with higher atmospheric water vapour often has a lower maximum daytime temperature than Christchurch, this Q&A was published on the MetService on-line and hourly updated web site for Christchurch:

“Is Christchurch warmer than Auckland?

Due to these winds (i.e. Foehn winds), the cooler South Island cities such as Dunedin, Christchurch and Invercargill have higher all-time record temperatures than places further north such as Wellington, Auckland and Whangarei.”

Assuming the average height of the Southern Alps is say 1,000 metres, the air would have been chilled to 6.5^o Celsius less than it would have been in say, Hokitika, where it came ashore.  As the air reaches the tops of the mountains/hills, is chilled by the higher altitude and falls down-slope, it becomes warmer by that same 6.5^o Celsius (termed its “lapse rate”), and heated more by the hotter ground after it receives more heat from the sun, due to the reduced level of water vapour as the sole dominant greenhouse gas. When fine, the extra heat for Christchurch’s 30^o C summer day by comparison with Hokitika’s 25^o C summer day, is due to the drier air which allows faster solar heating of the land surface.  The fact that the air flow rate may be accelerating is a tribute only to the increased air pressure as the dried air descends.   Naming a dry wind “Foehn” just means it is dry because it has been stripped of its moisture by the preceding high hills and mountains.  The use of the Foehn wind in the UN IPCC-coordinated shell game normally only occurs when the climate fraud must be defended by minimising the influence of water vapour which is so easily proven to be the sole omnipresent (everywhere) and omnipotent (all powerful) greenhouse gas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4KG0-2ckac&t=1s

When an Easterly wind comes ashore at Christchurch on a day which is cloudless at both locations, then Hokitika may warm up faster and therefore have a warmer daytime maximum temperature.  People can test this by observation for themselves, once the published percentage of Relative Humidity is converted to Actual Humidity (in grams of water per kilogram of air) by use of an online calculator, such as provided by Lenntech (https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm ).

The other diurnal effect is that with less water vapour in its atmosphere, Christchurch will usually have much more rapid overnight heat loss.  So while Hokitika may lose say 5^o Celsius overnight on a clear summer night, Christchurch may lose 10^o Celsius.  You can observe for yourself that Foehn winds are not always blowing on the fine days when the temperature of Christchurch or Napier exceeds that of Hokitika or New Plymouth – or for that matter, Auckland . 

If you take the time to look at the different NZ MetService weather files containing the average monthly temperatures for the towns in each pair over the last 30 years, it is atmospheric moisture that helps to determine the average weather, and thereby the climate of each location in the pair.  You will find these truths reflected in all of the monthly weather statistics for each town.  By month, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average temperature for the month, sunshine hours, number of rainy days and sunny days, precipitation in millimetres and so on are all influenced.  This demonstrates that although there are always anomalous extreme weather events due to the massive countervailing natural forces, it is the averages of daily weather that rule climate statistics.  Further, it is the latitude, altitude and usual level of actual humidity which determines both the weather and climate from place to place.

If you ever wondered why East Coast towns usually have higher maximum daytime temperatures and yet more frosts?  You have your answer above.

You see, the thing about the “greenhouse” effect is that it reduces the level of daytime heat from the sun and it also reduces overnight heat loss.  If it did not do that, few modern terrestrial life forms would survive until dawn.  Those that did may then burn or boil during the heat of the next day.

But we must always remember that more heat from any source will lead to a higher rate of evaporation of surface water, and at altitude, a higher density of water vapour than the air can hold will lead to a higher rate of cloud formation and eventually after a week or so, lead to a higher rate of precipitation.   The total effect of Earth’s atmospheric water cycle serves to moderate additional heat from all sources by causing a greater or lesser degree of cooling from all sources – dependent solely on the differential heat from the sun and having nothing whatsoever to do with human carbon emissions. In minutes and hours, a minor temperature change will elicit a much larger greenhouse effect from water vapour than the influence of human carbon emissions over even a hundred years.  But the effect of water vapour is further modified by cloud cover and the effect of precipitation.

The elegance of the terrestrial climate system is so ingenious, it is almost god-like, as it provides the necessary climate for life everywhere on Earth from the Equator to the poles.  Checking comparatives for three full years during which Ardern and Shaw ignored or denied the truth, makes me to marvel at the way solar and volcanic heat is so expertly nuanced and manages to provide a terrestrial climate averaging about +15.5^o Celsius while the temperature of near space is -273^o Celsius (just think, that is minus 273^o C.).

The major anomalous weather emergencies are a result of the huge countervailing forces at play which determine Earth’s climate and even the worst pollution by humanity is washed from the skies by the roughly 1.15 trillion tonnes of water that falls each day as rain, hail, sleet or snow.  We cannot change that so we must mitigate its effects by prudent planning and prompt emergency reactions.

There is no climate emergency, just climate fraud and this fraud is still happening on your watch.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Retired but Experienced Fraud Investigator

1. Just think, the BRICS+ and OPEC+ countries know how stupid we are because they understand what is contained in the reports of the Russian Academy of Sciences as summarised in the slide show which is attached above as “140708”.  They know and more greatly fear the dire effects of the cooling that always comes after the warming.  To them the Paris Climate Accords are just part of the fraud, so you have no hope of getting any return for the damage you are causing to our farmers and economy.  Please just think it through.  JR.

=========================================

The false ‘climate emergency’

 Editor’s note: the full PDF article can be viewed on the link below.

221107 – Engineers, physicists and statisticians have exposed the truth that ignorance and incompetence led to the false declaration that there is a “climate emergency” – Google Docs 

By Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, Hon. CEO & Chair, Environomics (NZ) Trust (PJM.forensic.eng@gmail.com)

In the mid-1980s, groups of climate scientists began developing computer climate models of the atmosphere. These models are now known to not properly model key climate parameters. One fundamental error in those models and all subsequent models, except those developed in Russia, relates to a field of physics and engineering known as control systems engineering, which was applied in order to model feedback effects. Unfortunately, no climate scientists ever asked any expert control systems engineers or physicists – who understood and knew how to properly apply control systems engineering – to check these models, and it was only in the last few years that an independent group known as ‘the Argonauts’, which includes world class expert control systems engineers, physicists and a mathematician, discovered this feedback error and wrote a 72-page paper explaining the error and correcting it.

=====================================

You New Zealand Farmers have been conned – along with many people within the OECD

jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>	20 October 2022 at 09:02
To: (Key NZ government leaders and media)
If you are a farmer, this may be the most important weather and climate email you will ever get.  I accuse PM Ardern and Minister Shaw of deliberate fraud.  Their fraud directly affects you. In July 2018 I explained to the Government why it is impossible for any change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane or nitrous oxide to influence the Earth’s weather or climate.  James Shaw replied with a standard UN IPCC disinformation package that was a series of falsehoods.  Shaw’s letter was almost identical to the same letter sent out by Minister David Parker in 2009.  Between the Clark years and the present time the country has wasted tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a fraud that has without any scientific justification.  In April 2019 I complained to the NZ Serious Fraud Office because the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is nothing more nor less than the biggest deliberate fraud in human history.  The corrupt UN IPCC is running the fraud to lend it some authenticity, yet a fraud is still a fraud.  This means that Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw are now driving a simple fraud and no one have never been able to justify their actions.  The claim they follow the science is a deliberate lie, told because of the improbability that anyone could ever be able to disprove it.  Serendipitously we can now do that.  If you want to see why, please read on. Science relies on empirical scientific evidence and there has never been any of that to support either the UN IPCC, or the Ardern-Shaw frauds. There are three limbs to the fraud – each itself based on a tissue of lies. The lie that human emissions cause climate change. (which they do not) The lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. (you know it as the stuff of life without which photosynthesis won’t work and grass won’t grow.  Adult humans each produce about 350kgs of the stuff through respiration – so carbon neutrality is not an option.) The lie that by reducing our carbon emissions by whatever means, we can reduce the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and that if we do it will influence global temperatures. (There is no effective global consensus to reduce emissions and they keep rising.  Even so the resultant higher level of atmospheric carbon has no effect.  Reducing it cannot possible do so either.) The truth about cause of changes to weather and climate is that during the present interglacial period it is the cyclicity of solar activity that causes the climate to change, so whatever changed heating occurs from place to place and from time to time, it is immediately moderated by the influence in the sole omnipotent greenhouse gas called water vapour.  The greater the heat (whether from the sun, from volcanism or from humanity) the more evaporation occurs.  The greater the density of atmospheric water vapour, the greater the cloud formation, the greater the clouds, the more the Earth is shaded from sunlight.  Also the greater the cloud build-up the greater the precipitation and in total, the greater the cooling effect in response to heating.  To make the fraud plausible, organisations like Google have made the influence of water vapour practically disappear.  See the item attached above. Fortunately, while water vapour is invisible to the human eye, we know there is between 1.1 and 1.2 trillion tonnes of it that is evaporated every day and this is matched by a similar amount of precipitation.  13 trillion tons of H2O is held in the atmosphere.  Between the water vapour, cloud and precipitation in progress it is a veritable “ocean of water” in the sky that gives Earth almost its entire “greenhouse effect” save for one bandwidth of radiant energy affected by carbon dioxide.  Within that bandwidth the role of atmospheric carbon dioxide is almost saturated – even at the lower pre-industrial level.  More carbon dioxide has almost no effect, while the first 150ppm certainly had a major beneficial effect for our climate. There are only three Earth-based factors which affect the weather and the climate from place to place: The latitude of a place. The altitude of a place. The usual level of Actual Humidity (expressed as grams of water per kilogram of air) at a place. New Zealand is unique because it is the only country where the third absolute cause of weather and can be observed on any day of the year.  I can make this assertion because I can prove it, and in that proof lies the downfall of the entire global fraud. In two New Zealand towns on different coasts, on roughly the same latitude and at the same altitude, whenever the level of actual humidity is the higher in one, the maximum daily temperature is usually lower and the diurnal temperature range will normally be less than it will be in the other town.  This is a product of the interaction between sun and Earth’s water cycle as I shall explain. The power of water vapour as the sole omnipresent and omnipotent greenhouse gas is so great during summer months, that on a fine day in both Auckland and Christchurch, the seven degrees of latitude difference between them may make little difference, because Christchurch can so often achieve a maximum daily temperature of 30o to 34oC while the maximum temperature of Auckland seldom hits 29oC, and yet will often be cooler at night, even on those hot days, with a higher diurnal temperature range.  The reason for this is solely due to the higher humidity in Auckland.  If the two towns were on the same latitude the difference between the two would be much larger! Prove this for yourself.  It is as simple as observing the weather on the internet at 2pm at two different New Zealand towns on the same latitude and altitude….say New Plymouth and Napier in the North Island and say, at Hokitika and Christchurch in the South Island. The observed official temperature on the Internet gives you a comparable “maximum daily temperature”, reading to go with the percentage of relative humidity.  Then repeat the observations at 6am the next morning.  That provides a comparative minimum temperature (the difference between the two gives you the overnight heat loss for each location and therefore the diurnal temperature range).  You need to also record the figure for relative humidity.  To find the level of actual humidity for your comparison, you will need to use an on-line calculator like this: https://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm  Just enter the temperature and relative humidity at 2pm and it will give you the figure for the actual amount of water there is in the air – measured in grams of water per kilogram of air.  That is the density of water vapour (by mass) that restricts the ingress of sunlight during the day. Do the same for the 6am calculation and you will get the density of the water vapour that has restricted the rate of outgoing night-time heat loss (this loss is in the form of infrared radiation). This is how you prove (in the absolute) the effect of the water cycle too.  Some days the wind changes direction.  When that happens, the town on the East coast has higher humidity than the one on the West coast so their weather comparison is reversed.  As New Zealand is positioned within what is known as the Westerly wind belt, the climate (the average over about 30 years or so of weather conditions) reflects the usual impact of atmospheric water vapour density. We readily accept that dry desserts are habitually hot during the day and cold at night but never question why that is.  Perhaps it is because we are being continually lied to by so-called experts to make us believe that somehow we humans have the power of King Canute. Consider the radiative efficacy of water vapour (which we cannot influence) by comparison with that of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (which we have only a little influence over).   Water vapour has five times the radiative efficacy of the three others combined for restricting incoming sunlight, and 10 times the radiative efficacy of the three others combined for limiting outgoing infrared radiation of heat.  But water vapour is on average 20 times the atmospheric density of the other gases.  There is so much more of it.  But its differential greenhouse efficacy doesn’t stop there.  Water vapour has a further 28 non-radiative features so it has a huge convective and radiative capability that the UN IPCC pseudo scientists deliberately ignore.  Each molecule of water vapour gas is on average 40% lighter than the average of the other air molecules, so as well as being heated by evaporation, it quickly transports heat to higher altitude (progressively losing it on the way) and when converted to precipitation, via condensation and the nucleation of cloud droplets into rain drops, gravity then transports the chilled rain, sleet, hail or snow back to Earth’s surface very rapidly.  The convective role of water vapour and its alter ego precipitation, turns the entire Anthropogenic Global Warming theory into just so much gibberish that not even dozens of the world’s most powerful super computers can work it out.  As gas, a solid or a liquid, water retains its versatility while still just plain, reliable H2O. Earth’s theoretical “greenhouse” has no roof and it is just a way of trying to explain the insulating effect of the layer of various gases which comprise a tiny proportion of Earth’s lower atmosphere. Can you see the ocean in the sky that I refer to?  Yes, it is visible from the International Space Station as a pencil thin band of bright blue, that seems glued (by gravity) to the Earth’s visible horizon. Diffraction of light through the mixture of cloud, mist, rain in progress and that water vapour which on land is invisible to the naked eye… From… https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/in-space-how-far-away-can-you-see-earth/#:~:text=From%20the%20window%20of%20the,the%20lights%20of%20Earth’s%20cities. I will leave it to the proper authorities to prosecute those responsible for the losses made to the business, farming and energy sectors as a direct result of the Ardern government’s misguided activities.  What I will do is to draw into the net all of the pseudo-scientists like – for example – Professor James Renwick and the other academics and climate change commissioners who have been richly rewarded for providing the sophistry to support this fraud.  Every day, all taxpayer funded “climate scientists” such as those in academia, NIWA, the Met Office and Ministry for the Environment should see what I can see from the daily weather maps.  All are, to a greater or lesser extent of complicity involved as either fraudsters or sophists or both.  For the NZ Serious Fraud Office, which must also be to some degree complicit, I suggest they use their draconian powers and “follow the money and the trail of Nobel prizes” to source of the fraud if they wish to perform the job they were sworn to do. Not everyone has been fooled.  Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa and China (the BRICS) know the score.  The BRICS and the world’s emerging economies (between them 75% of the world population) understand the position.    They will never join the rush to start reducing carbon emissions.  It is the old story, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.  Even after 34 years of fraud at the highest level, the truth will always out.  Most geologists and physicists know I am right  but the stars of the scientific world are surely the solar scientists.  No-one disputes that the sun provides 99.9% of Earth’s energy budget.  But the UN IPCC mob try to persuade us its variability is too small to matter.  The leaders in solar science are without doubt the Russians.  They are telling us the real prognosis for climate change in the 21st century is for cooling (not warming) according to the trends in solar activity.  They point to the nexus between the levels of solar activity throughout history and the climate. I agree with the Russians.  Attached as “140708” above is their prognosis.  The difference between them and us is they cannot afford to get their forecasts wrong.  See also… https://electroverse.co/russian-scientists-forecast-cooling-thicker-ice-over-the-coming-years-putin-wants-cold-winter-100s-of-low-temp-records-fall-u-s/ If you look at the picture of Earth from over the Great Lakes of North America, you will see the cloud shade much of the Earth’s surface – it is usually somewhere between 60% to 70%.  Clouds are always moving.  So is water vapour.  It moves rapidly from place to place, and as commented by Auckland University’s Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Dr Geoffrey G. Duffy FRSNZ in his concise empirical scientific evidence attached above as papers “ATT00102” and “Why it is not possible for…”, it allows us to measure changed weather effects.  He summarises the efficacy differential between what humans can and cannot control or influence and the power of natural forces in play thus… “Simply stating again for emphasis, variances in the Greenhouse Gas water vapour occur in seconds or minutes far exceed the total increase in the low concentration Greenhouse Gas carbon dioxide over any period. The unique and powerful phase-change capability of water together with the radiation superiority of water vapour, make water vapour self-buffering, self-regulating, self-correcting, and self-compensating even when the atmospheric changes are minute.” It takes years for the level of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to vary by much at all and they all change by very little from place to place.  But when they do, the rate of evaporation is argued to change (although logical, it is so inconsequential, there seems no real evidence of that). When air temperatures increase, the ability of the air to hold water vapour increases and the ability of the combined effect of all factors within the water cycle to moderate any effect also increases too.  Water vapour varies between 0.2% of Earth’s atmosphere at the poles and in desserts right up to 4.0% in the tropics and it varies rapidly from place to place.  That variability gives us the ability to measure its impact on daily weather.  What marks the difference between a black rock in space and planet Earth is that Earth possesses the miracle of water, oxygen and carbon dioxide, upon which all flora depends. A huge black space rock sizzles in the direct light of the sun during the day, whereas only about 56% of the sun’s heats warms Earth’s surface during the same time and much of the rest is trapped in the atmosphere or reflected away.  At night, the black rock’s surface freezes.  But for us, the oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and as these provide a huge heat sink for much of that 56% of Total Solar Insolation, instead of them heating by much, some surface water does evaporate off instead.  At night the atmosphere holds in much of the heat being lost from Earth’s surface.  Land released heat quickly by the oceans do not.   So for the black rock (with un-survivable heat during the day and un-survivable cold during the night), its average temperature would be about minus 18o Celsius on average, whereas the average temperature of Earth is about plus 15o Celsius, or has been during the Holocene Interglacial Period.  For what happens in an ice age, check the regular temperature losses for each successive glaciation slide 4. of “140708”.  That glaciation is what the Russians fear most. The preoccupation today for the likes of President Putin is a projected cooling, similar to that of the “little ice age” from 1280AD to 1850AD.  His policies reflect that fear.  In 1990 we were told that if we didn’t stop the increase in carbon dioxide emissions our planet would already be burning up the year 2000.  It is now 32 years later.  If you look at the Russians’ slide 4. you would need to bring the red carbon dioxide graph line up to date to show today’s atmospheric level.  Today the level of carbon dioxide is about 420ppm or the equivalent of one graph spacing above the top limit of the graph.  If Jacinda, James and their sophists were correct in their panicked assertion that our emissions have a dominant weather and climate effect, we should be cooking in the streets.  Yet we are not doing so and the monthly satellite temperatures from NASA show that the average global temperature has begun to fall, so surely the levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide don’t matter?  While your  livelihoods are being destroyed to suit some theorists’ opinions of what some normal atmospheric methane levels should be, that gas has even less effect on the climate than carbon dioxide.  That is until they changed their theory yet again and with subjective parameters to suit the outcome they wanted by hyping theories about methane.  In the Netherlands they screw their farmers by bringing in nitrous oxide calculations.  That isn’t science.  That is political expediency.  Or lunacy, as none of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theories have any basis in reality despite the trillions of dollars spent globally to give them a veneer of credibility.  Sophistry is costly when trying to prove the impossible! Computer models don’t provide empirical scientific evidence of anything at all.  They just use selected parameters (always subjectively selected) to create a mathematical outcome to suit their purpose. The government just wants to tax carbon for otherwise undisclosed reasons.  That is why the globalist billionaires behind the UN IPCC who funded his election campaigns got a US President (Barack Obama) to lie that “the science is settled”.  That is why they got an uneducated 17 year-old Swedish school dropout (Greta Thunberg) to rant at us for not destroying human civilisation in order to rescue her planet from a fake future disaster. That connivance is for purely political reasons that are associated with a global power grab and taxation.  Whatever argument they use is easily refuted, as they would find out if they tried suing me for defamation.  So far Ardern and Shaw have had three years to bring charges or even send me a threatening letter – yet not a whisper.  Humanity may be able to have a thermo-nuclear war, but even that may not be able to change the eventual climate.  Sun, water and gravity will still remain and all pollution would eventually be washed from the air due to the relentless diurnal heating and cooling of Earth’s endowment of water.   Arguably Amun Ra, the god of the sun and atmosphere still rules our lives, just as he did for the ancient Egyptians. I have shown you the power of water vapour within the water cycle and how it bridges the gap between the weather and climate of an un-survivable rock compared with the marvellous, complex and seemingly divine ecology of planet Earth. The endowment of Earth’s oceans is about 321 million cubic miles of water.  That is both a heat sink for solar heat and an almost unending source of evaporation to create water vapour and clouds.  At high altitude water vapour condenses to form cloud droplets. At even higher altitude the droplets and rain freeze and so gravity always returns the cooled water to the planet’s surface.  (Physics dictates the temperature of the air falls by about 6.5o C. per  kilometre of altitude)  As water vapour provides the link between ocean and sky, it is the sole relevant greenhouse gas.  The atmospheric water cycle is a closed loop between land and the upper limit of Earth’s Troposphere.  It will outlive all human attempts to pollute it with either heat or the release of exotic waste products. In a similar closed loop, you are being ripped off by the work of scientists that Jacinda and James fund for the purpose.  This is a circular fraud that defies reason.  Its nearest corollary was the repeated famines caused by Joe Stalin’s protégé called Trofim Lysenko during the years from the 1930’s to 1950’s. (Google the term “Lysenkoism”) If I was a farmer, I would join your march and demand an end to the officially sanctioned fraud.  Sadly no-one in Parliament has the balls to say “STOP!”.  They pay for sophistry with taxpayer money in order to support their fraud.  The proper authorities who rely on the politicians for favours dare not question the fraud.  That too is yet another closed loop which must be broken. Yours sincerely John Rofe Retired… but… Also an Experienced Fraud Investigator, and, International Investor in Renewable Energy Technologies and Resources.   PS. My Definitions: Fraud …”wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.” Sophistry…”the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”. JR/ 20 October 2022   4 attachments     Why and How Google made water vapour invisible.docx 31K View as HTML Scan and download       140708 – The 24 PowerPoint slides from the presentation by Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 9th ICCC on 8 July 2014 (007).pdf 1427K View as HTML Scan and download       ATT00102.pdf 1022K View as HTML Scan and download       WHY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES CARBON DIOXIDE 7.pdf 135K View as HTML Scan and download

=================================

What will the public think of the NZ PM’s deliberate climate fraud?

