Category Archives: Environmental battles

The modern environmental, or ‘green’, movement has shifted from overt care for the environment towards covert promotion of more sinister agendas, often linked to attempts to introduce a ‘new world order’ by organisations such as the United Nations, with overt and covert support from numerous corporations and other organisations that would profit from proposed solutions.  These sinister agendas have largely overtaken the genuine efforts to improve our planet’s environment, and fix the many environmental disasters across most of the world.

Environmental battles

Environmentalism: gravy trains, lies, hidden agendas and reasons for alarm such as 5G and gsms. NB have you checked other recent posts?

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

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G

Switzerland’s environmental agency announces national moratorium on 5G  By Michael Alexander, Natural News, 20 February 2020

Telecommunications companies will not be rolling out 5G towers in several Swiss cantons or regions after the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment or Das Bundesamt für Umwelt (Bafu) placed an indefinite moratorium on the network’s use over potential health concerns.

In its moratorium, Bafu said it cannot yet provide universal criteria without further testing of the impact of 5G radiation on human health.

According to the agency, the moratorium will stay in place as they examine and monitor extensively the effects of 5G exposure through adaptive antennas in “real-world operational conditions,” adding that “this work will take some time”.

International newspaper The Financial Times first broke the story.

However, according to a statement sent by a representative to Mobile World Live, Bafu said that these letters did not contain any recommendation to stop the permitting of 5G base stations, but rather, only sets out how the country’s cantons can proceed with the permitting of 5G and adaptive antennas until enforcement aid on the structures is available.

In the same statement, the Bafu representative noted that several cantons and municipalities had already imposed moratoria on 5G, but added that these do “not affect Switzerland in general”.

Among the cantons that voluntarily imposed moratoria on 5G towers because of uncertainty over health risks are Geneva, Vaud, Jura and Neuchâtel.

The apprehension regarding the new 5G communication technology — which proponents say will eventually be used to support everything from driverless cars to even virtual reality — stems from the fact that individuals will be exposed to more concentrated radiation beams.

Swisscom, the country’s largest mobile operator, maintains that while it understands “the fears often expressed about new technologies,” there is no evidence that 5G radiation affects human health.

Despite Swisscom’s statement, however, the Swiss Medical Association still advised caution on 5G, noting that there are still unanswered questions regarding the technology’s potential to cause damage.

Medical journal The Lancet has published a report questioning the validity of current safety standards, which are based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers first established in the 1990s. As noted in the Lancet report, these standards assume that only the acute thermal effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation are hazardous.

In her report, however, author Priyanka Bandara points to research suggesting the damage goes beyond these thermal effects, noting that radiation might alter human brain metabolism, electrical activity in the brain and immune responses. Bandara, in the Lancet report, also added that chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage and cancer risk.

Additionally, Bandara said, there appears to be evidence for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices. Prenatal exposure might cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behavior.

Similarly, a group of scientists and researchers has also aired concern over the impending global rollout of 5G, noting that electromagnetic fields or EMF have well-documented negative effects on the not just on the human body, but also the environment. (Related: 5G Danger: Hundreds of respected scientists sound the alarm about health effects as 5G networks go up nationwide)

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life,” the group, led by Elizabeth Kelley of Electromagnetic Safety Alliance Inc., said.

Aside from the recently imposed moratorium, there are currently five proposals for legally binding referendums on 5G use that are in motion in Switzerland. Two of these have already been formalized and now only need to collect 100,000 signatures in order to get onto the official ballot.

The first of the two proposals aims to make telecommunications companies legally liable for any subsequent claims of damage caused by radiation, while the second one proposes strict and stringent limits on radiation emissions, as well as gives local residents the power to veto new antenna and mast constructions in their respective areas.

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

MobileWorldLive.com

LiveScience.com

TheLancet.com

ScientificAmerican.com

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

I Survived Communism. Now, It’s Back, Veiled as ‘Environmentalism’

I Survived Communism. Now, It’s Back, Veiled as ‘Environmentalism’  By Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer, 11 February 2020

“It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality—100 percent of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”

So proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject of “scientific communism” while the former country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97 percent of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because science is not about “consensus;” ideology is.

In March 2007, the WorldNetDaily.com published an article titled “Environmentalism is new communism.” In it, the former Czech president Vaclav Klaus stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” Klaus goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.”

Klaus has also written a book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, in which he writes, “Communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” Klaus warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of “protecting nature” is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism, or new communism.

Klaus understands communist propaganda very well, and he should. Most of us who lived—and suffered—under communism can instantly recognize any signs of the communist ideology, no matter how slight or subtle. Since during the first 27 years of my life I received my own vaccination against communist propaganda, I, too, am immune to this disease. Whenever some government tries to “save” me against my will, I’m immediately wary and ready to fight back. So, try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English! If you think I’m paranoid, or that communism in North America is far-fetched, then good luck to you—I hope you enjoy what’s coming your way.

Deception

As Nikita Khrushchev said in 1960, “You [North] Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Communism can be characterized by a single word: deception. Communists never disclose their real intentions. They are fraudsters who employ different identities, names, and slogans, all for one goal: totalitarianism.