From: jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2022 8:36 pm
To: ‘contactus@justice.govt.nz’ <contactus@justice.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@police.govt.nz’ <enquiries@police.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@sfo.govt.nz’ <enquiries@sfo.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@justice.govt.nz’ <enquiries@justice.govt.nz>
Cc: ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘news@tvns.co.nz’; ‘Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern’ <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Hon James Shaw’ <James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘David Seymour’ <David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Terry Dunleavy’ <terry@winezeal.co.nz>; ‘Peter J. Morgan’ <pjm.forensic.eng@gmail.co>; ‘petersenior42@gmail.com’; ‘geoffduffy@lycos.com’ <geoffduffy@lycos.com>; ‘jock.allison85@gmail.com’ <jock.allison85@gmail.com>; ‘leighton smith’ <leightonzb@gmail.com>; ‘Juana Atkins’ <sb@thebfd.co.nz>; ‘dmin@lawyersforclimateaction.nz’ <dmin@lawyersforclimateaction.nz>; ‘Vic Power’ <vicpower@iinet.net.au>; ‘Christopher.Luxon@parliament.govt.nz’ <Christopher.Luxon@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: I wonder what the public will think of the PM’s deliberate climate fraud?
Importance: High

Dear Secretary, Commissioner and Director,

 In your roles as heads of “the proper authorities” it is both essential and urgent for you to get your heads together to figure out how to deal with my allegations. 

 Anthropogenic Global Warming is the largest commercial and political fraud in New Zealand’s entire history.  The proof is contained in this email and attachments.  Stopping the fraud and punishing those responsible is your job and if you are to investigate those culpable you will need to put teams onto the politicians, the civil servants who have driven the fraud since Kyoto and the scientists and universities for the corruption of science and the scientific method.

 I hate to be blunt but you folk have thus far failed to protect the public.  Since 2018 these allegations have been your biggest challenge, yet you have continued to procrastinate and deny any responsibility to deal with my claims.  If a Royal Enquiry is considered necessary then you must ensure it is mandated, or bear the burden yourselves.

 So I am going to keep on publishing the truth until I get a public hearing of my allegations.  But I won’t trouble you further if you decide that you don’t want to do your respective jobs.  Then I will take this direct to the public.

 It is easy to prove that it is impossible for human carbon emissions to be any influence on climate change.  Therefore the Zero Carbon Act, The Declaration of a Climate Emergency and the establishment of the  carbon trading scheme and the Climate Change Commission are all ultra vires and instruments of deliberate Government Fraud.  All carbon credit and carbon trading schemes (set up to rape and pillage the economy for no good purpose) are fraudulent in nature (and likely in intent).    

 Every one of these obviously fraudulent pieces of legislation was enacted after I advised Government in 2018 of the facts and Minister Shaw responded with his elegant “mens rea” defence in late 2018.  Thereafter the fraud began.  Dr Jock Allison’s authoritative submission was brushed aside, so the faked public hearing (run by many of those implicated in what I now allege is deliberate fraud) could listen to sycophantic irrelevances supporting a Labour Greens climate dogma and ignore essential facts that should have protected the public from rash, ruinous and ultra vires legislation.

 Letting loose the speculators on carbon trading was the biggest mistake made by those promoting the fraud in New Zealand, because it crystalises the effect of the climate fraud in a way which allows the public to see that something is grotesquely wrong with Government policy.  (Thank you “interest.co.nz”)

 https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/114099/nzu-investors-are-now-driving-price-carbon-they-play-market

 After all, when speculators drive the carbon price over $100/tonne then we will see productive and essential food producing farms progressively replaced by forests and the rural communities will die.

 When the fraud first began in 1988 it was driven by idealogues and  begun by a globalist billionaires’ stooge named Mr Maurice Strong who established the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) for their elite globalist organisation’s own purposes.  When that occurred it seemed like a good idea to attack human carbon emissions’ tiny influence over earth’s Greenhouse Effect (whereby the solar heat is reduced during the day and the heat loss at night is minimised to avoid boiling and freezing temperatures on Earth which are otherwise either too hot or too cold for human habitation).  All the greenhouse gases are invisible to the human eye, so they could make any claims they wanted and the public would be none the wiser.  Our understanding of the science since then has grown and yet the sophists promoting what is just blatant fraud have continued to spin falsehoods in order to defend the positions they have taken since its outset.  Because they exercise almost total control over the media voice, no truth may now be spoken.  If the truth slips through, it is denied by agents of the fraud who misrepresent themselves as “fact-checkers” in order to conceal their ulterior motives.

 Planet Earth has three essential and unique assets which no other known planet contains.  They are water (which covers 71% of the surface as liquid, the snow and ice of the poles and mountains, the evaporated part within the Troposphere which is the invisible water vapour gas, together with minute water molecules that comprise the clouds and the precipitation in progress within the atmosphere), there is the carbon dioxide gas (which mobilises carbon for consumption.  Every complex life form on Earth is carbon based and it is carbon dioxide which enables all Earth’s flora to exist) and the oxygen emitted by flora to enable all fauna to both live and breathe.  Between consumers of oxygen (the fauna) and consumers of carbon dioxide (the flora) there is a symbiotic relationship that cannot be tampered with, without threatening all life on Earth.

 Every 24 hours the Earth revolves on its own axis within its orbit of the sun and the incoming solar radiation excites the water cycle in the same way it has for billions of years.  The stronger the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, the more water evaporates and the more of the sole omnipotent greenhouse gas called water vapour (water vapour makes up 96% of all greenhouse gases) is released into the atmosphere.  This in turn feeds the cloud cover when it condenses and thence forms the rain, hail, and snow – precipitation which returns to Earth due to gravity.  In New Zealand this process is more obvious than anywhere else.  Because our islands are arranged in a narrow chain over 1,000 kilometres at right angles to the prevailing Westerly wind belt.  So more than 80% of our weather comes from the West and this ensures high actual humidity, cloud cover and rainfall on the West Coast and low actual humidity, cloud cover and rainfall in the East coast.  When the weather comes from the East the relativity of the East and West actual humidity, cloud cover and rainfall is reversed.  Because pressure fronts generally tend to move North-Easterly over New Zealand from the South, the absolute value of our unique climate is not immediately apparent.  But it is the ideal laboratory for anyone to totally discredit Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

 My accidental discovery of this laboratory and its absolute proof was researched in order to seek a corroborative test of the empirical scientific evidence I had been provided by New Zealand’s Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering Geoffrey G. Duffy FRSNZ.  You have already received multiple copies of his papers so I will limit my mention to the statement he made which seemed so conclusive that it demanded verification…

 “Simply stating again for emphasis, variances in the GHG water vapour occur in seconds or minutes far exceed the total increase in the low concentration GHG carbon dioxide over any period. The unique and powerful phase-change capability of water together with the radiation superiority of water vapour, make water vapour self-buffering, self-regulating, self-correcting, and self-compensating even when the atmospheric changes are minute.”

 Truth will always out.  Over the last three years there have been other tests to determine whether Anthropogenic Global Warming has any shred of credibility.  There are many easily observable self-evident truths that on their own suggest the fraud is impossible.  Calculations by an interdisciplinary, multinational team calling themselves “the Argonauts” recently proved conclusively that there was an error in all of the UN IPCC’s models that tripled the effect of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (“CO₂”).  It transpired the Russians had been aware for several years of this error and it explained why the Russian model was the only one which was correct.  This was supported in New Zealand by a Group called the Environomics (NZ) Trust (“the Trust”).  The Trust also agreed the calculations of another organisation which confirmed the Argonauts’ finding.  Naturally the open letter to the Government by the Trust was ignored, because why would folk wedded to fraud want to admit they are wrong?  There is a well-trodden path from all New Zealand sophists, whereby, when shown they are wrong, desert the battlefield and decline to take phone calls or respond to written communication.  They are on the public payroll and as they are part of the fraud, they must be indicted alongside the PM and her Minister.

 However, my concern with those calculations was that while they prove the error they are slightly different to the evidence from Professor Duffy, which I accept as conclusive.  But further evidence came to light.

 The radiative effect of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere has been analysed with the startling fact that a doubling of carbon dioxide (“CO₂”) from today’s level (i.e. from 420ppm to 840ppm) would have almost no effect on climate, was made and confirmed by atomic absorption spectroscopy (…still being covered up by the UN IPCC of course…).  In this video below, Professor William Happer of Princeton describes the facts…as now known, of the radiative properties of the relevant greenhouse gases…(a 56 minute video for which the unpleasant truth for the parties to the AGW fraud is revealed from about the 28 minute mark. Though you may find the rest informative if you have not been following the Government’s sinister plot to ruin the country, to date)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMpjh_7-bw

 For the global warming fraud, physics, doesn’t work, atmospheric chemistry doesn’t work, the sophists and fraudsters alike have to ignore many easily observed self-evident truths in the weather phenomena…and to cap them off, they need to down-play two well-tried and accepted laws of Physics (Beer-Lambert and Henry) and a number of major natural phenomena.  As a fraud, “global warming” had the ultimate in backing from the world’s power brokers, because the globalist billionaires in the Club of Rome managed to influence global politics.  Now the entire OECD sings to the UN IPCC song sheet.  If that continues for very long, the relative wealth of BRICS versus OECD will be reversed as we trash our economies to promote a fraud (that I benefit from) and they take action to prepare for cold as we prepare for warmth.  The BRICS are the climate realists and OECD is stacked with the true band of “climate change deniers”.

 So let’s start with the key facts and simplify matters into a binary comparison:  Right or wrong, true or false… science or sophistry?  You can check it all and work out what is right and what is wrong for yourself.  If you listen to the well-rewarded “fake fact-checkers” you will be led astray.  For my part, I am happy to be corrected anywhere I slip up on the detail.

 To recap…All complex lifeforms on Earth are carbon based.

• They are split between flora (plant life etc) and fauna (animals, birds, fish etc).
• The most important thing that all life forms do is to breathe, where flora utilise CO₂ for growth and survival and fauna utilise oxygen (“O₂”) for growth and survival.
• Flora needs an absolute minimum of 150ppm to survive, they inhale 420ppm from the atmosphere today, but would like 1,200ppm to thrive at optimum.
• Earth’s atmosphere contained almost no oxygen 3,500 million years ago when plants developed on their own.
• Flora is driven by  photosynthesis (the availability of water, carbon dioxide and light from the sun – producing plant sugars and oxygen), so flora preceded fauna in order to first modify Earth’s atmosphere, which required the oxygen bi-product of the photosynthesis of plants, in order to grow and survive.
• The first mass extinction came when the more vulnerable plant life, which was poisoned by the rapidly growing atmospheric density of O₂, died off.
• In New Zealand in 2022, fauna now get 207,000ppm of O₂ from the atmosphere but at this level, because oxygen is so abundant, our human survival depends more upon limiting our inhalation of atmospheric CO₂.  If this rises to a level of 5,000ppm it displaces O₂, so animals and humans become sick and may die.  Fauna cannot rebreathe their own exhalations even though the atmospheric O₂ content may be as high as 140,000ppm, due to the elevated CO₂ and water vapour content. 
• A molecule of CO₂ gas weighs 44.01AMU (Atomic Mass Units), so it is 50% heavier than the average of all gases in the air column. Unless warmed, a molecule of CO₂ will be negatively buoyant and sink in the air column.
• If you shut the door and windows to your office, and work for 8 hours, the level of CO₂ and water vapour will build up.  If you leave the office and close the door, and do the same the next day, you will find that the level of atmospheric CO₂ is cumulative, while that of water vapour is not.  CO₂ is also long-lived in the atmosphere although it is consumed by plants and may be washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation.  (Hence rivers of fresh water are mildly acidic.)
• Humans exhale about 40,000ppm of CO₂, so human adults produce an extra 350kgs (approx.) of carbon each year in the form of CO₂.  Our personal carbon emissions (whether CO₂ or methane) are automatic and non-discretionary.  All food contains carbon and it is carried in all body tissue and the blood supply.  The human lungs convert excess blood carbon into CO₂ gas and it is exhaled automatically as a result, the intake of air with each breath supplies the O₂ needed to oxygenate the blood.  The outgoing breath of humans is heated to body temperature and has 100% relative humidity.  So humans also continually exhale 40,000ppm_v of water vapour with each breath. 
• No (known) living organisms on Earth can be carbon neutral.
• Water covers 71% of Earth’s surface and together with precipitation, water vapour, snow or ice, each of these phases of the water cycle has the same chemical name, H₂O.  Water can evaporate, sublimate (i.e. change directly from ice to water vapour without first becoming liquid), condense, freeze and melt.   So, whilst having the most powerful radiative properties of all “greenhouse gases”, water vapour has 28 non-radiative influences on climate, due to its role in the water cycle and its conductive capabilities for heat transfer.  A water vapour molecule weighs 18AMU so is 40% lighter than air.
• Atmospheric water vapour varies from place to place and from time to time.  It’s concentration varies by altitude but is almost all limited to within the Troposphere, which is where all of the weather that affects us is also located.  Our climate only exists within the Troposphere. Within the lower Troposphere, water vapour may be as little as 2,000ppm in arid desert regions and at the poles.  In tropical rain forests the concentration can be even greater than 40,000ppm.  In New Zealand it varies around 10,000ppm and that is generally accepted by scientists as the average for the global water vapour concentration.  At that level the atmospheric concentration of water vapour is about 24 times the concentration of atmospheric CO₂.
• In my office setting the exhaled water vapour rises to the ceiling and may condense on the surface of the ceiling, upper walls and windows.  Repeated exhalations without use of ventilation will cause mould to form, so airing closed spaces is essential.
• As per the 6th attachment above marked “SLIDES ONLY” (with thanks to Emeritus Professor Duffy) water vapour has five times the efficacy of CO₂ as a greenhouse gas, for incoming solar radiation, and ten to twelve times the efficacy of CO₂ for outgoing heat in the form of outgoing infrared radiation.
• Folk as eminent as Professor Niels Bohr have since the early 20^th century run experiments which proved that while the initial 20ppm of CO₂ had a significant greenhouse gas effect, the incremental increases have a lesser and lesser effect (as per the Beer-Lambert law of physics), so I accept that the radiative potency of CO₂ to further limit temperature egress from Earth’s atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation was substantially saturated at the pre-industrial level of 280ppm.  The experiment run by Professors Happer and Wijngarden has been run at higher concentrations and with greater precision and evidential proof than previous experiments.
• To understand how irrelevant methane (“CH₄”) is, it must be realised that it’s concentration is only about 1.8ppm in the atmosphere.  After about a fortnight, much of the CH₄ has oxidised to become either H₂O or CO₂.  Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is also a human influenced greenhouse gas but despite being a pollutant, it is totally irrelevant as an agent of climate change with only 0.3ppm existing within the atmosphere.
• The emissions of pollutants such as N₂O, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide need to be dealt with at source.  Volcanism is the main threat for atmospheric sulphur dioxide pollution and these pollutants are outside the ambit of this climate change paper.
• Just on a radiative basis alone (based on respective molecular density multiplied by respective efficacy) water vapour is on average 120 times as powerful as CO₂ for restricting incoming solar radiation (aka sunlight) and about 270 times as powerful for restricting outgoing heat loss.  So because this has always been known, how could scientists with access to this information have made such a mistake in suggesting that, “CO₂ causes 80% of climate change – with a high level of certainty”?  Well, most didn’t and still don’t.  Before reading on, please make sure you understand the significance of the “SLIDES ONLY” schematic from Prof. Duffy, attached above,  which shows the results of atomic absorption spectroscopic analysis of the molecules in their radiative roles (as greenhouse gases).
• The final paper attached above is my proof that water vapour is the sole omnipotent and omnipresent greenhouse gas, using the hourly, official internet published weather data.  I could attach any of the observations I have made from the daily official weather data which support this proof.  Copies have previously been provided.  But I shall leave your staff to make their own observations because these are what proves the fraud to be just that.  By the time you have run the enquiry of the temperature of various towns at 2pm and then at 6 am the next morning – just a few times – you will begin to understand that, with all the sophistry that has gone into duping the public, this huge, 33-year climate scam (sometimes called Anthropogenic Global Warming, sometimes called climate change) actually needed to be the subject of both a global and a New Zealand conspiracy of epic proportions to gain any public credibility.  Not a conspiracy theory per se, but in fact a real global conspiracy lurking in plain sight. 
• Scientists and executives at NIWA are arguably parties to the fraud.  First came the NIWA whistle-blower (name presently unknown) who got out before being pushed (mid 2004).  Then came a threat of legal action from a NIWA PR executive to stop me making observant allegations. Then in 2020, instead of describing the empirical scientific evidence that the public believe supports the legislation, I was instructed by NIWA to look in UN IPCC report AR5 for the non-existent evidence that human carbon emissions cause climate change.  This lie is the world-wide response (likely mandated by the UN IPCC) and used to avoid making disclosure that they lack any credible evidence at all. Then they were advised that I have absolute proof – which they disregarded, using “plan B”.  Plan B is to ignore all verbal and written communications.
• The bulk of Earth’s 33^o Celsius greenhouse effect is provided by the moderation of the Earth’s variable Total Solar Insolation by the  various phases of the water cycle.  This effect is not just the separate albedo effect of the reflections from snow and ice, or the separate effect of the clouds, neither just the separate effect of the water vapour, the effect of precipitation and the heat sink effect of the huge reservoir of Earth’s water endowment…but all linked by the omnipotent greenhouse gas called water vapour (and its vertical mobility) to provide the response to variations in solar activity.
• It is virtually impossible to draw those representing the UN IPCC’s position regarding climate science into discussion or debate.  Occasionally they will make a comment like, ” The existence of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the other GHGs.” (Dr K. Trenberth)  Scientists find it more comfortable to work in their silos and give their reports to fellow sophists who will agree both their conclusions and their objectives for making them.  They get published, meantime the sceptical scientists are generally denied publication rights.  The sceptical scientists seek debate.  The UN and globalist media seek to muzzle them. Within science there must always be transparency and an opportunity for debate.  With this fraud, there is none.
• The importance of water vapour as the sole omnipotent greenhouse gas is obviously recognised because it has been deliberately “disappeared” from Google and in other places its effect has been deliberately minimised.  Google used to qualify their description of the component gases within the atmosphere where the volume of each is expressed as the “percentage of dry air” based upon the justification that water vapour is so variable from place to place and from time to time that it causes the proportion of all the other atmospheric gases to also vary.  Now even the pretence to a misleading version of the truth is dropped and below are a few samples of what our children can get if they go into the internet…This quote is in italics because it was earlier copied to you on 23 January 2022 by being included in my email to Rosie Ashby”

But this malfeasance is actively supported by the likes of Google.  Why did Google, NASA and National Geographic feel the need to eliminate the sole omnipotent greenhouse gas, water vapour  from the atmosphere?  Why did National Geographic?  Why did NASA?  Prima Facie – they made these changes to paper over their support for climate fraud.  The mistakes of the UN IPCC are not justifiable because from the gathering of data and reports for AR1 they began sacking all the eminent scientists who disagreed with the fraud.  Acting to falsify evidence of their fraud is indicative that they are well aware of it.

 Quote 1. (NASA)

“According to NASA, the gases in Earth’s atmosphere include:

• Nitrogen — 78 percent.
• Oxygen — 21 percent.
• Argon — 0.93 percent.
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent.
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor.

Quote 2. (Google)

“Air is mostly gas

The air in Earth’s atmosphere is made up of approximately 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen. Air also has small amounts of lots of other gases, too, such as carbon dioxide, neon, and hydrogen.12/09/2016 “

 Quote 3. (Google)

 “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.22/10/2019”

Quote 4. (National Geographic)

 “While oxygen is necessary for most life on Earth, the majority of Earth’s atmosphere is not oxygen. Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent. “

 I don’t have a date for National Geographic’s above incorrect analysis of Earth’s atmosphere.  But the others have dated their own alterations to the composition of Earth’s atmosphere.  Can they explain why they want water vapour to disappear, or explain why the third most voluminous gas (which is also about 96% of all greenhouses gases by volume) is relegated to being part of 0.01%, or even explain why the volume of water vapour in the atmosphere has shrunk so much they had to make it disappear?”

   You have to wonder why National Geographic lost interest in CO₂ with their comment above that only …“oxygen is necessary for most life on Earth”.  CO₂ is actually in short supply for flora… and all non-flora life (including ourselves) rely on the existence of flora for food and for the oxygen they exhale as a bi-product of photosynthesis.  If flora have less than 150ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere, photosynthesis doesn’t work and they die.  By experimentation, in general flora thrive better on 1,200ppm – though that varies by plant type.  (If flora become extinct, fauna are thereby condemned to follow suit.)  A child searching the National Geographic web site would more easily be persuaded by fraud promoters such as Minister James Shaw that CO₂ is a pollutant which must be reduced in order to save the planet.  So the deception inherent in the fraud becomes concealed from public view.  This laziness (if that is all it is) is arguably deliberate due to other actions of “National Geographic” (i.e. the fate of polar bears and walruses falling off cliffs due to “Global Warming”).

• For any so-called conservationist to label CO₂ as a pollutant to be taxed in order to reduce its atmospheric content means the person is flaunting their “green credentials” under false pretences.
• Google has implemented a program to “de-monetise all climate sceptics”.  Thereby abusing their media power and denying the right of the public to tell the truth by deliberately attempting to dissuade or silence them.
• Media organisations from the BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The NZ Herald and even pip-squeaks like Stuff refuse to publish articles which are critical of the climate fraud.  The authors are instead publicly castigated as “climate change deniers.” And so as we enter the dystopian world of George Orwell’s “1984” where one year the mainstream media inform us authoritatively that our children will soon be unable to ever see snow again, and this week are authoritatively saying that the blizzards in the USA, Turkey and Japan (among others) are being caused by global warming.  (of course this is all based on “science” and un-specified experts with their blatant abuse of the truth) This censorship in support of deliberate fraud is a huge problem for the OECD to fix.  I wonder how they will be able to dig their way out of this…when no-one will now either dare or be allowed to tell the truth?  (Caveat: anomalous cold records being broken each year are now more frequent than new warm records being set…so this link below is just a testament to cold weather and the absence of any climate warming emergency – not indicative of climate change)… but check it out, because it shows what we are not allowed to see: 

https://electroverse.net/

 But back to the central facts…

 Not only does water vapour have dominant radiative potency, but also we must factor in all of its other 28 non radiative impacts – as part of Earth’s water cycle.  It has been calculated that the amount of evaporation of surface water during one day from the sun’s influence (solar energy is considered to be 99.9% of Earth’s energy budget) is about 1.15 trillion tonnes per day.  Being warm and lighter than air, once evaporated, water vapour heads rapidly to the clouds.  Because the air thins and cools by about 6.5^oC. per kilometre of height, water vapour loses heat as it ascends (in its capacity as both a conductor and radiator of heat).  At high altitude it condenses into minute cloud droplets which are even more opaque in restricting the ingress of warmth from sunlight or egress of infrared radiated heat at night.  

• The empirical scientific evidence supportive of this from Professor Duffy, has already been so widely circulated that I won’t attach it here.  I ask you instead to make contact with him directly as his email address is amongst those to whom this email has been copied.
• The process by which clouds form and rain drops (or even hail and snow) are nucleated, is the subject of intensive scientific analysis and debate, but what is clear is that the change of phase between solid, liquid and gas: from water vapour to cloud droplets, thence to rain drops, involves huge energy transfers.  The rain drops are super-chilled at high altitude and the falling rain warms as it falls, yet even so, it is still cold enough to chill the earth on arrival.  The heat transfer effects of about 1.15 trillion tons of falling water, snow, hail or sleet per day is largely ignored by the UN IPCC.
• About 65% of Earth’s surface is obscured by clouds.  Aside from the debate over what drives cloud formation and rain, to a forensic investigator like me the most important fact is that there can be no clouds without water vapour on the one hand, while on the other, there is always water vapour despite the absence of clouds above.  Water vapour is always and everywhere present in the Troposphere.
• The amount of actual humidity (water vapour expressed in grams of water per kilogram of air) that the atmosphere can hold depends on air temperature.  When the temperature falls to the “dew point” then dew falls as the air to water ratio adjusts.  So the amount of water contained in the atmosphere as water vapour, falls off with both rising altitude and as we move from the Equator to the poles – with increases in latitude.  Yet water vapour is omnipresent and omnipotent as the sole greenhouse gas influencing weather and thereby climate.
• To repeat for emphasis, those three factors, Latitude, Altitude and the atmospheric water vapour influence both weather and (over time) Earth’s Climate.  But in blaming all greenhouse gases for climate change we have the wrong “culprit”.  It is simply the variability of solar electro-magnetic activity with help from anomalous and sporadic volcanic activity.  The water cycle – despite its various phases and the many complexities of its roles – is merely the moderating reaction to incoming solar energy.
• Ocean science is sometimes influenced by bias from the officially sanctioned UN IPCC climate science dogma.  The oceans usually have a pH of over 8 and they contain 50 times the CO₂ (and other gases) that are held in the air.  There is a law of solubility of gases called the “Henry law” which means in this context that the ocean disgorges CO₂ when warming and is able to take it up when cooling.  If you look at slides 4. and 5. on the attachment named “140708” (effectively the Russian and BRICS view of climate science) you will see the significance of this.  The build-up of atmospheric CO₂ for the last 600,000 years had always been due to a warming ocean.  Furthermore, cooling into 90,000 year-long ice ages always began when atmospheric CO₂ was at its maximum, so the runaway warming we are constantly being threatened with was always unable to happen due to natural climate homeostasis. 
• Today the largest proportion of global atmospheric CO₂ emissions still comes from ocean outgassing and other natural causes.  Human emissions are less than 5% of total emissions.  It doesn’t take much of a change in the level of natural forest fires, rotting vegetation or ocean outgassing to compensate for any human carbon emissions (or savings) and yet that is never apparently given consideration by the sophists.
• Given the heat transfer effects of evaporation where 423 trillion tons of water vapour rises each year into the sky and about 423 trillion tons descends as rain, hail or snow over a twelve month period, leaving an ocean of water in the sky weighing between 15 to 20 trillion tons – mixed between water vapour, clouds and precipitation, how does this affect weather and climate?  Well, the weather happens on a short time cycle  as short as minutes and hours, as changes in air pressure and winds drive water vapour and clouds from areas where evaporation is greatest to areas where rainfall reduces both cloud cover and atmospheric water vapour.  The climate itself is only the long term (30 to 40 year) average of weather.
• The advent of super computers to climate modelling does not influence the facts.  The outcome of computer models are just maths not science, particularly when most variables are entered using the sophists’ subjective evaluation of a chosen parameter’s relevance.  They certainly produce no evidence and mostly confirmation bias.  GIGO means they actually overcook their conclusions which are too inaccurate to be of any worth for decision-making.  Meteorological modelling does have real value for humanity and more should be expended to improve forecast reliability upon which real world decisions depend.  As things stand, if some idiot buys a house on the waterfront and a storm washes it away, I will share the blame because we are all being held liable for “climate change” which the idiot believes is not his problem.  Now insurance companies levy everyone for the folly of a few.  This is a tiny example of how the climate fraud totally distorts both reality and the quality of policy decisions.
• If water vapour density was dependent of the level of other greenhouse gases, then, before industrial times there would have been nothing to prevent runaway global heating during Grand Solar Maximums.  However our planet is still condemned to living within the Pleistocene Ice age and at some point the Holocene Interglacial Interval will end. Between the 90,000-year ice ages (described by the Milankovitch cycles of Earth’s movements relative to the sun), it has always been the solar cycles that have caused climate change during the 10-12,000 year interglacial intervals, influenced from time to time by outbursts of volcanism.
• In an era of JIT inventory systems, few countries hold food staples to cover longer than a week or two.  When a volcanic VEI7 eruption occurs the two winters will be dire and an entire summer of food production will be lost.  Something similar occurs during Grand Solar Minimums when grow zones migrate in the direction of the equator.  The Russians were prepared for the current cold but the Chinese weren’t.  But they learned fast and were able this year to pick up staples on the international market.  Those may not be available next year.
• It is clear that the increase in global temperature since 1880 during what is known as the “Modern Warm Period” has been  about 1.2^oC.  (some argue the increase is more and some less and no-one is in agreement over what an ideal climate should be)
• In 1880 the level of atmospheric CO₂ was estimated as 280ppm.  Doubling this would yield the figure of 560ppm for atmospheric CO₂.  Plants would love that!  So what is the temperature effect of doubling?  No-one really knows for sure, because the OECD now ascribes most of the warming since the end of what was called the “little ice age” (1280 to 1850AD) when glaciers were then either growing or stable, as being due to human activities.  That was not a time of warmth, but of cold. In more recent papers, a group of Russian scientists now ascribe only a possible 0.3^oC to the temperature effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 1880 in total, yet we are only half way to that doubling. 
• By the beginning of the 17^th century it was estimated that more than 50,000 witches had been burned at the stake to try to stop the march of glaciers as they advanced at the rate of up to 100 metres per day.  Advancing glaciers are far more costly to humanity than retreating ones.  But what happens during Grand Solar Maximums is the glaciers retreat and Arctic sea ice is much less and it was thus in 900AD when Eric the Red started off from Iceland to row to Greenland.  By 1200AD the glaciers we see today were then shorter but grew during the “Little Ice Age”.
• Meanwhile the Russians remain convinced that CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O play almost no part in climate change and it is the impact of three extremely active 11-year solar cycles in the 20^th century that account for the bulk of warming.  A comparison of these 11-year solar cycles (merely numbered 19, 21 and 22 – with the more ordinary solar cycle number 20 not noted) can be seen on slide 13. of the Russian presentation “140708”.  The solar scientists generally agree that solar cycle 19. was the most active for thousands of years. So the Russians identify the 20^th century as being the time of a Grand Solar Maximum.
• To reiterate…recent papers revising down the impact of CO₂ on climate change have been submitted to the UN IPCC for review by Russian, British led and US led teams of highly qualified scientists with peer-reviewed articles,  in accordance with the UN IPCC error reporting protocols.  These have been ignored. Just as they have when copied to New Zealand politicians. Frankly, writing to those driving the fraud is a bit like sending Bernie Madoff a letter asking him to explain why he was defrauding his investors in a PONZI scheme and expecting him to explain himself.  It took an arrest to make him do that!
• Half way through solar cycle 24 when “140708” was published, the Russian Academy of Sciences predicted what is now happening seven years later as being the beginning of a new Grand Solar Minimum (i.e. a group of relatively inactive solar cycles) with consequent “little ice age” for the remainder of the 21^st century.  For two thousand years and more, the solar cycles have matched the cyclicity of warm and cool climate conditions on Earth.
• There is no correlation between the level of atmospheric CO₂ and temperature.  CO₂ has only been reliably monitored since 1959 and before that the estimates were based on proxy data.  But what is clear is that every Northern summer the plant growth spurt has reduced the level of atmospheric CO₂ by about 6ppm and in winter there has been an increase of about 8ppm, to yield an increase in the level by about 2ppm on an annualised basis despite the extra efforts of Kyoto and subsequent international agreements to restrain and reduce OECD carbon emissions.
• Atmospheric CO₂ doesn’t change much from place to place, or from time to time, nor does it have the potency of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, so the impact of an increase in atmospheric density is not in any way visible in the changing weather patterns, unlike changes in water vapour which occur from hour to hour, from day to day and from place to place.  These minor changes in actual humidity have such a large  impact on daily temperature maximums and the rate of overnight heat loss, that they explain why towns like New Plymouth and Napier have such different weather and by including the average daily temperature range and the average annual rainfall, why the towns’ climates are significantly different, despite being on about the same latitude and at the same altitude.

 

• By reference to the first chart of page 5. of the “Submission on the Zero Carbon Bill” attached above, over the last 540 million years of geological time there has never been any indication that runaway warming ever happened despite atmospheric CO₂ being as high as 2,000 to 5,000ppm.  In fact there has never been a time when a correlation has existed which could in any way have been supportive of the idea that a change in atmospheric CO₂ could influence the climate, only that a change in climate could probably have directly influenced a change in atmospheric CO₂ after a delay for the oceans to react to the change in atmospheric temperature (in other words the reaction lag time was assessed as 800 years plus or minus 400 years).  The oceans are an effective heat sink, with most gains and loses of temperature happening (either daily, seasonally or longer) in the water above the thermocline.
• The first 20ppm of atmospheric CO₂ certainly does have a significant greenhouse effect.  But after that, the effect on the temperature only increases logarithmically, so that by the time of the pre-industrial level of 280ppm in 1880 the ability of changed atmospheric CO₂ to influence the temperature was almost fully saturated.  Thereafter the increases or decreases are totally inconsequential.  This is in accordance with the Beer-Lambert law of Physics. 
• In modern times it is known that global average temperature increased from 1880 to 1900AD then fell at the time of two successive weak 11-year solar cycles, then it increased from the 1920’s to 1945 and again fell until 1975 (eliciting much panic that there would be an imminent ice age); before again rising to 1998 (an extremely strong el Nino event) before stabilising until the next major 2016 el Nino event occurred.  Since then it has been falling…but not by much.  The graph of the average global monthly temperature of the Troposphere shown below from 1979 to 31^st  January 2022 is shown below and you may care to compare this with the NOAA record of atmospheric CO₂ since 1959) The only correlation I feel confident to assert is between temperature and solar cycles and almost none at all between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature.  This is how our global preoccupation with a faux climate emergency is playing out.

 There is no other global temperature record that I can be convinced has not been corrupted, so I rely on the NASA satellite record – as above. 

• There is a saying, “One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”  Sadly the UN IPCC and NZ Government procession of histrionics over climate disasters that don’t ever happen is one recurring folly… and the self-serving delusion that humans can change the climate by putting the brakes on carbon emissions is another.
• Naturally-occurring water vapour variations during any day often have a far greater temperature effect than all the CO₂ increases in 100 years.  A simple 0.5^o Celsius change in atmospheric temperature can produce more water vapour (the strongest greenhouse gas) than the total 100+ ppm increase CO₂ over 100 years [even at a constant Relative Humidity].
• A feature of research by solar scientists is that they ascribe a greater importance to the forecasts of reduced solar activity (than does the officially sanctioned brigade of OECD sophists), from the next three 11-year solar cycles going forward.  Solar activity is electromagnetic energy which provides Earth with its Total Solar Insolation – aka sunlight.  Solar activity is indicated by the number and strength of sun spots visible on the face of the sun. This affects the strength of the solar wind, which when strong, reduces the influx of galactic cosmic rays into both the solar system and Earth’s atmosphere.  When the solar wind is weak the influx of cosmic rays can be much more prevalent and this may have an impact on cloud nucleation and magma disturbance. 
• Variations in solar activity have a large effect on all of the planets in the solar system as well as the irradiation conditions for astronauts in space.  They drive our climate as effectively as the triple variations in Earth’s position versus the sun (Tilt, Obliquity and Eccentricity of orbit – collectively called the Milankovitch cycles).  However the difference between the temperature of Grand Solar Maximums and Grand Solar Minimums is only 2 to 3^oC.  The difference between the climate optimum of an interglacial interval  and the climate minimum of an Ice Age can be as much as 10^oC.  Fortunately one of the latter is not yet due because last time (as recently as 25,000 years ago) it would have signalled the loss of all agriculture (under a huge ice cap) for the South Island.  Even so the impact of a Grand Solar Minimum will have a major impact on agriculture and Northward-shifting grow zones.
• Grand Solar Minimums have through history been referred to as “dark ages” and they have led to the rapid advance of glaciers, famine and disease.  A correlation of sorts exists between major volcanic eruptions with perturbations of the Earth’s tectonic plates and the beginning of Grand Solar Minimums.  There is a warning in this sequence: For instance the 180 AD eruption of Lake Taupo (Hatepe) signalled the end of the Roman Warm Period, the Mt Samalas eruption of 1257AD  (Indonesia) that signalled the end of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the eruption  Mt Tambora in 1815AD (Indonesia) which signalled a global year without a summer.  Each of these was a VEI7 event and they each punched so much material into the stratosphere that it circled the Earth many times and led to purple sunsets and dark skies.  By comparison HungaTonga/Ha’apai’s recent eruption was just a VEI5 eruption.  The 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo (Philippines) was just a VEI6 event yet it was estimated to have caused a reduction in global temperature of about 0.5^oC from 1991 to 1993.  So VEI7 events would have had major weather impacts.
• Every volcanic eruption emits a huge amount of CO₂ and SO₂ into the atmosphere at any rate and CO₂ has a long atmospheric dwell time, so every such event has a cumulative effect on the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
• If we look back to well researched volcanic episodes and asteroid strikes, we come to the Chicxulub asteroid strike of 66 million years ago which scored a direct hit on what is now the super-giant Mexican, Cantarell oil field.  It left a 150 km-wide crater in the Bay of Campeche and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.  The debris would have filled the stratosphere and mesosphere because the impact debris is claimed to have travelled a third of the way to the moon.  Full of toxic material the atmosphere eventually cleared and the diurnal heating and cooling, together with evaporation and precipitation of water flushed the material out of the atmosphere (with the help of gravity).  The explosion was a heating event like nothing since and yet the normal climate and atmospheric homeostasis was restored.  It casts extreme doubt on the effect humans can have on climate.
• The Western texts on solar science and space weather I have reviewed are full of references to works by Russian scientists.  So I accept the Russians are among the leaders in the solar sciences.  The author and presenter of the paper at “140708” was at that time the Director of both the prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg and the Director of the Russian scientific programs on the International Space Station.
• On slide 14 of the attached “140708” you will see the Russian preoccupation with Total Solar Insolation which comes to Earth’s atmosphere through 150 million kilometres of the vacuum of space and bestows a daily measure of between 1360 and 1370 watts per square metre of electromagnetic radiation at the beginning of Earth’s atmosphere, which is then subjected to greenhouse effects with only about 56% hitting Earth’s surface.  Slide 14. is again repeated on slide 24. as it is Russia’s grim warning to us of the likely impact of the coming cooling stage of  the bicentennial solar cycle.  It begins with solar cycle 25 and has now arguably started – although not with full effect for at least the next 10 years.  
• The Russians are well into their preparations for what they are certain is the imminent arrival of the next bicentennial Grand Solar Minimum.  All Russian geopolitical activity is predicated on this climate planning because 25% of their land mass and 50% of mineral resources are North of the Arctic Circle.  NASA and NOAA agree with the solar science, but as a tribute to hubris, claim the increase in atmospheric CO₂ will mean the coming Grand Solar Minimum won’t affect us. 
• Last time I looked at a globe of the Earth we were on the same planet as Russia.  New Zealand as an island country in the Pacific is more affected by the oceanic heat sinks of Tasman Sea and the Pacific Ocean which will remain warm.  So when the continents of Europe distinctly and observably heated during the period 1975 to 2000AD, New Zealand experienced almost no real observable temperature change other than glacial melt.  It will be the same with cooling.  The continents of Southern Africa, South America and Australia are showing signs of cooling that we are not – yet.  But we will catch up.
• Volcanism is a feature of nuanced changes in the Earth’s solar-stimulated magnetosphere.  The OECD /UN IPCC position presumes that the Earth’s climate receives minimal stimulation from volcanic eruptions and yet Mt Pinatubo is claimed to have given vent to more CO₂ than humanity throughout our entire existence  (source: Professor Ian Plimer).   But while we know of land-based volcanism, there is no account of volcanism below the seas unless as with VEI5 events at Krakatoa and Hunga Tonga/Ha’apai, the volcanoes burst through to become islands.  In its 1883 eruption Krakatoa blew itself out of the water.  A few years ago it re-appeared as an island called Anak Krakatau (child of Krakatoa).  Mt Samalas on Lombok Island has recently become extremely active also but is called Mt Rinjani.  Both Anak Krakatau and Rinjani are now active again.
• Undersea volcanoes represent 80% of Earth’s volcanoes and yet no-one stops to wonder when a two or three square mile raft of pumice surfaces on the Ocean.  Where did the heat go?  In fact there are many open fissures and hydrothermal vents pushing intrusions gas liquid and lava into the ocean of water with lava up to 1,250^oC.  It isn’t ever accounted for.  The mass of water overhead ensures rapid sealing of lava to form a ceramic dome over the volcano.  While the West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s glacier melt is always blamed on Anthropogenic Global Warming, everyone forgets the many active volcanoes under the area where large rafts of ice are eroded by volcanic action.  Huge discharges of CO₂ are emitted below the sea and mostly absorbed in the chilly depths, but even so they provide the fuel for outgassing of CO₂ into the atmosphere – far higher than human emissions – yet actual quantity unknown.
• For the UN IPCC the small variation in Total Solar Insolation during the 200 year solar cycles is wrongly used as an excuse for discarding solar variations as a valid reason for the warming of the 20^th century Modern Warm Period (despite this being an obvious Grand Solar Maximum) and for dreaming up a grotesquely disproportionate role for human carbon emissions.  Solar cyclicity is the only explanation for the regular 200-year cycles prior to human industrialisation.  What changed that?  Just BS.
• Bizarrely the UN IPCC continues to claim that human carbon emissions are cumulative in the atmosphere, while those CO₂ emissions from natural causes are not.  The rationale for that argument seems like sophistry on steroids.
• The public is told that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that we must re-design our cows and other bovines to eliminate CH₄ emissions and we must destroy our economies to save the world.  That is just garbage for which the world of science should be ashamed.  The narrative is now driven by vested interests and the ignorant or corrupt politicians.  Genetically re-engineering animals to help with the AGW fraud is about as disgusting as gain-of-function research on viruses for humans.  The morality of corrupt pseudo-scientists must be addressed.
• The Russians had a similar issue from the 1930’s to 1950’s with President Stalin’s patronage of the mad scientist called Trofim Lysenko.  They believe they lost between 6 and 32 million deaths to famine as a result.  Whether Lysenko was a convenient scapegoat or not, they are not going to repeat that by acceding to the UN IPCC global warming fraud.  They know that for every person who dies due to anomalous heat, 20 die from the cold and while that is globally relevant data, for them the disparity is always potentially far worse in the Siberian winter where whole villages can perish.

 Conclusions:

• I assert the various UN IPCC theories are worthless in the face of the empirical scientific evidence from Professor Happer at Princeton (the eminent Nuclear Physicist), Professor Duffy at Auckland (the eminent Chemical Engineer and Atmospheric Chemist) and Professor Ian Plimer of Australia (the eminent Geologist).
• I just got lucky and found absolute proof for the truth from published New Zealand weather data.  Had the New Zealand Climate data not been a  laboratory that delivers absolute proof each day, I may not have been brave enough to continue in the face of your neglect of the fraud. 
• It is impossible for human carbon emissions to influence climate change because the countervailing natural forces soon overcome the puny human residual influences.  The difference between reality and the junk science is so huge and the actions of the parties to promote it so outrageous, there is no possibility of the dogma being based on an honest mistake, or concatenation of honest mistakes – only on culpable fraud.  The fact “AGW” is just fraud is not new in the public domain.  Senior UN IPCC figures have explained their reason for promoting the fraud is not about dealing with climate change, but about promoting wealth equalisation between countries of the world.

• Whatever is the current excuse in New Zealand, let’s hear it before the next election.  Like the over-hyped plight of polar bears, sea level rise, ocean acidification and everything else paying tribute to the climate fraud in the mainstream media today, it is the sophistry to launder the world’s biggest fraud, for which no apology is acceptable, because the cost to lives and livelihoods has already been too great.  Every peer-reviewed paper published to contribute to the UN IPCC sophistry is grossly suspect.  Science and the scientific method have been brought into disrepute and it is past time to clean ship!
• It is strange to realise that a warming climate is always good and a cooling one is bad when we hear the apocalyptic scenarios if we fail to stop driving ICE cars.  The direction of the continually changing climate is determined by natural forces – the solar variability and anomalous volcanism.

 

• I believe it is time for you to do your work and find out what conspiracies in New Zealand have expanded on the UN IPCC’s international fraud at both the political, scientific and business level.  If you turn this opportunity down, you may as well resign your roles as either Director, Secretary or Commissioner.  We each know that where such obvious fraud exists, it may take time to come into the public domain, but I am going to make sure that it does reach the public in very short order. There are only four key things for the court to know about this fraud so it can be simplified or taken in stages:
• It is impossible for human carbon emissions to cause climate change.
• CO₂ is a gas essential for all life on Earth and not a pollutant to be taxed. 
• New Zealand can destroy its economy to support the fraud and yet have no possibility of benefiting the climate.  The Greens lied about cost in their manifesto, while Labour did not even care about cost.  Benefit zero, cost extreme.
• No proper due diligence was performed before multi-billion dollar decisions were made, and sophists were used and well-rewarded to justify ultra vires legislation.
• Every carbon trading and carbon credits scheme is a fraud, based on the notion of trading vacuous virtue signalling for money.
• Please forward this to Interpol.  I may be whistling in the wind, but those influencing the conduct of the United Nations need to be placed under investigation, as should former President Obama and former Vice President Gore.  The affairs of every country in the OECD are affected too.  The co-conspirators in this country alone are too numerous to mention and most have overblown profiles.
• You will be assisted in your investigations by the real subject matter experts from around the world.  New Zealand is likely the only country where the fraud is not only obvious, but provable from actual weather and climate data.  So you can be assured of willing support.
• If you fail to seek the appropriate evidence in support of my allegations and instead seek rebuttal from the usual suspects, I will continue and now go public.

 No-one can now hide from this fraud.  The covers are off, so let both the batters and bowlers onto the pitch so we can see this set to rights in a New Zealand Court of competent jurisdiction.  IMHO it will just take a declaratory judgement on a few short questions to break the global fraud apart.

 If you have any questions about this, please telephone or email.  I will be happy to provide further support and answer questions.

 Yours sincerely

 John Rofe

Experienced Fraud Investigator & Climate Fraud Beneficiary

===================================

An Open Letter to New Zealand PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of Climate Change Fraud

Editor’s note: Click on this link to view the letter’s graphics that cannot be included in the text below: An Open Letter to PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of Climate Change Fraud

 From: jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2021 10:06 am
To: ‘Kiritapu.Allan@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kiritapu.Allan@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Virginia.Andersen@parliament.govt.nz’ <Virginia.Andersen@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Camilla.Belich@parliament.govt.nz’ <Camilla.Belich@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Glen.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz’ <Glen.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Rachel.Boyack@parliament.govt.nz’ <Rachel.Boyack@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Rachel.Brooking@parliament.govt.nz’ <Rachel.Brooking@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Naisi.Chen@parliament.govt.nz’ <Naisi.Chen@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘David.Clark@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Clark@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Tamati.Coffey@parliament.govt.nz’ <Tamati.Coffey@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Liz.Craig@parliament.govt.nz’ <Liz.Craig@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Paul.Eagle@parliament.govt.nz’ <Paul.Eagle@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Barbara.Edmonds@parliament.govt.nz’ <Barbara.Edmonds@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz’ <kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Shanan.Halbert@parliament.govt.nz’ <Shanan.Halbert@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Peeni.Henare@parliament.govt.nz’ <Peeni.Henare@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Emily.Henderson@parliament.govt.nz’ <Emily.Henderson@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Chris.Hipkins@parliament.govt.nz’ <Chris.Hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Willie.Jackson@parliament.govt.nz’ <Willie.Jackson@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Anahila.Kanongata’a-Suisuiki@parliament.govt.nz’ <Anahila.Kanongata’a-Suisuiki@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz’ <Ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Neru.Leavasa@parliament.govt.nz’ <Neru.Leavasa@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Stephanie.Lewis@parliament.govt.nz’ <Stephanie.Lewis@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz’ <Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Anna.Lorck@parliament.govt.nz’ <Anna.Lorck@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Maria.Lubeck@parliament.govt.nz’ <Maria.Lubeck@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Jo.Luxton@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jo.Luxton@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Nanaia.Mahuta@parliament.govt.nz’ <Nanaia.Mahuta@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Trevor.Mallard@parliament.govt.nz’ <Trevor.Mallard@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Kieran.McAnulty@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kieran.McAnulty@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Tracey.McLellan@parliament.govt.nz’ <Tracey.McLellan@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz’ <Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Terisa.Ngobi@parliament.govt.nz’ <Terisa.Ngobi@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Damien.O’Connor@parliament.govt.nz’ <Damien.O’Connor@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘greg.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz’ <greg.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Ibrahim.Omer@parliament.govt.nz’ <Ibrahim.Omer@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Sarah.Pallett@parliament.govt.nz’ <Sarah.Pallett@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘David.Parker@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Parker@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Willow-Jean.Prime@parliament.govt.nz’ <Willow-Jean.Prime@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: ‘contactus@justice.govt.nz’ <contactus@justice.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@police.govt.nz’ <enquiries@police.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@sfo.govt.nz’ <enquiries@sfo.govt.nz>; ‘geoffduffy@lycos.com’ <geoffduffy@lycos.com>; ‘jock.allison85@gmail.com’ <jock.allison85@gmail.com>; ‘Howard Dewhirst’ <nhd@petroalbion.com>; ‘team@taxpayers.org.nz’ <team@taxpayers.org.nz>; ‘Rod Dale’ <rod.dale@bigpond.com>; ‘john.maunder@gmail.com’ <john.maunder@gmail.com>; ‘news@hobsonspledge.nz’ <news@hobsonspledge.nz>; ‘muriel@nzcpr.com’ <muriel@nzcpr.com>; ‘jmscarry@xtra.co.nz’ <jmscarry@xtra.co.nz>; ‘rosalieashby@gmail.com’ <rosalieashby@gmail.com>; ‘shargreaves@ipa.org.com’ <shargreaves@ipa.org.com>; ‘rod@pacificsunset.co.nz’ <rod@pacificsunset.co.nz>; ‘john@johnansell.co.nz’ <john@johnansell.co.nz>; ‘mckenziebarbara42@gmail.com’ <mckenziebarbara42@gmail.com>; ‘ppurcel@tpg.com.au’ <ppurcel@tpg.com.au>; ‘helpdesk@investigatemagazine.com’ <helpdesk@investigatemagazine.com>; ‘srdtaylor@gmail.com’ <srdtaylor@gmail.com>; ‘jhapps@bigpond.com’ <jhapps@bigpond.com>; ‘aaprjohn@northnet.org’ <aaprjohn@northnet.org>; ‘jimrsimpson@bigpond.com’ <jimrsimpson@bigpond.com>; ‘Christopher Monckton’ <monckton@mail.com>; ‘sandra.goudie@tcdc.govt.nz’ <sandra.goudie@tcdc.govt.nz>; ‘Deborah Alexander’ <o-d-alexander@xtra.co.nz>; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’ <news@tvnz.co.nz>; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’ <news@nzherald.co.nz>; ‘Juana Atkins’ <sb@thebfd.co.nz>; ‘leighton smith’ <leightonzb@gmail.com>; ‘petersenior42@gmail.com’ <petersenior42@gmail.com>; ‘Terry Dunleavy’ <terry@winezeal.co.nz>; ‘M.J. Kelly’ <mjk1@cam.ac.uk>; ‘john.ryan@oag.parliament.nz’ <john.ryan@oag.parliament.nz>; ‘Steve Taylor’ <srdtaylor@gmail.com>
Subject: An Open Letter to PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of a Fraud (NZSFO Complaint CON0008591)

Dear Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change,

This open letter provides an indictment of your incompetence.  Unless you can prove that human carbon emissions cause climate change (and in my last open letter I proved that is impossible for you to do), you should be removed from office and your motivation for pursuing the New Zealand limb of the international climate fraud should be dealt with by the “proper authorities”.

Let’s first define my use of the term “incompetence” according to “Rofe’s law of holes”: 

“Incompetence in this context is sending a delegation of fifteen (15) fact-starved, but government funded people to the other side of the world at the expense of 20 average person years equivalent of carbon emissions, in order to persuade rational “Paris Accord” hold-out countries not to keep emitting carbon dioxide and methane (allegedly in order to stop Global Warming) when:

 A crisis of global energy scarcity is looming, due in large measure to the UN IPCC and the international pseudo-environmental movement. (diversification of energy sources is rational, but getting rid of other essential energy supplies before diversification, will lead to increased poverty, food insecurity and the destruction of economies for no proper purpose)

1. We know for certain it isn’t arithmetically possible for human carbon emissions to materially influence climate change. (you have been shown the proof)
2. To justify your actions, there has never been any empirical scientific evidence presented by you or your officers to show that periodic changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide materially influence climate change. (only a litany of sophistry)
3. The global average temperature of the lower atmosphere is now falling.  ( See the graph and other data below)”

Between the Milankovitch Cycles’ passage of 120,000-year ice ages and interglacial intervals, it is the sun that determines the passage of gradual climate changes, for both warming and cooling of the climate.   So Minister James Shaw’s Glasgow-bound travel plans are a cross between Icarus flying up to visit the sun and King Canute trying to turn back the tide.  It is hard to discriminate which of those is greater testament to the Minister’s ignorance or hubris.

Future generations will have no difficulty understanding this insanity, and you will both likely be persons of ridicule and caricature within your lifetimes and beyond as a result.

As you have both been told repeatedly, it is the cyclic variations in electromagnetic solar activity, moderated by the effects of the terrestrial water cycle which are the dominant cause of climate change for planet Earth.  The effects of solar variability is equally apparent on the other planets within the solar system, but solar influence is more direct because they don’t have our atmosphere and water cycle to moderate or delay change effects.

First, let me show you the evidence of recent cooling.  (the data informs the science)

• The NASA satellite network tells us the global average temperature in regional slices at any point in time.  For example it shows the 30 September 2021 graph for the Lower Troposphere (which is where we live and where global warming is said to be occurring) shows the month of September 2021 was 0.15^oC cooler this year than last.  That is just month-end to month-end – but the trend is there:
• Other surface temperature datasets collectively corroborate the five year drop – these are graphed as follows: 
• Is this the start of a downward trend?  (It is too early to be hyped as “climate change” but the weather effects are there for five years…)

Basically the trend in weather is also indicated by the change in snow pack for places like Greenland which we are told ended the 2021 melt season with an extra 450 giga-tonnes of snow and ice.  Also the first datapoint for the Northern hemisphere snow pack shows a start this month with an extra 250 giga-tonnes of snow more than for the 1982-2012 average.

• The Antarctic ice and snow is at the seasonal peak, but what has happened to temperatures over the Antarctic winter?  At the South Pole  we are told the April to September 2021 average temperature of -61.1^oC is the coldest for any six month period on record.  This suggests long term cooling of the Antarctic continues.
• There is only one reliable measure of what is happening in the part of the atmosphere where we have been repeatedly told that global warming is taking place.  That is the lower Troposphere, for which the data is shown in the official graph above. 

Second, Good luck to Minister Shaw in his meeting in Glasgow with Russian, Indian and Chinese counterparts (if they bother to attend). 

The official Russian 2014 estimate of where things would be at with the solar cycles and associated climate effect is right on cue.  Unlike the  misrepresentations from the UN IPCC echoed by the Ardern/Shaw government, President Putin does not rate changes in CO₂ as having any material effect on climate change.  He has personally and publicly said so. 

The Russians are preparing for the forecast arrival of the “Grand Solar Minimum” with an attendant “Little Ice Age” to follow the end of the Modern Warm Period from 2020, as per the attached PDF version of the slide show of the presentation to the International Climate Change Conference in July 2014, by Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov – delivered under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  So Minister Shaw, you can compare our efforts to prepare for global warming with their efforts to prepare for a coming period of severe cooling.  Also with the dire need for China and India to obtain more fossil fuels.

They are still building refineries to lessen fuel insecurity.  Your government is getting rid of Marsden Pt. Refinery to increase our fuel insecurity.

If you look at their slide 13. In the above attached PDF, you will see that the graph curves for solar cycles numbered 5, 6 and 7 relate to the last 200-year Grand Solar Minimum ( a period containing three or more relatively inactive 11-year solar cycles) which was known as the Dalton Minimum and part of the “little ice age”.  The Grand Solar Maximum (a period of three or more very active 11-year solar cycles) called the Modern Warm Period, began at the beginning of the 20^th Century.  The strongest cycle was clearly solar cycle 19.  But the other four were all strong.  The current Grand Solar Minimum is influenced by solar cycles numbered 24 (purple) and 25 (light green) as shown in the graph below…

Solar Cycle 25 progression (green line) compared to 24, 23, 22 & 21 [updated Oct 1, 2021 — solen.info] source Electroverse.

It isn’t hard to understand what caused the pause in the global annual temperature increase which occurred from 2000 to 2015 (which agents of the UN IPCC tried to cover up in the “Climate-gate” scandal) in the light of the impact of lesser active solar cycles numbered 23 and 24.  But while global average temperatures during the period 2016 to the present have remained high, that can possibly be attributed to the strong “El Nino” oceanic effects in the Pacific region.

Third, If we take note of the empirical data, what should we be doing?

Well, this brings up the following question.  Under the “precautionary principle” and in light of the current New Zealand Government’s “Declaration of a Climate Emergency”, one may ask, “what provision has the New Zealand Government made for the possibility of significant global cooling during the new cyclical Grand Solar Minimum?”  This kind of cooling has been a regular 200-year event during the Holocene interglacial period, after all.

For PM Ardern, I appreciate it was clever to call a “Declaration of Climate Emergency” at a time when the weather was so benign that any future changes could be expected to be worse, and it was a good strategic move to appoint a responsible Minister from the Greens party, so there is a scapegoat if/when things turn really cold.  But the fact is that you both simply misled Parliament and the people of New Zealand that you were going with a fake scientific consensus, when since 2018 (when I explained the situation to you) you must, or should have known there was no data to support the fake “science”.

While the weather has always been a mixture of pattern and chaos, the climate (only ever a 30-40 year average of weather conditions) has always warmed and cooled in cyclic fashion.  Expensive sophistry from taxpayer-funded pseudo-scientists could never change that.

So your climate scare tactics (and the lies taught to our children in support of the fraud) continue as justification for the damage being done to an increasing number of essential industry sectors.  After 25 failed and pretentious UN IPCC COP conferences since Kyoto, you must try to understand that to unbiased observers, the UN IPCC doing the same thing over and over – always with a failed result – is either a sign of institutional stupidity or just potential fraud?

During the period 1945 to 1975 the Earth’s climate cooled and yet there was continued annual increases of human carbon emissions and growth in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂.  The fraud you have become implicated in was objectively disproven even before the UN IPCC was established for seemingly improper purposes in 1988!  How can you also not see that?

More importantly, how will you explain your obvious “incompetence” to the New Zealand public?  Politicians telling the scientists what to say and then claiming (when the get the result they asked for – and that we paid for) that they “follow the science”, does not cut it.

Good luck!  I think you are going to need it.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Experienced Fraud Investigator

====================

Knowingly Promoting a Serious Fraud

Knowingly Promoting a Serious Fraud  By John Rofe, via TheBFD.co.nz, 25 July 2021

 

Editor’s note: Please click on above https link to see the two videos included in this post. The following letter was sent by email to all key New Zealand politicians, media and several involved parties.

Dear politicians, law enforcement agencies and members of the media,

In my advice of 17 July 2021 I attached a 2018 letter from the Minister for Climate Change which reads like a draft mens rea defence against my then supposed allegations of fraud.

My letter of 15 May 2019 laid out each substantial criticism of PM Ardern and Minister Shaw’s lack of candour.

My letter of 2 August 2020 substantiated my claim against them for knowingly promoting the alleged fraud. The history was explained.  The facts regarding the true causation of climate change were reinforced. Information was included from the Russian Academy of Sciences which showed the generally accepted science behind climate change, the linkage with the solar sciences and the credible forecast for imminent solar initiated cooling. 

The official report of the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis was included which shows that Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is bankrupt in every respect. After 30 years it is still rejected by the world’s largest emitters of (human) carbon dioxide in sovereign countries where more than 80% of the world’s population resides.

Those countries, supported by both empirical science and economic necessity, will likely never join the  fraud, making this government’s actions a total waste of taxpayer time and money. 

Evidence was furnished showing how the major carbon emitters are deliberately setting out to increase their carbon dioxide emissions as a testament to that fact. The government’s alleged climate fraud will therefore impoverish every New Zealander without any justification other than meeting the objectives of the alleged fraudsters.

To reject the “global warming” fraud absolutely,  evidence was provided that varying cycles of solar activity cause the change in Total Solar Insolation (which comprises 99.9% of Earth’s energy budget) and the impact of ongoing solar variations are moderated by the effects of water, water vapour, clouds and precipitation.  Evidence showed that the power of the water cycle and sun dominate climate change, against which human activity is almost totally insignificant.  

Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have no identifiable impact on climate change. Every private or government carbon trading scheme is consequently a fraudulent enterprise.

I have provided PM Ardern and Minister Shaw every opportunity (on more than 50 occasions) over three years to explain their promotion of what I believe has become the biggest fraud in New Zealand history as a part of what may already be the biggest fraud in human history. 

I am exercising my right as a citizen of good standing to complain about malfeasance at the highest level of our Government.  

I have made every effort to have the NZ Serious Fraud Office, NZ Police and the NZ Ministry of Justice move against this fraud and investigate the actions of those directly complicit. They have turned their backs on my amply justified allegations. I now need to ask: are they being influenced by those to whom they are accountable?

We surely cannot continue with a government that is so poorly advised, and fundamentally ignorant that they have established their own fake climate emergency despite the absence of credible threats.

They knowingly set in place ultra-vires legislation to support their deception. The assurance that human action can influence or change Earth’s climate is just a lie.

In the event that anyone cannot understand some of my earlier written information of 17 July 2021, here are two short YouTube videos which contain some self-evident facts.

andVaclav Klaus (a former President of the Czech Republic) has accurately commented:

“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or Communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. So writes Vaclav Klaus, [former] president of the Czech Republic, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered – Climate Or Freedom? In this brilliantly argued book, Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, and that policies being proposed to address global warming are both economically harmful — especially to poor nations — and utterly unjustified by current science.”

If you are a politician reading this, I hope you will act to restrain the illegitimate conduct of both the named parties and their numerous co-conspirators, having due regard for your duty of care as a sworn member of Parliament, to take action to repeal the various limbs of the fraudulent and therefore ultra vires Zero Carbon legislation.

Given the quantity of information provided, the financial implications of the alleged and proposed fraudulent acts and the importance of this matter, your ignorance, whether real or feigned is not an excuse.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

NZ Citizen and taxpayer

Retired Fraud Investigator

1. Access to the world authorities whose evidence will be required to bring the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change to justice is readily available from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Environomics (NZ) Trust. I am grateful for their support and advice during the course of my investigations.

Please share so others can discover The BFD.

=============================

By John Rofe, Fraud Investigator, Auckland, New Zealand.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2020 12:54 p.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Hon Nikki Kaye’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘peter@lockfinance.co.nz’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Barry Brill’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘John Ansell’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘andrew.laxon@nzme.co.nz’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jim Tucker’
Subject: There is no embargo on the publication of the truth

Dear PM and Minister of Climate Change,

Please find attached a summary of the essential underlying facts after completion of my 15-year enquiry into the Great Global Warming Fraud.

This information may upset you, and if so I apologise for the shock.

In my next email I will provide all the evidence to support my claim that you each – as the Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change – have either failed to do proper due diligence before taking your actions to waste billions of taxpayer dollars, or else are simply committing malfeasance by lying to the public.  Given the warnings provided to you both over a three year period I believe I am justified in using the common term for malfeasance, rather than either “ignorance” or “stupidity”.

The problem for corrupt but powerful people like you is that the courts love empirical scientific evidence that is supported by inter-locking, self-evident truths.  It typically trumps big names, rock-star scientific reputations, foreign conspiracies and popular misconceptions.

Just as a series of Popes in the 16^th and 17^th centuries could not counter the fact that people woke every morning and observed the sun rise in the East then later set in the West, the self-evident truth was always that earth revolves around the sun and it rotates each day.  Luckily I am in the happy position of being able to show the public why your actions are so flawed.  The sun dominates our climate, as well as the climate of all other planets within the solar system.   When the self evident truths that we all see every day of the year are pointed out to the public, the game will be up.  You like everyone else will wonder how you could have been so gullible. 

There has never been any consensus among the scientific community about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because there has never ever been any empirical scientific evidence to support the fraudulent assertions of the UN IPCC.

The leaders of the world’s major (CO2) emitting countries, Messrs Modi, Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping are doubtless already aware of this.  That is why they are likely laughing at our leaders’ stupidity and why Putin is building floating nuclear power stations for the frozen Arctic regions (to ensure cooling water intakes cannot be iced up) while also completing his fleet of huge nuclear powered ice-breakers to cope with what they believe will be the cold of an unfolding Grand Solar Minimum (each ship has greater cost and tonnage than New Zealand’s entire Cook Strait ferry fleets) .  Forget what they say, look at what they are doing.  Their actions are informed by the expectation of cold rather than warmth.  But I don’t wish to buy into whether that will eventuate, although the change they expect seems on track at this point.

The major net CO2 emitters are clearly being differently advised to you, along the lines of this semi-audible 15-minute video clip below.  (Hint … this Russian expert is difficult to understand so you would be well advised to pause the video at each new slide he presents and read the slide while muting his talk.)  He is probably reading directly from it because of his limited English language skills.  At 3.00minutes his graph of the Vostok ice core analysis explains why during the Pleistocene era (the last 2,7 million years) CO2 has never influenced the global climate.  If you also look closely at the graph at 15-mins 23 secs, you will see the reduction in solar activity is exactly today what he predicted many years ago and then consistent again, during his talk in 2014 during the active peak of solar cycle 24.  He has the credibility of any scientist who can predict what is happening to the climate, using the “space weather” to confidently show his client, the Government of the Russian Federation, what they can expect.

Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov has been Director of the Pulkovo observatory and he ran the Russian scientific programme for the International Space Station.  His forecasts for a looming Grand Solar Minimum and “little Ice Age” date back many years and have in November 2019, finally been confirmed by NOAA and NASA.  I guess those two organisations are both now trying to work out how to escape their roles in the UN IPCC conspiracy as this email is being written.

For the last few years I have been monitoring the accuracy of Dr Abdussamatov’s predictions from the data shown on www.spaceweather.com .

Also from the work of several others.

At the end of June 2020 the world is still warm, if marginally cooler than it was during the previous months, however, the highly subjective and grossly inaccurate models that the UN IPCC use as the basis for their fraud are no substitute for the observed data.  This unimpeachable graph from the NASA satellites below shows the climate isn’t facing unprecedented warmth, despite deliberate lies to the contrary.  Nor is there any climate crisis as the changes are within natural variability.

The UN IPCC’s accepted models show three times the warming shown in the above graph.  You back their inaccurate and subjective models, I back the empirical data. 

The first news organisation or political party to agree to widely publish the attached page will get access to the “smoking gun” evidence that I hold…. before you do.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Private Fraud Investigator

See article on why whistleblowers are not heart: Many Whistleblowers – Yet Nothing to be Heard

---

===========================

A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

As Albert Einstein is reputed to have said: 

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Now think it through for yourself:

It is illogical to consider that three relatively ineffectual human-influenced greenhouse gases which in total are less than 4% of the volume of the far more potent gas (water vapour) can drive climate change, just because a group of bureaucrats at the United Nations say that it is “settled science”.  If one investigator, acting alone, can see through this fraud, then the New Zealand scientists have not performed any effective due diligence.

The Great Global Warming Fraud costs OECD countries between USD1-2 trillion every year.

The most important things you need to know are:

• Methane and Nitrous Oxide have never had any proven impact on the earth’s climate.
• Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (“CO2”) is a more prolific greenhouse gas but…
  • There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has ever had a material effect on earth’s climate.  The UN and their supporters have never offered any. Nor can they.
  • The proportion of CO2 emissions that humans influence is less than 5% of the total.
  • The main source of CO2 emissions is “ocean out-gassing” when it is warm.
  • CO2 is subject to the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics and therefore any thermal impact was almost saturated at the pre-industrial atmospheric level of 280ppm in 1850. 
  • CO2 is not a pollutant and “zero carbon” entails the end of all complex life on earth.
• There was never any consensus to support this fraud…  http://www.petitionproject.org/
• There is no climate crisis…  https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
• Plants thrive with three times current levels of atmospheric CO2, (arguably in short supply).
• The “Milankovich cycles” drive the 100,000-year climate cycles of ice ages and inter-glacials.
• In between, climate change is dominated by the sun which supplies 99.5% of earth’s energy.
• The Solar Cycles conform to the Holocene pattern of 200-year periods of extreme cold.
• The great majority of the earth’s population is led by people who don’t bow to this fraud.
• Few of those who signed up to the Paris accords have either the intention or ability to comply.  It is impossible for New Zealand, even with total support, to get any value from this.

I warned the Government in 2018 of their likely complicity in a serious fraud.  The Minister prevaricated so I warned him in 2019 of the actionable basis for a possible fraud complaint. 

As a result of their intransigence, I now see no alternative than to accuse the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern and the Honourable James Shaw of both fraud and deceptive and miss-leading conduct.  I stand ready to support those serious accusations, as and when called upon to do so.

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator                                                        Auckland, New Zealand,  10.7.2020

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2020 12:40 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: Really Big frauds inevitably require bigger and bigger lies…then the child soldiers are weaponised once the biggest lie of all loses its credibility

Hi Politicians,

Each of you, by signature to the Zero Carbon legislation is now guilty of fraud; and of both complicity in, and actively promoting carbon trading Ponzi schemes.  These are criminal offences and I am directly accusing you of at least being accessories to criminality, along with Antonio Guterres and his fellow travellers.

I have told you before, there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be laid bare to public scrutiny and opprobrium.   So you need to come clean.

If not, then gather your evidence (if any real evidence exists) and lets litigate.  I simply want evidence that human CO2 emissions have any material effect on climate change.  After two years of asking for this I will continue to accuse you of fraud until you deliver it.  As a taxpayer I am entitled to an explanation for your actions – as is everyone.

From 15+ years of my research into the spurious UN IPCC claims, I have found there is no justification for any spending on attempting to reduce “climate change” because the only measurable effects of the human use of the fossil fuels since 1850 has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increased wealth and well-being of all humanity from abundant and cheap energy and the greening of planet earth as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.  But because of the long duration of CO2 within the atmosphere, and because human actions account for less than 4.3% of all CO2 emissions (as accepted by UN IPCC) there is absolutely no possibility of confidence that a reduction in human emissions could cause the future level of atmospheric CO2 to fall.  Natural variability could even cause it to increase, despite controlled draconian global attempts at human reduction, which will never happen.

As there are still far more countries planning to increase CO2 emissions than those trying either successfully or unsuccessfully to control them, there is zero chance of any credible reduction in human emissions being made within the next 10-20 years.

The only thing your misguided actions can achieve is to destroy the reputation of science and the scientific method, to go hand in hand with destruction of our economy.  All this to bring about the enrichment of a few of your fellow travellers and higher energy costs for those least able to afford them.

Each adult human inhales a tiny 400 ppm of CO2 to go with 20% O2.  We exhale air heated to body temperature, with 100% relative humidity and CO2 emissions at 4% (or 40,000ppm).  So our inhalations cleanse and oxygenate our blood and we emit 100 times the CO2 we inhaled.  The oxygen exhaled is reduced to 15% or less.  Given the weight of CO2, we each exhale about 360kgs of CO2 per annum.  Animals many time more – or less.  What do you want to do?  Tax us for our exhalations?

Contrary to your advice from the UN IPCC and your ignorant cabal of “junk” scientists, (by both satellite imagery and experimentation) the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already benefitted all plant life, and will continue to do so.  It increases the vigour of plant growth and makes all plants more drought resistant.  There is and has never been any evidence that CO2 is a pollutant and together with water and oxygen, CO2 is one of three reasons that complex life exists on earth, whereas it exists nowhere else in the solar system.  If the atmospheric CO2 concentration falls to 150ppm  or less, then all life on earth will die and the carbon cycle may end.

We are carbon-based life forms and our extinction as an apex mammal would likely be an early effect of low atmospheric CO2.

There has never been any evidence that CO2 has either been a significant influence on climate change as atmospheric CO2 levels have always been a trailing indicator of major temperature fluctuations for as long as scientists could perform their experiments and calculations.  It is generally accepted that ocean de-gassing of CO2 occurs when it is warming, and conversely taking up more CO2  when the atmosphere has been cooling, is the cause for this.  There is even a lag time due to the fact that the ocean takes longer to take up heat and to cool, than does land.

The solar and space weather sciences, together with all the known history of the solar cycles and the Milankovich cycles are an extra-terrestrial cause for the variations in earth’s climate and together with the attempts within the seas and atmosphere to equalise heat distribution as the earth rotates, these account for climate change and  remove any justification for your erroneous presumption that humans have a significant effect on climate.  Localised warming yes, but it dissipates with no significant, measurable effect on climate change.  The extremely active solar cycles of the 20^th century alone account for the increases in temperature of earth’s climate during the modern warm period, which despite the deliberate “official”  doctoring of temperature records have only achieved a total increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade between the year 1850 and December 2019.  That is, over a period of 169 years.  So the average increase during that period is well within natural variability.  Forecasts of sea level rise and atmospheric heating made by the UN IPCC junk scientists are simply ridiculous.  But they do show that junk scientists will do anything for money.  Yet still, one by one, they defect.

For politicians of any colour to support the fraud, you must first be prepared to believe that an improbable theory promulgated to advantage sectional interests is superior to the existence of the Beer-Lambert Law of science, because that law already relegates all increases in CO2 to having an inconsequential impact on thermal uptake and therefore climate, at even the pre-industrial levels (i.e. about 280ppm).  Atmospheric CO2 is already thermally saturated and can provide no significant future effect within an enormous time horizon.

You have been taken for idiots by a small group of extremely well paid and funded scientists, UN politicians and their bureaucrats, most of whom have no idea about climate science.  Simply put…from the Google search below… the “we” is you…

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”

“(Sir Walter Scott) Whenever we deceive others, in order to make things better for ourselves in the moment, we deceive ourselves most of all.Oct 25, 2017 “

If you want to prove that human CO2 emissions have a dominant effect on climate, meet me in court.  I will be happy to litigate this as soon as you are ready.  I want a trial date…so come and get me before I go public, along the lines of my 1 January trial run in the NZ Herald.  A copy of that is at the top of the page.

Your fraud is now pretty obvious, and all the world’s delusional Greta Thunbergs cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry.  Now your “tangle” only gets tortuous as any fair-minded person would accept from the detail below…

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

The following advertisement was placed in the NZ Herald Public Notices on 1 January 2020:

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 2:08 p.m.
To: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: Merry Christmas

Dear politicians,

In 2018 I warned of the dire consequences of failing to check the science you rely on for public policy settings over climate change.  I warned of the climate phenomena appearing that supported the narrative that we are probably moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.

In 2019 I laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office and the NZ Commerce Commission regarding your demonstrably false climate change narrative.  Naturally the complaints came to nothing.  I noted the radical shortening of the Northern growing seasons that have further reduced for each year from 2017, 2018 and again in 2019.  I commented on the signs that food shortages will soon loom large due to cold climate crop losses.  The only certainty at this point is that food costs will head much higher in 2020, because despite shortages, we humans can possibly adapt to cope and farmers will now start changing their cropping choices.

In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25.  So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important.  NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.

1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted).  These consist of three separate cycles referred to as “the Tilt variation of earth from the sun”, “the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space”, and “Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun”.  Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen.  Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the “Holocene”, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years.  A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due.  It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945.  No-one actually knows when it will happen.

2. Within the Holocene period,  The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred.  So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum.  There are possibly two certainties that will affect us.  The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time.  The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.

3.  Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events.  The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island…. as and when it occurs.

4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ.  Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of “the Little Ice Age” (which ran from about 1280AD – 1870AD).  They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China.  Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning.  As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.

5.  Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979.  Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.

6.  So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate

This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055.  Some believe it will last much longer.  The data supports this conclusion.  The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change.  So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.

The principle indicator of solar electromagnetic activity is visible to humans by virtue of the number of sunspots appearing on the face of the sun each day.  These are carefully counted and conform to maxima and minima based on the stage of the eleven year solar cycles.  Solar minimums are marked by no sunspots appearing for days or even months.  There is a huge and growing body of solid science surrounding this topic.

If we look at the regular eleven year minimum that occurred between solar cycles 23 and 24, there have been 70 sunspot free days in 2006 (or 19 %), in 2007 there have been 152 sunspot free days (or 42 %) and in 2008 there were 268 days (or 73%).  In the tail end of solar cycle 24 there have been considerably more sunspot-free days.  With 2017 at  104 days (compared with 70 in sc23), in 2018 at 220 days (compared with 152 in sc23).  With the year almost up in 2019 the percentage of spot-free days already stands at 76% compared with 73% in 2008.  This signals how the sun is rapidly becoming less active.  From the attached link to a schematic of solar cycles you can see how the eleven year solar cycles vary and in particular the low sunspot numbers of the Dalton Minimum in the early 19^th century.

https://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

The reduced solar activity has a number of effects.  First the Total Solar Insolation which strikes earth’s atmosphere is reduced.  The second is that the earth’s Thermosphere tends to thin and become colder.  This  variation to earths outer temperature is indicative of what is to come… as we move towards the solar minimum in 2020…

“Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 3.26×10¹⁰ W Cold
Max: 49.4×10¹⁰ W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10¹⁰ W Cold (02/2009)
explanation | more data: gfx, txt
Updated 08 Dec 2019”

With reduced solar activity, the solar wind drops.  It is the solar wind which keeps cosmic rays from flooding the galaxy.  The solar wind is also the reason the tails of comets point away from the sun and not at the direction the comet has come from.  So a key measure of the space weather is the solar wind strength and density…

“Solar wind
speed: 353.3km/sec
density: 5.0protons/cm³
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 2116 UT”

There are always cosmic rays intruding in our atmosphere and they result in the increased nucleation of water vapour into low level clouds.  The cloud cover is the primary reflective umbrella for earth, with usually about 65% cloud cover.  So only about 56% of the sun’s rays hit the earth’s surface and any contribution to increasing cloud cover has a net cooling effect.

The Earth is once again being bombarded by the highest intrusion of cosmic rays for the space age…

https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/02/21/cosmic-rays-increasing-for-the-4th-year-in-a-row/

This below is a snap shot of the current stats from www.spaceweather.com that suggest to me the highest influx of galactic cosmic rays will occur in 2020-2021.

“Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +10.9% Very High
7-day change: +3.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
explanation | more data
Updated 08 Dec 2019 @ 1800 UT”

The solar electromagnetic variation affects earth’s magnetosphere and there is some evidence that the tectonic plates are affected by the changed gravitational effects and by the effect of cosmic rays on sub-surface magma.  However I am not sure how reliable the correlations are between Grand Solar Minimums and volcanism.  Even so the fact that 80% of all volcanoes are under the oceans and they have the potential to heat deep ocean water in a way the surface temperatures cannot, suggests they may have a far greater impact on New Zealand’s eventual weather than anyone acknowledges.  Our climate is maritime by nature, so we are less likely to be affected by cooling solar influences while our oceans remain warm.

So to summarise, the likely effects of the space weather on the climate of earth includes:

1. Variations in Total Solar Insolation (not very large but certainly these are grossly under-rated by the UN IPCC).

2. Variations in the Thermosphere Climate Index because when it cools and thins, the loss of heat at night via infra-red radiation will be greater.

3. Variations in the cosmic ray influx affecting the formation of low level cloud.  This is a climatic feature attributed to large scale flooding and heavy snows during Grand Solar Minimums.

4.  There is a poorly understood effect on both the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere jet streams which leads to them slowing and meandering closer to the Equator.  This leads to reduced temperatures where the loops venture into lower latitudes and higher  temperatures in the higher latitudes when the jet streams venture outside their normal routes.  Historically, we are told this accounts for the massive floods of the so-called “Dark Ages” and the “Little Ice Age”.

From what I can tell from the historical records, the advent of a 200 year cyclic Grand Solar Minimum doesn’t seem to dramatically alter the earth’s average temperature, but it does alter the climate of normally temperate or warm zones.  Hence the snowing in places like the Serengeti, the Sahara and Saudi Arabia in 2018.

In 2019 the effects of the “Eddy” Grand Solar Minimum have become obvious and this has led to recognition by NASA  that the earth is headed for a period of cooling.  Yet all mention of the solar cycles is still absolutely banned from mention in the mainstream media.

Russia and China are already taking emergency steps to protect their food supplies.

Yet you remain asleep at the wheel.   New Zealand is exposed, despite the kindness of our maritime climate.

So may I suggest you give this some thought when you are choosing what to read during your Christmas holidays.  Books by John L Casey such as “Cold Sun” or “Dark Winter” from your local library could be a good start.

Anyway,  I have retired as a Justice of the Peace to eliminate any suggestions of conflict of interest when I plan my year of action.  So 2020 is going to be a whole new “ball game” for me.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:46 a.m.
To: ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’
Cc: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: The abject fear of answering three simple questions

Hi Newshounds,

Humour me.  You will find it worthwhile…because you too were either fooled into drinking the populist Koolaid about climate change, or there are powers that control your news reporting that make our world an Orwellian nightmare, and our freedoms lost.  More factual evidence has been presented in previous submissions .

We have entered an era where there are today, arguably more than five times the number of “scientists” who have ever lived before them.  Many ignore the “scientific method” when it is more convenient to “lose it”.  The contestability test is subordinated to the popularity of a theory.

They now tell us which toothpaste to use and which drugs are good and which are bad,  and in most cases they espouse an undisclosed business, or political reason for doing so.  This deception is nowhere more prevalent than the area of climate science where fake news is promoting an orthodox agenda of various trans-national groups, and now this and its sub plots have become the biggest-ever fraud in human history.  Real conservation has been prostituted in favour of fakery.  Yet the science at the heart of the paradigm is missing and can never be discussed in polite company.

And now we have the 11,000 pseudo-scientists’ report – really a blog opinion piece with the “likes” of others signified – heralded as yet another scientific breakthrough.

This is the latest of the faux authoritative scientific studies… https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

The surveyor of opinions was an obscure forestry blog site at Oregon U., masquerading as a reputable international group of scientists,  and an initial critique is contained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=youtu.be

The survey was treated as a learned and peer reviewed research paper, whereas it was really a simple survey of folk who may for whatever reason be willing to share the writers’ opinions and while ‘Professor Mickey Mouse’ and ‘Professor Albus Dumbledore’ of Harry Potter fame were originally respondents, the list was edited to remove anyone who didn’t look worth the “powder and shot” to present their survey. The pruning supposedly was very severe.

This is a critique…  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html

To check the criticism I have just waded through the entire 323 pages of the names of the “11,000” so-called “knowledgeable scientists” (following editing) providing the latest faux warning of climate Armageddon at this link below.  

 

The kindest things I can say about the New Zealand based contributors to the survey is this:

1. They seem to be well educated, but generally do not seem to have relevant experience in the subject matter of the dire warning to humanity.

2. I doubt they can have known that they were click bait for promoting eugenics as part of this.

3. Of the 230+  Kiwis who put their names, occupations and employment details forward in the survey, there would be less than 5 (possibly only 2) with relevant climate science qualifications and experience who I would wish to consult on this subject.

4. The largest cadre were computer scientists, either Emeritus Professors, Professors, Associate Professors, computer analysts or Lecturers (I suppose they must therefore receive some NZ Government  incentive for noting their agreement to the questionnaire).  Lots of people who work for the NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research popped up too….did someone organise mass support for the individual “likes”? 

5. I couldn’t find any names of the NZ climate scientists I am familiar with.

But I will give the Kiwi respondents the benefit of the doubt because among these folk, there must surely be at least one who can answer the following questions that none of the known climate scientists can answer (certainly not the PM’s science adviser – Professor Juliet Gerrard – see also the letter from the CEO of the Environomics (NZ) Trust above):

1.  What empirical evidence is there that changes in the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide are able to alter the climate and what evidence is there that it ever has to date?  (After all, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm since the end of “the Little Ice Age” in 1880, to 415ppm at the present date so surely there is clear evidence one way or the other?)

2. What evidence is there that human emissions of CO2 and CH4 act as atmospheric pollutants?

3. What evidence is there that it is possible for humans to reduce the atmospheric level of CO2 by a sufficient amount to reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature by even one tenth of one degree Centigrade below that which would otherwise obtain from natural causes or the actions of others, by the year 2100?

In 2020 these questions will be a big deal for the PM and the Minister of Climate Change.  You see I am not only a private fraud investigator but I already warned them last year that these are essential planks that support the legitimacy or criminality of their actions.  Failing to answer which, they are at best promoting a fraud, because you see, they say they are implementing policies because the UN IPCC says they should.  No-one, anywhere in the world has, or would be brave enough (or perhaps stupid enough) to provide answers to the three questions I have been asking over the 40 years that this runaway deception has been rolling….

If I were sick of drinking beer and said the only reason I drink it is because “Big Terry” drinks it, that would be OK.   But I am not hurting anyone by failing to make enquiry of my options.

But the response from the Minister of Climate Change (that I have in writing) admits he is committed to his course of action because the UN IPCC and their tame cabal of supposedly orthodox scientists says he should.   And that is not OK because it is the least financially robust of our citizens who will ultimately bear the cost of this fraud.

So who is running this government programme?    PM Jacinda Ardern regards this “fraud” (my word not hers) as her administration’s defining issue.  So why is she going to waste billions of our money to satisfy her and past PM Helen Clark’s Socialist mates at the UN – when there is not a scintilla of scientific justification and yet huge cost?   The ploy of claiming the science is proven when it isn’t, is not a tenable position for our activist government to take when damaging whole industry sectors.  Ministers of the Crown have a fiduciary duty of care to act for proper purpose and I argue that in the case of their climate change bigotry they are not…or at least cannot possibly….demonstrate they are doing so.

In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: “Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the ‘nuclear moment for this generation.” What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science.”Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know “Jacinda’s speech was a pack of lies.”

LINK

If you look at my previous correspondence it isn’t that I have not given the Government fair warning.  What we, the people must demand is the truth about the core issue.  This is not about partisan politics nor a criticism of National and NZ First folding their principles to a wasteful piece of legislation.

If the answers to three simple questions are provided and these do actually hold water, I will go quietly into the night.

But remember that in exercising your power of editing or ignoring this information, you have already, by accident or design, ignored numerous warnings of climate Armageddon that have been proven wrong year after year, since 1989 and some before, including Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh, several heads of the United Nations and heads of global corporations.

So we have a dominant paradigm that is nothing more than a 40 year fraud, with numerous subsidiary frauds appended to it.

As Jack Nicholson’s character said in “A Few Good Men”,  “The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!”

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2019 5:55 p.m.
To: ‘todd.muller@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘scott.simpson@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘simon.bridges@national.org.nz‘; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz‘
Subject: A short look at Vladimir’s view of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum contrasted with that of a knowledgeable US farmer
Importance: High

Gentlemen,

It is still too early to see what sort of damage is occurring in the Northern hemisphere due to the approach of the Eddy Minimum.  But the folk at the web site Adapt 2030 have the best window on the 2019 crop losses at this 4 minute video below.  The losses in 2017 and 2018 were not visible because inventory movements masked them.  This year may be the first of many where that becomes impossible…

https://youtu.be/hUOBKTarY5Y

The weather these folk speak of is only relevant, insofar as the early autumnal blizzards are covering crops before they can be harvested.  So every USDA and other forecast of crop levels is being sequentially reduced as they factor in more and more bad news.  How serious will it get? It is too early to tell.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin know exactly what is happening.  The Chinese have more than 2,000 years of records of solar cycles and can point to the critical impacts of Grand Solar Minimums, like the current one.  There is a near precise correlation between these and the famines that have affected China for the last two millennia .  Matching that timing has been the sequential overthrow of the Chinese dynasties.  Xi Jinping’s planning is obvious and has been underway for at least ten years.  He knows they have not done enough and are being forced to talk trade with Trump in order to get supplies from a US President who doesn’t yet know that he may not have the supplies to meet even a USD50 billion order (or so the American farmers believe).  But for his government Xi knows what is coming is a potentially existential threat for the CCP.

But today I will restrict this email to Russia.  Their space agency collects the same space weather data that NASA does in the USA.  Putin’s principle adviser if the head of the Pulkovo observatory, and the head of the Russian space programme for the International Space Station – a guy called Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov.

I don’t want you to read this stuff at the link below in detail, but a glance would be informative.  It is indicative of the depth of understanding the Russians have for a subject that is strictly banned in the Western media while, the UN pursues global hegemony – focused on warming rather than either the facts or the science.  This is a link to some of his research…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdussamatov

and

 

The actions of the Russian Government are pretty transparent to anyone monitoring the international media (that part which is not affected by Soros, Turner, the Rothschilds and their affiliated three deep state cabals).   While PM Scott Morrison of Australia recently took a firm line with the UN interference in Australian policy two weeks ago (and it never got into the NZ media), three months ago a lecture was given to the Russian press corps by Sergei Lavrov on what the government saw as the biggest existential threat to the Russian Federation – the New World Order being promoted by the UN and the same deep state actors that control the Western media.

Meantime, President Putin has focused his international diplomacy on making friends with every country to the South of Russia and with China.  The Middle East is the new theatre of influence as Russia realises growing seasons will keep shortening.  The strategy to capture the Crimean Peninsula was part of this as was his support for Syrian President Assad.  Murmansk in the West, Syria in the South, Iran in the near East and Vladivostok in the East are strategically linked to the North by his six tiny ice-breakers (a joke)… each has two large nuclear power plants pushing huge propellers, and because the Western Siberian oilfield is substantially depleted, they are following the field offshore into the Kara Sea.  So he has oil tankers to be towed through sheet ice from time to time.  Here is a short video of one of them…does it look like he expects the Arctic Sea Ice to disappear any time soon?

https://youtu.be/bKaVhXn49xY

At home the emergency food planning has been in place for some time.  While Putin has made a big thing about helping the Chinese out, his resource is limited.  But the build of granaries has been well under way and with Grand Solar Minimums the cold is not linear, there will be good years during the 11 year solar cycles and bad years …but more bad years than usual.  Subject to restrictions and embargoes he is reducing the US dollar debt he is holding and converting it into gold, increasing Russia’s bullion holdings, year on year.  He has built and deployed one floating nuclear power station which will be based in the Russian Arctic.  More may follow.

Elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere, regional rivals, PM Modi and PM Khan also understand what is happening but their preparations are less effectual.  Already hit by extensive flooding, peasant farmers will do the best they can.

The farming communities in Europe, USA, Japan and elsewhere are waking up because farmers are on the front line.  Every time there are crop losses the farmers become twitchy.  They lose their farms.  In New Zealand, ours’ is a maritime climate and with warm seas (relatively) we have a farming holiday for a little while longer.

But for the entire continent of North America on average, the 2019 harvest will be a huge disaster.  We have not been allowed by our news media to know that the period from October 2018 to May 2019 has been the coldest and also the wettest in over 100 years.  With growing seasons shortening each year for the last three years.  The Chinese are aware of this and yet they will still try to wring every shipload of oats, soya beans, corn, rice, hogs etc from the USA that they can get.  They have also increased their buying from Canada, who will similarly experience difficulties meeting the Chinese purchase orders.  This will affect New Zealand because when we changed Canterbury farms from cereals to dairy, we became dependent on Australia.  This year Australia plans to import from Canada and will not be an exporter at all.

Some North American farmer blog sites are full of the unfolding drama.  This particular farmer in the link below usually chronicles the moves in the weather extremes and comments on the harvest data.  But in this link he unloads on the causation.  From my knowledge of what is happening, he isn’t far wrong…

https://youtu.be/jbsslmdxvhc

The Eddy Grand Solar Minimum is something we cannot change but we can plan for how it will affect our country.  Perhaps the first thing for your shadow ministers is to understand that Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a fraud.  It has nothing to do with the science or climate, because it is just about transference of the power of national governments to the UN.

The second thing is to have at least one of each of your assistant’s, take an interest in the data appearing on  www.spaceweather.com .  The left hand third of the web site pages is devoted to the unfolding statistics.  The sun is now the quietest it has been since the beginning of the space age and this solar minimum is still deepening.

Can I draw your attention to my summary of the cause of climate change as per the two MS Word documents attached above.

You will see from that and the Farmer’s graphs that the true cause of the “Modern Warm Period” following the end of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1850, was the extraordinary solar activity of the 20^th century.  The sun was then its most active in at least 4,000 years.  That isn’t hypothesis, it is published solar science.

I do hope you make good use of this or at least have your staff do so.

By Christmas we will probably know the true dimension of the unfolding crop losses.  I hope I am wrong.  The last time there was a Grand Solar Minimum (the Dalton Minimum) the global population was only about 950 million.  Then most people grew their own food and did not have brittle supply chains and JIT planning.  How will we get on with 7.7 billion?

It will be bad, but just how bad?  We must wait for Christmas.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

A Concerned Citizen.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2019 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘news@press.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘contact@comcom.govt.nz’
Subject: The truth always comes out sooner or later

Dear Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change,

This email will provide people with an opportunity to choose sides, whether to be “part of the problem or part of the solution”.

I hope those who receive this long message will take the time to print it and its attachments, and also take the time to view any video footage it contains.  You have had time to verify the science and there seems no point in allowing you to continue to attack the New Zealand economy in support of whatever your true ends may be.  So I will publish this as widely as I can.

This email is about the New Zealand section of the biggest and most egregious political crime in human history, now requiring an urgent political solution.  But I think many who receive this email will already know that.  You also know that.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

Last week a sub-set of the world’s real scientists provided a rebuttal to the climate alarmism you espouse so fervently…

 

Yet you will ignore it and shrug off its logic.  For me?  I am just a fraud investigator, so I have sat between the competing perspectives of science, to form my own view of the facts irrespective of my financial interests.  You will ignore these at your peril.

Please find attached above in two single page Word documents, the core summary of the climate facts, together with a copy of the satellite temperatures since the tamper-proof records began in 1979.  There is no climate crisis.  There is no man-made global warming.  There is no need to demonise the naturally occurring gases CO2 and CH4 as pollutants, when they are both essential to the survival of all species on planet earth and already in short supply for plant life.  There is no need to drive worried farmers to either depression or off their land.

My allegations of fraud against you are simple and easily substantiated by the facts of your complicity.

Supporting Background Information

15 years ago I started investigating this criminality from the standpoint of a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming theory and wanted to know why people rebelled against a logical perspective of science that was claimed to be so settled.  Alas, the first thing I discovered was the only reason the science was claimed to be “settled” was because it couldn’t stand any real scrutiny.  It was always a simple political scam as scams go – as simple as the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where the mythical tailors wanting the king’s money, claimed only fools could see the King was wearing no clothes at all. 

So by 2003 when the theory was comprehensively disproven, the UN IPCC backers changed the term for “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and then set out to claim there was a consensus supporting the science…. and then began to demonise the vast body of serious scientists as “Climate Change Deniers”.   The UN IPCC and their backers’ power base is so huge,  obvious and corrupt, as they secured for their “anointed ones” 3 Nobel Peace Prizes and 1 Nobel Prize for Economics…and locked false scientific claims within Wikipedia.  From BBC to “Stuff”  no major media organisation will now allow the truth to be spoken. 

How sick is that?  Science is meant to thrive on scrutiny, yet this junk science does not.

The Great Global Warming Fraud has only been possible for four reasons…

1. We humans do warm our surroundings with a mixture of exotic and natural fuels.

2. We humans have no idea about the composition and chemistry of the air we breathe or how our exhalations are valued by other life forms.  Air is simply taken for granted.

3. We humans are so successful that since 1750, humans and their livestock have gone from comprising about 7% of the world’s land mammals to over 98%;  leaving a trail of species extinctions and pollution behind as we have done so.  Now we worry about resource depletion and over-full waste sinks.

4. We want to do the right thing to “save the planet” and eagerly follow any sensible consensus on how to do that.

More than a year ago I started writing to the three of you (our NZ Government’s coalition leaders), to warn you that you could soon – by your actions – become accessories to the Great Global Warming Fraud.  This was met with distain as per the attached message from Minister Shaw who seemed unfazed by the allegations of fraud I made… (see the Adobe file linked above).  But I did recognise that as a well-rehearsed legal defence against probable fraud charges.

Because your responsible Minister prevaricated, I laid a complaint with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in April 2019 and followed that up with complaints about the misconduct of your Minister of Climate Change (and his political party) to the NZ Commerce Commission.  On 15 May 2019, (see the fourth linked Word document above) I made sure you understood the substance of my complaint, by copy of a letter sent to Minister Shaw and your Deputy PM, which noted three causes of potential criminal action regarding your deliberate and false misrepresentations and the fact that criminality in another jurisdiction is no excuse for committing crimes within New Zealand… 

The causes of action where you now stand accused ( or from your point of view, seek vindication) are simply… 

1.            That changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) have no impact on climate change.

2.            That carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is not a pollutant, but a gas essential for all life on earth. CH4 rapidly converts to H2O and CO2, upon contact with the atmosphere.

3.            Your “climate change” spending cannot possibly have any measurable impact on earth’s climate.

You, together with your international associates have dreamed up a non-existent crisis that will soon be revealed for all to see as a simple fraud from which the various Ponzi schemes grow and for a time will thrive – but to no legitimate purpose.   When the weather once again changes into severe cooling mode, to reflect the ever-changing solar cycles that drive earth’s climate, the public will react against your obvious lies and lose confidence in you and all politicians. 

Because I have some investments which may already be benefitting from the Great Global Warming Fraud, I was persuaded by some friends to call you to account.  Frankly,  I don’t want to benefit from your criminality, if your actions are proven to be so.  Nor do I want to abandon my renewable energy investments. 

But how did I go from being a believer in the well-orchestrated  lies, to being an active sceptic, now demanding your immediate resignation?

1.  In 1998 a survey of reputable scientists was performed that revealed 31,487, including more than 7,000 with PhD qualifications, had no time for the theory that the modern warming is man-made.

2.  I found the regularly used mantra that  “97% of all scientists supporting the UN IPCC science”  to be a subsidiary fraud and when I looked at the sources being given for the fictional consensus, I found them to be total garbage.

3.  The hyping of sea level change to a height which is thermodynamically impossible was a worry for me.

4.  The reduction in Arctic sea ice extent is being over-hyped.  These days the UN IPCC simply chooses dates to begin sea ice graphs at a date when the ice extent and thickness reached a cyclic maximum and thereby uses the subsequent downward trend to deliberately mislead the public.  The UN IPCC sea ice graphs begin in 1979 when the earth’s climate had cooled significantly from the early 1940’s.  If they had started in 1972 they would see that NASA has satellite photos of the sea ice at the end of that summer melt that were almost identical to the extent the satellite photo at the end of the 2018 summer melt.  I have viewed all those photos and am aware the sea ice extent was far less in 1941 and 1942 when the Arctic convoys ferried supplies from the UK to Murmansk.

5.  In the last 3 years the ice load on Greenland has grown by about 1.2 trillion tonnes.  Where is that in the news?  It does have an effect on sea levels whereas sea ice has no effect.

6.  The polar bears were being hunted to extinction in 1967 and so in 1973 the Arctic Treaty nations placed a moratorium on hunting, save for limited Inuit rights in Canada.  Since then their numbers have grown to the point where they now actively predate on Inuit villages, who want culling to be reintroduced.  Polar bears survived and prospered during the Holocene climate maximum called the “Minoan Warm Period”, through the “Roman Warm Period” and the “Mediaeval Warm Period”.  These warm periods were all considerably warmer than our climate is today.  So fear mongering about the impact on polar bears from loss of sea ice is facile.  The same with so-called “all time heat records” that can only be described in derisory terms. 

6.  When polar bears attack the huge herds of walrus on dry land, some walrus have throughout recorded history been seen to get pushed off cliffs by the crush of others.  They breathe the same air that we do so they prefer to haul out in large numbers (for protection) on dry land near their shallow feeding grounds.  We are told they are sad about climate change.  How can they be?  They are thriving, just like the polar bears. 

7.  Obviously naive funding agencies can get any report they want from venal scientists if those scientists’ tenure is at stake or they are paid enough.  Lysenkoism is extant everywhere I look within the OECD and I despair when watching TV to see yet another phony scientist coming up with implausible studies, which have been funded on the sole basis that they will reinforce the UN IPCC disinformation.

What are the Russians, Indians and Chinese doing to comply with this man-made global warming hoax and with the Paris Accords?  Heck, they don’t even believe the UN IPCC dogma even though they profit from it.  They have each been preparing for the coming Grand Solar Minimum for at least the last 5-10 years.  Look at their preparations.  If you don’t believe me, you could try Googling  the name of  Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov (the scientist who runs the Pulkovo observatory and the Russia programmes on the International Space Station – Vladimir Putin listens to his advice) and you will be able to understand the Russian strategies in the Middle East, why they have built a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers capable of towing oil tankers through 2 metre thick sheet ice, and why they needed to annex Crimea…all part of the same strategy.  “Winter is coming, Jon Snow!”

It is the same with China and their “String of Pearls” and Silk Road  construction,  together with the diversification of food sources into South America and Africa.  They are already in food trouble that will manifest this winter.  They have records that show whenever there has been a cyclic “Grand Solar Minimum” over the last 2,000 years there has also been both famine and the collapse of China’s major dynasties.  They accept Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions, given the changes now underway.  I can neither confirm nor reject those forecasts of approaching cold, but you must be made aware that others who have expert knowledge now consider them valid and urgent.

Check this desperate cry for help from Australian sceptics as they pay higher and higher power prices that are based on policies grounded on fraud and disinformation…(This is shown in the third attached Word document above)…

How many of those 31, 487 scientists who have dissented from the UN IPCC’s  politically inspired disinformation programme are allowed to give TV or newspaper commentaries?  Only one in a thousand.  Each year, more of those who work on the mischievously inaccurate computer models on which the overhyped heating claims by the UN IPCC rest, defect to the sceptic camp providing information on how desperately flowed the models and resulting forecasts really are.  The sceptics are either ignored or driven from their jobs, denied publication of their learned, peer reviewed scientific papers and treated like “holocaust deniers” by the likes of smug, self satisfied media presenters who refer to their legitimate scepticism by the derogatory term “Climate Change Deniers”.  Sceptics are never allowed to write the truth about the subject of climate change by mainstream media publications (including such as the NZ Herald and other rags, in favour of “puff pieces” of no journalistic or scientific merit.  These do get taken to print without question or scrutiny, as feedstock of alarmism from overseas newspapers and such climate experts as Past PM Helen Clark.  But her late 2018 NZ Herald article did strike me as indicative that her actions should also have been under scrutiny during her term in office.

Finding such a  cloud of obfuscation  is “meat and veg.” to any true fraud investigator, this is the sort of stuff that points directly to a false narrative which is collapsing, as the lies become less and less credible to a greater proportion of those singled out to be its victims.

I believe I know what has caused the modern warming.  I believe I know what is going to cause the imminent period of cooling.   Sadly for whatever your political intentions may be, the feared cooling is already starting in the Northern hemisphere and were it not for the UN IPCC’s  PR machine, everyone would already know about the threat this cooling poses to global food supplies – all too soon. Perhaps that will change, but there are signs that earth’s Thermosphere is thinning and cooling, so if that worries the people at NASA and NOAA, it should concern you too.   If you actually do know this stuff, then throwing young school children into the front lines of your struggle looks more like an act of desperation and cowardice on your part … the last throw of the dice to deflect allegations of your government’s complicity in an international power play to assert UN control against the primacy of national sovereignty.

If you aspirations were honest, you would have asked the population to vote on whether they want our government to be dominated by the UN.  Instead you choose to prostitute climate science as if it were a global emergency that only the UN could fix.

But whether it is warming or cooling, the changes to earth’s climate are only resulting from natural causes.  If the truth does interest you, may I suggest you have your staff analyse and monitor the web site – www.spaceweather.com.  Even NOAA, an organisation closely enmeshed in the UN IPCC web of influence, acknowledges that it is the space weather that drives earth’s climate.  When you understand how that happens, you may understand why your political actions have been so egregious.

Your cohorts at the UN IPCC upped the ante last week, with their well-orchestrated disinformation.  Seemingly expecting those among us who have actually taken the time to check the science, to retreat under the onslaught of a hysterical teenager and her handlers’ fantasies – ably augmented by the catastrophic alarmism delivered by the usual UN IPCC suspects – yet with attribution to no-one of substance and only peer-reviewed by “partners in crime”.  This short video below captures the sequence including the obvious motivation, the lies and the truth, in one elegant 12 minute splurge…

https://youtu.be/cEs31hNMebg

The international resistance to your global and national scam has begun, and something approaching 50% of New Zealanders will already know or suspect the UN IPCC version of the truth is flawed, because many remember their tirade of concatenated alarmist scares have all failed to materialise.  Most people are now too scared to confess their appreciation of the truth in case you label their words as “Hate Speech”.   Yes, I too have a list of those UN IPCC linked alarmist lies that date back to 1989 when the UN IPCC first started.  But also beyond that to when the same “new World Order” posers were trying to set up a coming ice age as the platform for a UN global takeover…

 

Nowadays, many celebrities squander their good names and reputations to underwrite the fraud.  To what end?  They, and even Sir David Attenborough cannot possibly know the scientific facts, even though  they talk of the “settled science” with such authority.  That is, unless they too are implicated in the dastardly criminality. 

For Joseph Stalin, the use of children and adults who went along with him but were never really aware of what he was doing, led Stalin to coin the term “Useful Idiots”.  Are our MPs, as well as our own children and grandchildren to be treated as those too? 

I know you believe that because you are “saving the planet” you can alienate us all from the basic truths of science in the same fashion as Chairman Mao used the “Cultural revolution” for.  But that seldom works for long.  All you need to do is to provide us sceptics with empirical evidence which proves that changes in atmospheric CO2 cause climate change.  We will melt into the night if you do that.  But I know you cannot do that, because I am able to prove why CO2 – at its molecular level – cannot have any measurable effect on climate, compared say to clouds and water vapour.  The sceptics can never be met in a public debate for one reason, the UN IPCC is now unable to defend the indefensible.  If you feel lucky, try to prove me wrong.

So 30 years after the fraud was dreamed up, there is still no evidence that CO2 does what the UN IPCC says it does, and yet you are prepared to near-bankrupt this country because you conveniently claim you are only taking someone else’s lies on faith?  What sort of Prime Minister would someone be, if they did that?  For Minister of Climate Change  I envisage the title of “King Canute” will be used by the mob when it turns on him, once the true science is generally known.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

I believe it is contrary to your fiduciary duty of care as PM to stir up fear among workers, farmers, parents and children alike, and for you to preside over an education system that teaches fake science.  Science is not a popularity contest, it is about facts.  Please also find below  a list that chronicles the truth about alarmist falsehoods, to set our children’s minds at ease. 

(Source of the following is Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 26 September 2019)

“

“·         You have never been less likely to die of a climate-related disaster. Your risk of being killed has fallen 99 per cent in the past century. Source: International Disaster Database.

·         You have never been more likely to live longer. Life expectancy around the world has risen by 5.5 years so far this century. Source: World Health Organisation.

·         We are getting fewer cyclones, not more. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There is more food than ever. Grain crops have set new records. Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation.

·         The world is getting greener. Leaf cover is growing 3 per cent per decade. Source: NASA.

·         Low-lying Pacific islands are not drowning. In fact, 43 per cent – including Tuvalu – are growing, and another 43 per cent are stable. Source: Professor Paul Kench, University of Auckland.

·         Cold weather is 20 times more likely to kill you than hot weather. Source: Lancet, 20/5/2015

·         Global warming does not cause drought. Source: Prof. Andy Pitman, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

·         Australia’s rainfall over the past century has actually increased. Source: Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There are fewer wildfires. Around the world, the area burned by fire is down 24 per cent over 18 years. Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center et al.

·         Polar bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Source: Dr Susan Crockford.

“

Perhaps it is time for you to come clean.    But you must now defend your crime against the New Zealand people in your Parliament  or prove me wrong with the substance of my complaints to the SFO and ComCom.

I would be happy to be able to apologise to you and Minister Shaw, because I know from history that warmth is good… and that cold is very bad for humanity.

The next move is over to you and your parliamentary colleagues.

I hope you place some weight on the truth and avoid the urge to attack the messenger.  After all, I am only saying what many thousands of Kiwis would like to be saying to you.

Stop telling blatant lies.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely  Concerned New Zealand Citizen asking for the lies to stop.

=====================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2019 9:06 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘Simeon Brown’; ‘peter.goodfellow@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘letters@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘letters@press.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’
Subject: Time for the truth about the “Great Global Warming Hoax” to get a public hearing?

Dear Minister,

It is now a year since I explained to you and PM Ardern about your fraud, and explained the reasons why you should cease and desist.    I have summarised the position outlined in this email in a single page as per the last (Word) document attached above for circulation to the news media.  This lengthy email that follows, substantiates my short statement on such an extremely complicated topic.

My reason for writing this email to you is to ensure that you have the facts at your fingertips to avoid New Zealand becoming further embroiled in the “Great Global Warming” fraud, which is nothing more nor less than a globalist conspiracy orchestrated under the auspices of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”).  But then, I suspect you already know this.  The fact the conspiracy is global does not in any way excuse your conduct.  By your actions, you and your government are already complicit, and you can no longer rely on the UN IPCC.

The “Great Global Warming” fraud now has an eerie similarity to the “South Sea Bubble” in the following respects…

1. They were each the largest frauds in recorded history at the time they occurred and then, by the time they were revealed, caused great heart-break.
2. Both frauds relied on the remoteness of the populace from the facts on the ground.  With the South Sea Bubble, it was geographical remoteness.  With the Great Global Warming fraud it is the scientific remoteness mixed with complexity of the fraud and the interwoven, related conspiracy at the United Nations (“UN”), as they attempt to hype a global emergency to justify their takeover of global government…all in the shaddows.
3. In both cases the perpetrators have had an incomplete understanding of the true facts that made, or now makes discovery inevitable.

In fairness to those at the centre of the Great Global Warming fraud (whether they and you deserve fairness or not), they/you did not initially have access to all the data.  Furthermore, the very few complicit scientists involved at the outset in 1988 then fell under the sway of politicians progressively including such as (in sequence) John Holdren, Al Gore, Helen Clark, Barrack Obama and even David Attenborough  – all should have known better, with different degrees of ignorance or motivation, as they lent their reputations and legacies to this fraud in order to profit from it – either in terms of political power, or for financial benefit, or for both. 

This shambles evokes the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned upon his retirement as US President, against the use of political sponsorship for the scientific community who are then funded to distort science for political purposes (as first happened with the Trofim Lysenko fiasco in 20^th Century Russia).  What is unusual about your fraud is that it is supported by globalist businessmen and financiers as well as a significant element of the climate science community.

Retired Professor Nils Axel Moerner of Sweden calls it what it is.  I found his frustration with the lies contained in the link below rather like my own. I can now, at last, easily prove that he is right in almost every respect….

https://youtu.be/W1PS9-oOfRw

The Professor is as unaware (as you seem to be) that this fraud is about to be unmasked for public distaste by the speed at which the latest Grand Solar Minimum is advancing.  While outfits like NASA and NOAA still tend to downplay the implications of the new and disastrously weak 11-year solar cycle number 25, their web sites contain the evidence that it is happening as I write this.  Disillusionment day for your public will likely be sometime in early 2020.

So far this year there have only been 11 sunspots.  The public can watch this looming solar minimum threat on a daily basis at www.spaceweather.com  if they have the time and inclination.

NASA suggests that the number of sun spots in sc25 will drop to 111, which is an extremely low level of solar activity.  However, the Russian and British scientists claim they will not exceed 50!  The first is on the level of the Dalton Minimum.  The second is the level of the Maunder Minimum.  Either will prove disastrous to global agriculture and destroy your fraud as well.

It is now proven that the “modern warm period” has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (which we humans do give a boost to), but has been solely caused by a huge spike in solar activity…the greatest for 4,000 years. 

As a result of scientific progress, we are now in a position to prove that what you are doing with the NZ zero carbon legislation is a fraudulent enterprise.  It must now be stopped by either your free will, or by court injunction.

1. The vilification of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) as a pollutant is just one of many essential limbs of this fraud. 

CO2 is essential for all life on earth.  That is a scientific fact.  All plant life relies on CO2 for the process of converting light into the plant sugars that support all other terrestrial life on earth (animals, humans etc)  and, should the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drop below 150ppm, every complex carbon based life form on this planet will likely become extinct.  Plants actually do better when they are given access to a concentration that is between 1,000 and 2,000ppm.  The current concentration is only 415ppm.  This atmospheric deficit is routinely compensated for by farmers injecting bottled CO2 gas into their greenhouses.

Meantime you elect to wage war on CO2 and label it as “undesirable pollution” for UN IPCC’s own devious ends.  They are of course conflicted, yet conceal their conflict of interest from the masses.

The evidence that shows increased concentrations of CO2 leads to the greening of the planet is contained in successive NASA satellite photos that are readily available to you and your advisers.  This greening has occurred primarily because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm at the end of “The Little Ice Age” in 1850, to the current level of more than 400ppm as of today.  If you were a true green you would find that good, not bad.

Plant growth experiments at various CO2 levels have also proven this fact as contained in the first “Word” attachment at the head of this email.  This attachment shows the practical limitations of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” that were the reasons why it’s possible impact on climate change was trialled and rejected by such eminent scientists as Professors Niels Bohr and Anders Angstrom some 100 years ago.  Those reasons – discovered by actual experiments rather than by totally subjective theoretical modelling – haven’t changed.  The only thing that changed was the arrival of the UN IPCC in 1989 and some biddable scientists who wanted to establish their new field of knowledge and scorned the older inter-linked evidence based earth sciences.

We humans can tolerate an atmospheric CO2 level up to at least 100 times greater than it is at present.  Should you personally ever take ill and collapse, requiring CPR,  any trained person could probably resuscitate you by “rescue breathing” with air containing 40,000ppm of CO2 and a reduced concentration of oxygen (of only about 16% of the air mixture). That is because we all breathe in anywhere between about 400ppm and 800ppm of CO2  and breathe out roughly 4% or 40,000ppm – thereby reducing the amount of oxygen that was inhaled by 20%.

The scientific record has shown that before the beginning of the Quaternary Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were considerably higher than today and the relentless sequence of natural sequestration of CO2 in rocks, soil and sea bed occurring during colder times over the last 500 million years considerably reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere and will almost inevitably mean for the future, that by the end of the next 90,000 year terrestrial ice age of the current Pleistocene era (or subsequent repeats of that cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could even fall back to, or fall further from the 180ppm at the end of the last ice age (12,000 years ago), to a much lower level and possibly even reach or breech the extinction threshold of 150ppm at some point. 

So there is considerable hard evidence that human CO2 emissions which involve using and emitting sequestered carbon will actually help to restore a desirable atmospheric balance that is more suitable for all natural life on earth.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  Unless you can prove that increased atmospheric CO2 has a significant effect on climate change, you should regard your criticism of this naturally occurring gas as a grave error, that is contrary to the best ideals of the green movement.

What needs to be dealt with, is to clean up real pollution rather than attempting to levy extortionate taxes based on deliberate lies.

• In 30 years there has never been any empirical evidence that variations in atmospheric CO2 cause any measurable change in earth’s climate. 

Sure, we humans warm our surroundings by using many heat sources and fuels that provide us with comfort and wealth, but the claim that we alter the future climate is quite extraordinary …. and extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proof.   Such proof has never been found – despite the wasting of billions of dollars on the ever more complex computer models.  Sadly for the theories you espouse, there is ample proof that human and indeed total CO2 emissions have no measurable impact on climate and I itemise that proof below…

• The historical record from the empirical analysis of ice core samples taken from the depths of the Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok, and from Greenland has provided clear evidence that as earth’s temperature changes, the level of atmospheric CO2 then also changes after a delay of several hundred years.  When temperatures rise, a rise in CO2 levels follows; then when temperatures fall,  CO2 levels also fall.  This is not only well accepted data, but the result is logical.  The sun which supplies  more than 99% of earth’s energy, heats the ocean more slowly than either the land or the atmosphere and the ocean releases its heat far more slowly.  Water absorbs atmospheric CO2 when cold and releases it when the water is warmed.  The ocean contains 50+ times the CO2 of the atmosphere, so when the ocean is warming it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than it takes up; and when cooling it takes up more CO2 than it releases.  The data underpins the Vostok evidence.

• During the last 100 years there has been clear evidence that the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 300ppm to over 400ppm, and at no stage have the recordings at the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA’s)testing site in Hawaii (which both UN IPCC and sceptics accept as valid data) have ever fallen.  Yet during the time from 1918 to 1940 the climate warmed, and then from 1945 to 1975 the climate cooled, and then from 1975 to 1998 the climate warmed again.  From 1999 to 2015 the temperature did not increase by any measurable amount.  Then in 2016 there was a spurt in warming due to the strong El Nino conditions, and then after that the temperature has fallen again – to the present.  This shows that CO2 has had no appreciable effect, unless one changes the starting and finishing times used for the temperature comparison to manipulate the meaning of the data.  In general, the world has emerged from the effects of “The Little Ice Age” and the solar cycles became appreciably more active – with the Total Solar Insolation (“TSI”) during the modern warm period higher than it has been for thousands of years.  It is the sun that has caused the modern warming.   There is no upturn in the number and severity of serious weather events and on the contrary there has even been a significant reduction in severe weather events since the late 1930’s.  You wouldn’t know that to listen to the media.

2.3 The impact of the huge increase in solar activity underpins this evidence and accounts for the warming of the ocean and its current slow expansion.

• The reasons why human CO2 emissions cannot drive earth’s climate are now well known.

3.1  It is generally accepted by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions comprise only 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  Yet the presumption is made by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions drive 98% of climate change with no allowance for the variability over the 95.7% of natural CO2 emission effects.  For example a warming sea alone will emit more CO2 than humans can influence from all activities.  But to make their models work, the UN IPCC modellers even invent separate classes of CO2 molecules.  First, they state that human influenced CO2 molecules do not dissipate, but instead  only increase the level of residual atmospheric CO2.   Second, they say only the CO2 emissions from natural causes do dissipate due to the requirements of vegetation etc.  Of course this is junk science because there is no difference in the molecules, so any lay person can see through that.  But whether we allow the UN IPCC to clutch at straws to support their UN sponsored fraud or not, we humans cannot affect climate change.  Could King Canute turn back the tide?

      3.2  Atmospheric CO2 molecules do not impact with more than an extremely narrow band-width of infra-red re-radiation emanating from earth’s surface/sea and even then, not fully.  Water vapour on the other hand impacts twelve times the band width that CO2 does, and of that scope, for much of it, water vapour fully affects the re-radiation in some of the applicable band widths (As per the first attached (Word) document at the head of this email).  The water vapour also has other effects because of its involvement in the cloud cover and with its ability to phase change between liquid, gas and solid with massive localised thermal effects that the UN IPCC modellers deliberately ignore.  Not only that but water vapour is between 10 to 100 times as voluminous as CO2, depending on temperature and humidity. The suggestions that human CO2 emissions cause climate change is therefore somewhere between risible and ridiculous.

• The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already almost thermally saturated at the pre-industrial level of 280ppm (The Beer-Lambert Law refers). This is because an increase in CO2 concentration only leads to a logarithmic increase in the absorption of heat.  After the pre-industrial level of CO2 ( i.e. at 280ppm), its thermal impact for extra atmospheric concentrations of each – say – 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2 is almost un-measurably minute and similarly, any reduction in temperature change from a reduction in the CO2 level would need to involve a huge reduction of – say 100ppm, if it is to have any measurable effect (even in theory).   As a result, the UN IPCC desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby effect a reduction in earth’s temperature is a pipe-dream and is misleading people who are being told that with the expenditure of trillions of dollars over time it can be done.  That change is not within human power because… i. Humans influence only a tiny portion of CO2 emissions and, ii. Because natural causes of CO2 emissions are far greater, so a relatively small variation in natural emissions will overpower any influence from human influenced CO2 emissions, and iii. While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas it is a significantly weaker one, than either water vapour which is measured and clouds which are not, and these factors dominate as shown in Dr Holmes’ video at the link in item 4.1 below.  But meantime a Finnish study has concluded that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has only resulted in a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees C. and of this the human proportion is only 0.01 degrees C. as noted in this link :

 

3.4  Water vapour and clouds provide the principle “greenhouse effect” that keeps earth warmer than outer space.  (But please note, the term “greenhouse” is a gross oversimplification which is mainly used to suit the UN IPCC narrative, because there is no restrictive membrane in earth’s atmosphere – like the glass of a greenhouse.  The true effect of cloud cover is more complicated because clouds’ net effect is one of competing forces of insulation between the partial  shielding of the sun’s rays which (along with water vapour, and other atmospheric compounds) only allows 56% of Total Solar Insolation to descend to the earth’s surface, and the low level cloud and water vapour which inhibits the infra red re-radiation of heat leaving earth’s surface and reaching the extreme cold of space). The attached paper by Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Duffy, dated July 2019, shows “why it is not possible for any of the non-condensable greenhouse gases to have an appreciable effect on weather and climate change”.  It is attached herewith as the second (Adobe) article at the head of this email. 

• It is now generally accepted that Space Weather determines the weather on earth.  While the UN IPCC chooses to believe that Total Solar Irradiance (“TSI”) only varies by 0.05 watts per square metre – up or down, that is based on their purposefully short term comparison of TSI changes and is demonstrably both biased in their favour and incorrect in fact, as has already been published in a number of peer-reviewed studies (again, see the link at item 4.1 below).  But not only is the TSI variation far greater than the figures shown in the UN IPCC computer models, but also the variations in solar activity (and numbers of sun spots) change the amount of solar wind affecting the planets in the solar system including planet earth.  The stronger the solar wind, the less the number of the galactic cosmic rays that can enter either the solar system or the earth’s atmosphere.  During the regular 11 year solar minimums the influx of galactic cosmic rays increases and during events called “Grand Solar Minimums”  the influx of cosmic rays is even more dramatically increased. 

Cosmic rays not only threaten astronauts and high altitude air crews (as they will do for the next two years) but they act to nucleate water vapour to form low level clouds and these provide an increased cooling effect for the earth as well as initiating massive anomalous rain, hail and even snow events.  In 1997 the work of Danish Professor Hendrik Svensmark and his son led to this being promulgated as a substantial theory – but now it has been convincingly proven with successful experiments in the “Cloud” project at CERN.  Unlike Anthropogenic Global Warming which has been disproven, the Svensmark theory about cosmic ray impacts on cloud formation is now, if not settled science (as the UN IPCC fraudsters will never accept the truth) but it is repeatable by scientific experimentation.  Who could ask for more proof?

3.6  There are now numerous studies of climate change that cast doubt on the validity of all of the UN IPCC sponsored computer models, showing all to grossly overstate possible warming.  But each model has a theoretical basis that relies totally on human generated parameters (for which complexity the humans involved receive multiple billions of dollars each year), so the UN IPCC studies cannot be relied upon for one good reason…the actual climate conditions have to date borne no relationship whatsoever to the forecasts of 101 of the 102 computer modelled predictions, or of the 72 models that are currently in vogue and used as the basis for creating deliberate warming alarmism.  They may as well have licked their finger and held it up to the air and taken a guess…because both that guess and the computer models are equally subjective.

3.7  By February 2020 we will see whether the Northern Hemisphere is to suffer massive food shortages as a direct result of the extraordinary cold and wet weather that has been interspersed with drought conditions there over winter of 2018/9 and spring of 2019.  Northern spring planting has been extensively disrupted as a result Grand Solar Minimum conditions and unless there is an “Indian summer” to delay Autumn, their harvest will likely be dire.  While Minister, you have thus far ignored my well-intentioned warnings that you are now becoming at least an accessory to fraud (for over a year), you must try to understand that New Zealand, by your actions is probably becoming exposed to the impacts that will occur on a global basis as a direct result of the presently unfolding Grand Solar Minimum.  You have been warned of this material and demonstrably cyclical hazard.  Now time is of the essence. Watch what is happening to cereal futures prices if you don’t believe me.

•  How big is your fraud? (the total cost of this fraud globally is estimated at USD1.5 trillion per year and is growing exponentially larger and more onerous for the countries of the OECD)

4.1 The hallmark of a fraud is often denoted by the subsidiary lies that need to be told to lend credence to the central falsehood.

Everything from forest fires… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phw8OlN_x1E&feature=youtu.be

to sea level rise is subject to alarmism…(see for sea level the Professor Moerner link above in the preamble to this email report).

Also for ocean acidification… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJjBo5ICMc&feature=youtu.be

Editor’s note: the following paragraphs from the Australian IPC are not in the email to the NZ Prime Minister, and have been added to clarify further details of the ongoing issue and court case. Professor Ridd’s key point is that James Cook University scientists have published many reports that do not comply with the proper scientific methodologies and, as such, are not valid. Eg the results cannot be replicated and the data has not been made available. Yet these reports have been published ‘as gospel’ by many mainstream media, leading to, amongst other things people world-wide believing the Great Barrier Reef is ‘dead’ or at least dying, and no longer travelling to see the reef, causing, amongst other issues, a major downturn in the tourist industry.

As reported by the Australian IPC: ‘Professor Peter Ridd has won his litigation against James Cook University about the Great Barrier Reef, the big scandal for North Queensland is the alleged death of coral that is being deliberately used to create an over-hyped sense of climate emergency.  There is nothing wrong with the world’s coral reefs, other than periodic bleaching  occurrences that they often quickly recover from.  This is a cyclic phenomenon.

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef. ‘There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.’

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

In April, Federal Court Justice Vasta ruled JCU had erred in its interpretation of a clause in its enterprise agreement and deprived Dr Ridd of his right to express his academic opinion. Within hours of the judgment being released in April, JCU published a statement on its website criticising the ruling.

Dr Ridd is seeking financial compensation after he was sacked by JCU for publicly criticising the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef.

In his decision, Judge Vasta stated that:

[T]he concept of intellectual freedom is not recent and is extremely important as it helps to define the mission of any university… It is the cornerstone upon which the University exists. If the cornerstone is removed, the building tumbles.

[…] To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

[…] That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.’

We continue to see story after story that hypes the warm temperatures and ignores the cold weather.  Heat waves?  Hype and hoopla.  The sceptics are calling out every one of the lies now, just as quickly as the mainstream media prints them…

https://youtu.be/f5B8gcpggfs

This is only because the media is being manipulated by political forces aligned to the (your?) international socialist movement.  The fake news propaganda effort is being coordinated by the UN IPCC and their supporters.  We can no longer get accurate media reporting on how weather compares, or about climate change, nor on the other sub-plots.  Like this one about Arctic Sea Ice because the fraud dominates… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwUhJaQVi-M&feature=youtu.be  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZDtnq9A-Bg&feature=youtu.be

Even the fate of polar bears is being twisted to suit the UN agenda… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0&feature=youtu.be

In mid July (only last week and during mid-summer!) the “Crown Prince Haakon” a Norwegian icebreaker set out to crash through from Svalbard to the North Pole based on the stories of rapid ice melt.  They quickly turned back due to striking solid 10 ft thick ice.  Even with Greenland’s and Iceland’s principle glaciers now advancing we still get stories that they are retreating.  This level of scientific disinformation may suit your purposes but if this Grand Solar Minimum (2019-2055) is to be a 400 year event like the Maunder Minimum – rather than 200 year event like the Dalton minimum – then this will end in tears because it will soon be too late for us to prepare.

4.2 The establishment of carbon trading schemes relies totally on the ability of the UN IPCC scientists to predict what happens in the future as CO2 levels are notionally to be brought under control by exerting the influence of humans over natural forces to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. That relies totally on the accuracy of trumped up, totally inaccurate, but extremely expensive computer models. In this rush to implement a false doctrine, the developed countries have joined a collective rush that will destroy their economic base.  If you sit down with your scientists and watch these two videos by Dr Robert Holmes and Dr Patrick Moore you will get a sense of the gravity of what your government’s involvement in this fraud is doing to all except those in the developing world who (are already and) will happily continue to eat our lunch in every possible way.

4.3  Herewith is the video of a comprehensive rebuttal of the science that your globalist friends rely upon (by Dr Robert Holmes).  Each video Dr Holmes has put out gradually tightens the knot around the Great Global Warming fraud as he itemises the genuine peer reviewed experiments and research that gives the lie to the UN IPCC dogma that is essential for their survival.  This latest in his series contains most of the evidence that will blow this fraud apart.

4.4  You claim to be a devout environmentalist, yet I allege you are betraying the environmental movement and misleading the general public.  Accordingly I have laid a separate complaint about the deceptive and misleading conduct of both  you as Leader, and the NZ Green Party, with the Commerce Commission under s. 13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.  You cannot take destructive action against all earth’s/New Zealand’s  vegetative species and still lay claim to being “green”.  Here is Dr Patrick Moore’s video on the destructive actions of others also participating in this fraud.  I make no apology for its length which enables you to better understand his credentials and the similar conundrum they face in Canada to the trouble you are stirring up in New Zealand.   As with Greenpeace, Canada, it is all counter-productive.

https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4

At this point in time there are between 10-15,000 scientists working in every OECD country to combat the Great Global Warming Fraud.  But essentially, when the global harvests begin to fail (as they did last year – if only in some regions), it will be too late for us to prepare.

• The preoccupation of the UN IPCC with their fraud is because it is an existential requirement for that organisation, as noted by Dr Moore’s video at 29 minutes and 44 seconds…I quote from the UN IPCC’s mandate to analyse… “a change in climate that is attributed to directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”  The facts however tell us a different story as per the link below…even using UN IPCC approved data…the knowledge of what happened once the ice cores from Antarctica were analysed in 2003, busted their theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and since then the UN simply ratcheted up their fraudulent activities to increase their hold on power over national governments.  This Vostok ice core data is also confirmed by Greenland studies of the Holocene climate history, covering only the last 11,500 years…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higXpFF79Hw&feature=youtu.be

4.6  I cannot open a newspaper without some element of the fraud being telegraphed as proven science.  Whether it is as a result of the studied ignorance of journalists or because children have believed the lies that you and their teachers have told them as part of their school curriculum.  Those elements of the mainstream media that spread the lies and disinformation must be stopped forthwith.  The sceptics know the role that George Soros and others have played in this fraud.  Local Government, Maori interests, Central Government officers, farmers, oil companies business leaders and others have all been misled and become unwitting accomplices.  But of greater cost to the country is the rubbish that carbon trading will lead to some form of beneficial climate modification.  This activity and many others are by definition only Ponzi schemes.  Their life and existence depends on “greater fools” making bigger and bigger financial contributions to the point when the fraud is discovered and a massive “debt jubilee” automatically takes place, to the cost of everyone who has obeyed your erroneous interpretation of junk science and obeyed your corrupt laws.   There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be exposed.  But the longer it takes, the worse the situation will be.

• The cost of your policies will be too steep for the country of New Zealand to bear, as it has already been in Germany and Australia.  As the proven cost of the UN IPCC’s wasteful programme becomes known, the global resistance is getting stronger now that the truth is getting out. 

This is a sample of something doing the rounds in Australia…. https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

Minister, you have a duty to familiarise yourself with the science.   Although I am not associated with it, I believe the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s experts can provide you with directions of where to get help and support.

I believe from the data that the earth’s climate is always changing, either up or down, and because I now see a bias in favour of the solar and space weather scientists’ consensus – who mostly believe the climate will now cool – I am classed as a “Climate Change Denier”.  Those who believe in human instigated global warming and insist that the term “climate change” is the same as “global warming” are hyping runaway warming for all they are worth and yet their un-warranted alarmism is based solely on computer models that only do one thing – they reinforce their own personal world view.  After 30 years, because their models don’t agree with the data, they simply change the data to suit their models.  Are you really happy to go along with that? 

The Russians used to have a saying,  “The most difficult thing to predict is history”.  (It is like Tiananmen Square and the CCP) Try to track the unwarranted and self-serving alterations to temperature data and you will understand why I, like Professor Moerner of Sweden think the UN IPCC are such frauds.  If you do check this information for yourself you will find yourself sitting on the wrong side of the biggest fraud in global history.  I hope you will feel comfortable there, until the truth does out.

I am simply an investor in renewable energy projects moonlighting as a fraud investigator, calling the facts as I see them.  I don’t like what I see, but unlike you, I face them.  Don’t we, the people, pay you to do the same?

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely Concerned New Zealand Citizen

============================================

CLIMATE  CHANGE

By Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

CARBON DIOXIDE CO₂  and WATER H₂ O  CONTRASTED       

• Showing water and condensable water vapour have by nature much greater actions on weather changes and climate patterns than non-condensable CO₂ ever could.

• SOLAR RADIATION:  CO₂ only has TWO narrow absorption bands for incoming solar energy.  Water vapour has SEVEN (5 larger bands).  Water vapour is 5 times more effective with incoming Solar radiation.
• RADIATION from EARTH:  CO₂ only has TWO more narrow absorption bands for radiation coming back from earth.  Water vapour covers 85% of the entire span. Water vapour is more than 12 times effective than CO₂.
• Overall, water vapour is about 12 times more effective than non-condensable CO₂ with respect to all radiation
• Condensable water vapour evaporates, humidifies, then condenses to form clouds, which can precipitate to produce rain or snow, and scrub dust and pollutants from the air, and then cool the atmosphere and planet surface. 

CARBON DIOXIDE CO₂

• CO₂ is NOT a pollutant or a toxin [Carbon MONOXIDE CO is the toxin: prevents blood from carrying oxygen]
• CO₂ in the atmosphere is vital for LIFE – plants and vegetation: we would die without it !
• Crops, trees, plants, convert CO₂ into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables, and more
• Leaf ‘factories’ convert CO₂ into organic carbon compounds and O₂
• Marine plankton and molluscs uptake and convert CO₂ too!
• Humans exhale 1 kg CO₂ per day (close to 7 Billion humans on Earth) and the concentration is 40,000 ppm at the exit of the mouth
• NOT all CO₂ in the atmosphere is man-made (< 5%) – most is naturally produced
• Ruminating animals put out more greenhouse gases than all the cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles in the world
• The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are Fossil Fuels: coal, oil, gas, and the burning of crops and waste, wood, trees and other wastes and garbage (still very small worldwide)
• CO₂ absorbs radiant energy over a total of 4 LIMITED NARROW BANDS [see Graph below],
• Atmospheric CO₂ is a non-condensable GAS like nitrogen, oxygen, and methane. Water vapour is the ONLY condensable gas. These changes of phase (evaporation, condensation, precipitation) produce all the atmospheric effects: heat-shielding clouds, cooling, and atmospheric scrubbing
• For every 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere, only 10,410 in NZ are greenhouse gas GHG molecules. But 10,000 of the 10,410 are water molecules.  Of the remaining 410, ONLY about 405 are CO₂.  Of these, only 5% (about 20 molecules) are from man-made processes (20 in 1 million; 0.002%; 1 molecule in 50,000!!  Can that be the main culprit in climate change when water is typically about 1% in New Zealand; or 1 molecule in 100, while absorbing far more radiant energy as the graph below shows
• The ocean holds 93% of ALL CO₂ (38,000 billion tonnes); the land 5% (2,000 billion tonnes); the atmosphere 2% (850 billion tonnes), of which anthropogenic CO₂ is ONLY 5% of that (about 45 billion tonnes)
• CO₂ in rain water is acidic: CO₂ in sea water is alkaline (pH 8.1), and can never-ever be acidic while shells, carbonates and molluscs exist to neutralise it. It can become less alkaline but not acidic
• CO₂ is commonly injected into greenhouse to increase plant growth rates and crop yields
• It has been reported that there has been a 20 – 40% greening of the planet over the last several decades
• China has 1,171 coal-fired plants planned; India 446; so coal is still in strong demand
• Examining atmospheric CO₂ must always be considered simultaneously with the many larger effects of H₂O.

Increasing CO₂ concentration increases crop yields as shown in this actual Greenhouse experiment!

WATER VAPOUR H₂O

Water is UNIQUE and quite different from CO₂:

• WATER: The most abundant compound on the planet and a universal solvent.  Water makes up over 60% of the human body.  It is in all plants, animals, cells etc ..
• WATER VAPOUR:  Is the ONLY condensable atmospheric gas. So only H₂O can evaporate, humidify, condense (clouds), and precipitate (rain, hail, and snow). 
• WATER: H₂O is the ONLY fluid that FLOATS ON ITSELF when it FREEZES on the liquid surface.  [If it did not float it would sink and crush the creatures (fish, sharks, whales) in the Oceans.  Marine life flourishes in water below the floating ice].
• WATER VAPOUR: Has the largest percentage greenhouse gas EFFECT [about 45% – 70% (clear sky), 70% – 90% (cloudy sky)]
• WATER VAPOUR:  The water vapour concentration in the atmosphere depends on temperature and location [< 0.2% in very cold climates to >4% by mass at high Humidity in the tropics >35 ⁰C]
• WATER:  Oceans absorb 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere, and BUFFERS more than 80% of the large heat fluctuations (and hence temperature variations), thereby moderating weather changes and climate patterns greatly.  This key factor is missed when only isolating radiation-only and CO₂.  93% of all CO₂ is in the oceans (~38,000 billion tonnes)
• WATER:  Liquid water has the highest surface tension (surface molecular skin) of all natural liquids. It controls water droplet formation, cloud structures, ocean surfaces, waves, evaporation rates, etc
• WATER: H₂O molecules are polar (H slightly +ve; O slightly –ve). Hence adjacent water molecules can ‘attract’ each other, particularly as the temperature is lowered (ice floats on water because of this). [Liquid water can also ionise slightly H₃O⁺ hydronium ions, and OH^– hydroxyl ions]. Hydrogen onding gives some unique features unlike CO₂: H₂O has the second highest specific heat capacity [only ammonia* is greater]: H₂O has a very high heat of vaporisation (2,257 kJ/kg at its boiling point), and ENERGY TRANSFERS are very important in atmospheric changes (weather) (shows up as temperature differences)
• WATER:  The ‘Structure’ and ‘Behaviour’ of H₂O molecules have LARGE buffering effects that moderate the earth’s weather and they affect both evaporation from the seas and condensation in cloud formation. Non-condensable CO₂  gas forms NO clouds
• WATER: The specific enthalpy of fusion (at freezing) is very high (333.6 kJ/kg at 0°C) [only ammonia* is higher], and this confers resistance to melting on the ice. [Density decrease or Bulk increase at freezing is about 9%] 
• WATER: Water Vapour – Liquid Water – Ice COEXIST at the equilibrium Triple Point.  It is amazing that it occurs near 0⁰C (By comparison, the Triple Point of CO₂ is -56.5⁰C so it strongly differs from water).  This has some unique effects in phase transitions near the poles (eg solid ice can go to vapour DIRECTLY with no liquid water for example [sublimation]) (dry ice CO₂ used widely on stage and TV)). 
• WATER: Water has a freezing point of 0⁰C and a boiling point of 100⁰C due to its unique molecular polar structure.  We live because of that!! 
• WATER: The nearest molecule to Water (Atomic Weight of 18) is Ammonia (Atomic Weight of 17).   In direct contrast, the freezing point of Ammonia is -77⁰C and a boiling point of -33⁰C even though the Atomic Weights are 1 point different.  This shows that the structure of water is unique!  Just as well, water is THE MOST ABUNDANT COMPOUND on the EARTH’S SURFACE and the temperature absorption-emission bands are just right for life on Earth.
• The Thermal Lapse Rate or temperature drop is the 6.5C⁰ temperature drop per kilometer rise above earth.  This is caused by all atmospheric gas molecules moving further with increasing elevation (lower density and lower pressure result). This is vital for humidification, mists, fogs and cloud formation
• WATER VAPOUR: can regulate, buffer, compensate, correct, and restore atmospheric changes

Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

EMAIL:  geoffduffy@lycos.com

The KEY REFERENCE sources:

            Radiation:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

            Humidity:   http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm

====================================

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD – SUMMARY

By John Rofe, 28 July 2019

1. After 30 years of repeated warnings of impending Armageddon from the United Nations (“UN”) based on the subjective and inaccurate computer modelling performed at the cost of national governments (and all taxpayers) at the UN’s behest, they are certainly no closer to understanding the climate.  But they are instead still trying to defend their 30-year fraud.
2. Meantime, credible solar scientists have good evidence that the principle cause of climate change lies with the variability of the solar cycles that have continued to affect earth’s climate since the beginning of time.  UN bias ignores this evidence.  Even so, there are some longer cycles that affect the passage of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, and are caused by earth’s movements in relation to the sun.  These don’t yet figure within our time horizon.
3. The only plausible cause of all the warming that has happened since “The Little Ice Age” ended in 1850, has come from the highest level of solar electromagnetic activity for 4,000 years.  The increase in earth’s temperature of little over 1 degree Centigrade over 160 years is latterly being called the “Modern Warm Period”. Those of us who have checked the history find it is not remarkably warm at all today, even though a lot of effort is being made to convince us that it is, with lies, damned lies and cherry-picked statistics.  The Mediaeval Warm Period was arguably much warmer – a thousand years ago. What about the 1930’s?
4. NASA now tells us a new weaker 11 year solar cycle – called simply “sc25” – is commencing at a time when there is record thinning and cooling of earth’s outer layer of atmosphere (called “the Thermosphere”) which we are also told heralds the imminent arrival of a new 30 year event called a “Grand Solar Minimum”.  Many scientists now expect a period of much colder weather to last from 2019 to 2055 that could result in horrific global crop losses.  I guess the proof of that is about to be revealed, as early as February 2020.  We will see.
5. The truth about carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is that they are only minor trace gases and cannot possibly influence earth’s climate.  They are proven to have no measurable effect on climate change, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas necessary for all life on earth.  Besides water and light, carbon dioxide is the only resource essential for all plant growth.  Plants really need 1000 parts per million of carbon dioxide from the air.  Yet today the atmosphere only contains about 415 parts per million.  To remedy this deficiency, horticulturalists pump bottled gas into glass houses and growing tunnels at up to 2,000 parts per million.  So carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but it is also in relatively short supply.  There is clearly no possibility of influencing climate change by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which anyway constitute less than 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  So NZ Government actions are just part of the UN IPCC coordinated fraud.
6. Because methane emissions have even less effect than CO2, the present demands being made on the NZ farming community are somewhere between bizarre and ridiculous.
7. But why is your Government lying to you?  I cannot answer for them, but I can assure you that after a year of failing to get satisfactory reasons for their fraudulent behaviour, I laid allegations against Minister James Shaw and PM Jacinda Ardern with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in mid-April 2019…and later also laid a complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission against Minister James Shaw and the NZ Green Party under s.13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed…for this one, let’s fix it today.

=======================

 

 

‘Sustainability’ is a modern buzz-word, a fashion, a vital tool for preservation and all-to-often a cover for dangerous covert agendas, not the least being the danger of related policies returning electrical power delivery to third-world status.

• The energy hex Australia places on itself is madness Chris Kenny, The Australian, 23 June 2018
• Australia’s power policies are killing its economy  By Ian Plimer, The Australian 23 October, 2017
• Australia’s electricity is far too expensive and unreliable  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 6 June 2017

Check at the end for links to previous articles

The energy hex Australia places on itself is madness

The energy hex Australia places on itself is madness Chris Kenny, The Australian, 23 June 2018

 

If our worst enemies abroad were given one evil wish to destroy our economy they probably would look to curse perhaps our greatest natural advantage: access to almost unlimited cheap energy.

Yet, as if to prove that fact is stranger than even this madcap fiction, this is a hex we are visiting upon ourselves.

If a prosperous nation decided to burden its people with expensive and unreliable power, imposing hardships including job losses, costs on struggling families, reduced profits and missed investment opportunities, to create a more benign environment for all the people of the world, it would be truly altruistic. But if it were inflicting pain on its citizens and handicapping future generations for no discernible benefit, then it would be an act of sheer madness.

Yet here we are. We are in a self-imposed energy crisis. No one disputes the urgency — Coalition and Labor politicians, state and federal, agree prices are too high; they are spending on diesel generators, large-scale batteries and stored hydro to find a way through; companies are having power cut or being paid to reduce demand; consumers and industries fear dire consequences; regulators sound alarms about lack of supply; and policymakers float a raft of possible solutions.

Yet it is all our doing. By mandating renewable energy targets, committing to global carbon dioxide emissions-reduction goals, subsidising wind and solar generation including by domestic consumers, toying with emissions trading schemes and imposing (for a time) a carbon tax, we have up-ended our electricity market, forced out some of the cheapest and most reliable generation and made our power more expensive and less reliable. The lion’s share of investment across a decade — upwards of $30 billion — has gone into the sure bet of subsidised renewable energy that has a guaranteed market but that cannot be relied on to meet peak energy output at any given time. Billions more have been spent on government payments and grants. All this money is recouped in the end from consumers, who are paying enormous sums to go backwards.

Since 1999, average spot prices per megawatt hour have leapt from $50 to $110 in South Australia and from less than $25 in NSW and Victoria to $80 and $95 respectively. Electricity costs for manufacturers have increased 79 per cent since 2010 and in that period there have been net job losses of about 140,000 in the sector. Price rises have squeezed family budgets, created hardship for pensioners and forced companies to cut jobs or shut down.

South Australia was plunged into darkness for hours and the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned that without remedial action, even in NSW where cheap and reliable coal-fired power has been abundant, there will be supply vulnerability in the coming years that could lead to 200,000 homes going without power during peak summer demand. The closure of NSW’s Liddell coal-fired power station in a few years will make the situation worse.

This month AEMO warned again that the “unprecedented transformation” of our electricity system means Australia “does not have the energy reserves it once had to lean on” when we need it. This is deplorable.

We are the world’s largest coal exporter. We will soon be the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. We are the third largest exporter of uranium.

Australia powers the economic and manufacturing powerhouses of northeast Asia, and other parts of the world, with cost-effective and reliable energy supplies. But we decline to do the same for ­ourselves.

We may as well feed the people of the world with our wheat and sheep exports while our own people go hungry. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Politicians from both major parties and the Greens pretend — surely they are feigning because they must know the facts — that this is our contribution to global efforts to combat global warming. This is fraudulent.

We need to do what the climate activists constantly implore of us: back the science. All the facts tell us that, scientifically, Australia’s climate action is doing nothing to improve the global environment. We are putting ourselves through extended economic pain, with deep social consequences, for nothing more than climate gestures. This is the hard edge of gesture politics: national virtue-signalling, with the poorest citizens and jobless paying the highest price.

Don’t take my word for it; listen to Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, who the government tasked with revising policy. He confirmed before a Senate estimates committee hearing a year ago that Australia’s carbon emissions amounted to 1.3 per cent of the global total (that proportion is shrinking as world emissions grow). Finkel was asked what difference it would make to climate change if all of our nation’s emissions were cut — pretend 25 million of us left Australia idle — so that world emissions dropped by 1.3 per cent. “Virtually nothing,” was his reply.

But wait. Our contribution is much less significant even than “virtually nothing” because we will not eliminate all our emissions. We aim to reduce them by 26 per cent — so our best impact may be a quarter of virtually nothing. Wait again; we become even more irrelevant. Global emissions are on the rise. Led by China (growing by up to 4 per cent so far this year) world CO2 emissions are increasing at close to 2 per cent. So, more science, more facts. China’s annual emissions are about 30 times higher than ours and in any given year the increase alone in China’s emissions can be more than double what we plan to cut by 2030. While global emissions rise our piddling cuts do zip. We are emitting into the wind. Our price rises, blackouts, job losses, investment droughts, subsidies and energy system dilemmas are all for nothing.

Anyone with a pulse must understand this. Why they persist with proposing or backing costly climate policies is the question. They want to display their commitment to the cause. They want to associate themselves with protecting the planet. It is earth motherhood, dictated by political fashion and a reluctance to go against the zeitgeist. What a sad indictment on our political/media class — indulging its progressive credentials for social and diplomatic acceptance at the expense of struggling families, jobless blue-collar workers and our economic competitiveness.

The Coalition is starting to tear itself apart again; led by Tony Abbott, those who understand mainstream concerns are rising up against those stuck in commercial, media and political orthodoxy. Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg’s national energy guarantee is a retrofit mechanism to encourage some investment in dispatchable electricity.

As they negotiate for a bipartisan position they could be left with a stark choice: satisfy Labor and its premiers or placate the Coalition partyroom. It may be impossible to do both — the partyroom may at least demand a plan to extend the life of Liddell — and another political short-circuit may be in the offing.

The national energy system is so badly distorted by a decade of renewable subsidies and the threat of future carbon prices that there is no easy solution. All sides of the debate propose expensive government interventions. Investors in anything but renewables are wary.

If we had done nothing on climate action we might have had plentiful and cheap coal and gas power on the back of private investment. But we killed that goose. There is bound to be a reckoning; eventually we will reclaim the energy advantage we export to other nations. And if we ever need a zero-emissions future, we will embrace the silver bullet of nuclear energy. The only question is whether it takes us three years or three decades to come to our senses — and how many political careers will be hoist with this petard in the interim.

=================

Australia’s power policies are killing its economy

Australia’s power policies are killing its economy  By Ian Plimer, The Australian 23 October, 2017

You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Australia is a huge exporter of energy as coal, LNG and uranium, yet it has unreliable and ­expensive electricity. South Australia has achieved a first for ­Australia: it has the most expensive electricity in the world. A short time ago it had cheap coal-fired power.

Australia remains the only G20 country with no nuclear power yet has 30 per cent of the planet’s in-ground uranium, mainly in South Australia. Vic­toria has banned drilling for ­onshore gas in its two gas-rich ­basins yet suffers a gas shortage.

Australia’s energy crisis is based on a flawed fundamental. Global human emissions are only 3 per cent of total annual emissions. It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If it were shown, it would also have to be shown that the 97 per cent of emissions from natural processes such as ocean degassing, volcanoes, natural chemical reactions and exhalation don’t drive global warming.

In the geological past, Earth’s atmosphere had hundreds of times the CO2 content of the modern atmosphere yet there were no carbon dioxide-driven catastrophes. The past shows that climate change is normal, that warmer times and more atmospheric carbon dioxide have driven biodiversity and that cold times kill.

Ice core drilling shows that 800 years after natural warming, the atmosphere increases in carbon dioxide. The zenith of the Little Ice Age was 300 years ago and since then we have slightly warmed and cooled during a long-term warming trend. Instrumental temperature measurements over the past 150 years show no correlation between human emissions of CO2 and ­temperature. On all timescales it can be shown that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. Without correlation, there can be no causation.

The worldwide temperature record has been changed. Cooling trends have been “homogenised” to warming trends. In the corporate world, if a loss is “homo­genised” to a profit, it is fraud. Why is climate science different?

No genuine environmentalist could honestly support subsidised wind turbines that despoil the scenery, slice and dice birds and bats, damage human health and spread toxins. This is not environmentalism. It is power over people by unelected activists, often ­funded from outside Australia.

Unless the laws of physics are changed, solar power cannot be made more efficient. Solar facilities result in the clearing and environmental degradation of huge acreages and depositing of toxins.

Construction and maintenance of wind and solar facilities ­release far more carbon dioxide than they are meant to save over their working lives and they need to be sup­ported 24/7 by coal-fired generators. The Spaniards invented a way of producing solar power at night without changing the laws of physics. Diesel generators with floodlights illuminated solar ­panels. Subsidies were so generous that profits could still be made at night. No wonder Spain went broke.

Australia’s CO2 emissions are only 1.3 per cent of global human emissions, which are 3 per cent of the total global emissions. To reduce Australian emissions will have absolutely no effect on the planet’s temperature. The only effect will be a rapid reduction in jobs as electricity prices skyrocket.

Those who signed the Paris ­Accord actually believed they can twiddle the planetary dials to minimise warming to less than 2 Celsius yet seemed blissfully ­unaware that whatever humans do, they cannot change Earth’s orbit and radiation released from the sun that drive climate. Australia’s signed a suicide note yet didn’t seem to notice that China, India, Indonesia and the US did not commit to reducing their large carbon dioxide emissions.

The grasslands, crops, forests and territorial waters of Australia absorb more carbon dioxide than Australia emits. Australia should demand the Paris Accord shell out some of the billions sloshing around in the climate business.

The subsidies for wind and solar power and the must-take mandate have attracted all sorts of dodgy enterprises, lickspittles and carpetbaggers to the renewable energy honey pot. The National Energy Market was the nail in the coffin and, after 40 years of falling electricity costs and a reliable grid, Australia now has energy poverty and destruction of businesses. Electricity is not a luxury; it is a necessity for any civilised society.

The solution requires political courage. Cancel the renewable energy target, large-scale RET, ­renewable energy certificates, clean energy target and any funding that subsidises renewable ­energy. Cancel funding for climate research institutes, climate conferences, carbon capture schemes and jaunts for signing suicide notes.

If any energy company provides electricity to the grid, decree that it must have 90 per cent availability 24/7 and get rid of the must-take mandate. Cancel the charitable status of feral activist groups like Greenpeace. Change the Corporations Law such that green activists, environmentalists, unionists and lobbyists abide by the same conditions of probity as company directors.

Because investment confidence in energy in Australia has been destroyed, governments must build modern coal-fired and nuclear power stations. Australia needs a nuclear industry that could start by using modular reactors for isolated mines and towns before growing a vertically integrated nuclear industry.

Only elections can change the madness but no major political party has nation-building leaders and a coherent policy to cut electricity costs and ­increase reliability. Politicians fiddle around the edges. As soon as the words emissions, climate change and Paris are used, you know you are being conned and that the world’s biggest scam will continue.

 Australia’s energy policy is based on the fallacious assumption that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming. This underpins the Finkel and Australian Competition and Consumer Com­­mis­sion reports, the Paris ­Accord and political quick-fix ­solutions. Renewable energy has become ruinable energy, thanks to green ideology.

 I fear there will be years of ­increasing pain before there is enough political courage to bring Australia to what it had in the past: cheap, reliable employment-generating electricity.

Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer’s Climate Delusion and The Great Electricity Rip-off (Connor Court) has just been published.

===================

Australia’s electricity is far too expensive and unreliable

Australia’s electricity is far too expensive and unreliable  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 6 June 2017

There’s an app for everything these days, even one that tracks in real time the startling cost of Australia’s ­ludicrous energy policy.

We are indebted to PocketNEM for informing us that the spot price of electricity on the National Energy Market shot above $150 a megawatt hour in the eastern states late on Sunday afternoon, hitting $365 in the windmill-powered dystopia known as South Australia. During a largely overcast and windless winter weekend, SA and Victoria sucked up megawatt after megawatt of coal-generated electricity from NSW and Queensland, stretching the interconnectors to their limits.

To whom will the cost of these expensive buy-ins be charged? To the customer of course — you, me and the business we rely on to provide jobs, goods and services.

When the dust settles, the 33,000 gigawatt-hour renewable energy target will prove to be the costliest legacy of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Sure, there are plenty of other multi-billion-dollar blunders to choose from — the cost blowout to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for example — policies that, like the RET, were implemented with noble intent but vacant attention to detail.

Yet on the scale of bureaucratically orchestrated disasters they are dwarfed by the RET, a Soviet-scale exercise in market intervention that is unravelling before our eyes, presenting Malcolm Turnbull’s government with a diabolical policy challenge that cannot be deferred.

How quickly the world has changed. Barely nine months before Turnbull became Prime Minister the Australian Energy Market Commission, which is supposed to know about these things, predicted that scrapping the carbon tax, falling electricity demand and increased capacity would cause retail electricity prices to fall.

The AEMC’s latest forecast presents a very different picture. Household electricity bills will rise acutely, particularly in South Australia and Victoria. The closure of SA’s brown-coal-fired Northern power station 13 months ago, followed by the closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood power station this year, means that for the first time in at least a half-century there is a shortage of active generation ­capacity.

Last December, the AEMC calculated that the closures would increase the cost of wholesale energy by 55 per cent in Victoria and Tasmania and 41 per cent in SA by the next federal election.

The Turnbull government will get only one shot at fixing this mess before rising power prices start to bite, and it will steady its aim this Friday with the release of Alan Finkel’s review of the National Electricity Market.

It is a chance to rescue energy policy from the sectional interests that want the renewable energy gravy train to keep running, and to frame it to serve the national ­interest. The ideologues, aided and abetted by the self-interested renewable energy lobby, will try to make this a debate about “sustainability” in the hope of deflecting attention from our demonstrably unsustainable energy policy. We must ignore their soft-headed nonsense and focus on securing what we really need: a reliable supply of affordable energy within our carbon emission targets.

The review is unlikely to recommend, nor is the government willing to countenance, the abolition of the RET, attractive as that may seem to energy market ­rationalists.

It should, however, help us recognise that putting most of the burden on the electricity grid to deliver Australia’s promised carbon emissions reduction was a ghastly mistake. It has neither assisted the reduction of carbon emissions nor encouraged the development of new technology.

Even Ross Garnaut, the Rudd government’s professor of choice, called for it to be phased out. The RET “does not necessarily encourage the lowest cost means of reducing emissions”, he wrote in 2011, “nor does it encourage innovation: it favours the lowest cost established technologies that are eligible within the scheme”,

In fact, it can cost up to $100 a tonne to abate carbon emissions through large-scale wind and solar, and up to double that amount using small-scale domestic solar panels.

Meanwhile another arm of government, the Emissions Reduction Fund, can do the same job for less than $12 a tonne. Allowing thermal generators to offset emissions by purchasing credits from the ERF instead of renewable energy certificates at eight or nine times the price may give them a fighting chance.

The review also presents the opportunity to end the sacred treatment of wind and solar and to share subsidies, if subsidies there must be, with low-emission thermal energy production such as gas and clean coal. It would not fix the gas shortage but at least it would give the owners of mothballed gas plants a little more confidence of a return on investment.

If common sense is allowed to intrude, we will no longer pay subsidies of about $85 a megawatt hour for the fitful supply of unstable energy using subprime technology of windmills.

Renewable energy suppliers have little incentive to improve the reliability of their product since it is the public, not they, who are forced to pick up the bill for buying in thermal power at the spot price when the blades stop tuning.

The energy market as currently constructed is a classic example of moral hazard where one party decides how much risk to take, while another bears the cost when things go wrong. If renewable energy companies were made to shoulder all, or at least part, of the cost of their failure to provide electricity at 50 hertz for 24 hours a day, they might invest more in the development of storage.

What could go wrong? After all, Alan Kohler assured us in his column in The Weekend Australian that wind and solar are at the point of becoming cheaper than coal and gas, and batteries are just around the corner. We are about to see a flood of renewable investment that will spell the end of coal.

A clear-headed readjustment of the RET will allow us to test that somewhat brave assumption. Oh, and help us keep the lights on.

Nick Cater is executive director of Menzies Research Centre.

================

Previous Articles

• A Dead Man Warns of a Dying Grid  By Alan Moran, Quadrant Online, 5 April 2017
• Is politicians deliberately ruining the power system a ‘crime’?  By Robert Gottliebsen, The Australian, 30 March
• The ever-receding mirage of cheap renewables just faded from view  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 28 March 2017
• How we sabotaged our energy market  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 18 March 2017
• Look out when science and politics tell us the future  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 15 March 2017
• When it comes to renewable energy, the Emperor is naked  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 9 March 2017
• Renewable energy, the biggest policy hoax in the modern era  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 15 February 2017
• Blackouts throw spotlight on national energy crisis  The Australian editorial, 10 February 2017
• Queensland shows the insanity of renewable targets  By Judith Sloan, The Australian, 17 January 2017
• Solar and wind power simply don’t work  By Keith DeLacy, former Queensland State Labor Minister, The Australian, 22 June 2016
• The dangers of ‘sustainability’  By Peter Wood, Rachelle Peterson; National Association of Scholars, 29 March 2015
• The great ‘sustainability’ fraud  by Nick Cater, The Australian newspaper