Since 1970, one of the primary tactics of the Communist Party USA has been to use environmental causes to advance its agenda. For example, in 1972, Gus Hall, then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, wrote in his book Ecology: “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … This is true in the struggle to save the environment … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements. What is new, is that knowledge of [a] point-of-no-return gives this struggle an unusual urgency.”

This idea was incorporated into the Green Party program in 1989 (the same year Soviet communism collapsed), in which the alleged threats of “global warming” and “climate change” were used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet” by relying on an ever more powerful government: “This urgency,” the program read, “along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool. … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time. … First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.”

With this in mind, do you still think the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is promoting science rather than socialism? Read the following admission from the co-chair of the UN IPCC Group III, provided during an interview in 2010 with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung:: “We must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Do I have your attention now? Good. Then let me describe to you how communist propaganda and societal takeovers work. There are three main stages:

  1. Polarization (KGB term: “demoralization”)
  2. Destabilization
  3. Revolution

Stage 1. Polarization: Divide and Conquer

To win power, communists first polarize their target society. The notion of injustice is introduced. One group of people—usually impoverished workers—are made to feel victimized by a second group, to the point that they demand societal changes. And who are those people who supposedly victimize the workers? Here’s a clue: “Communists don’t care about poor people; they just hate rich ones.” (George Orwell)

The one thing a communist can never tolerate is a wealthy person. For communists, virtually all business owners are “rich,” especially successful ones. They are loathed and demonized as heartless, spiteful monsters who exploit their employees and don’t care about their welfare. The rich are public enemy number one. They don’t care about people or the environment; they care only about profit and wealth. Dare to disagree? Then you are a “denier” and “imperialist traitor,” and after completion of stage three, you will be physically liquidated.

During the first stage, communists focus on altruistic people – people with big hearts, full of good intentions, who believe in doing good, for goodness’ sake. Why? Because idealistic people are usually naïve and easy to manipulate, especially through their emotions. Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots.”

Stage 2. Destabilization

During the second stage, communists target the basic values of society for replacement. This almost always starts with education: Vladimir Lenin once said, “Give me your child for eight years, and [he or she] will be a communist forever.”

Communists always eventually use teachers and the education system to impose their ideology and promote socialistic values. My own indoctrination started in elementary school. In grade four, we all had to become “Young Pioneers.” From that day forward, we were taught about the “imminent danger” posed by capitalistic countries. The curriculum in school gradually but firmly established admiration for communism and loyalty to the Communist Party. We were constantly reminded of how we live in the “best political system in the world,” “the country with the best social justice and equality.”

Our teachers participated in this process, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I remember teachers who actively reinforced communist indoctrination in schools. They exploited their students’ emotional immaturity, lack of experience, and knowledge—our vulnerabilities—to impose their communist ideas, beliefs, and values. They took advantage of their position of authority, of the natural trust that children place in teachers, to brainwash a young and susceptible generation.

Scare-mongering was a favorite tactic: “Embrace communism! Fear capitalism! Otherwise, your country will be overtaken by imperialists and you will be exploited! Whoever is not with us, is against us!”

If you think this can’t happen in Canada or the United States, then I have news for you: It has been happening for some time, in both countries, and environmentalism has been one of left-wing teachers’ favorite indoctrination tools.

As the following examples will show, new communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as one of its primary agents of change, allowing it to subtly alter the core values of Western institutions and destabilize (and demoralize) society.

The following excerpt comes from Captain Eco, written by Jonathon Porrit-Ellis Nadler and published in 1991. In it, you’ll see that children are being indoctrinated in our schools to believe it’s their responsibility to “save the planet” using government: “Your planet is in serious trouble—from pollution, toxic waste and the loss of forest, farmland and fresh water … Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they are little more than thieves. And they are stealing your future from under your noses.”

Some more examples:

  • In May 2012, a grade three classtook to the streets of Toronto with signs to protest the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The protest was organized by their teacher and a local community volunteer. This is a Marxist tactic. Just like these kids, who marched in protest to “save the planet,” I was also forced by teachers to march with banners and signs to save our country from “imperialists.”
  • In 2011, in Laval, Quebec, a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a contest because a Ziploc bag, which has been deemed to be bad for the planet, was found in his lunch box instead of a reusable container. This kind of punishment and ostracization was common practice during my experience under communism.
  • In April 2018, an Edmonton father went to an elementary school to watch his daughter in a school play. What he saw shocked him. In the play, the children sabotaged a factory in the name of climate change, then went on to save Alberta from its “evil oil industry” and “greedy oil barons.” This is also textbook communist methodology: demonize the private sector (oil industry) by representing them as “greedy.”

The children currently attending our elementary schools will vote in 10-12 years. How many of these children are being (or have already been) brainwashed into believing that to “save the planet,” they must vote for a government that will stop “destroying the planet” by eliminating private ownership and taking control of the means of production?

And then, of course, there is the vast communist indoctrination occurring every single day on college campuses in Canada and the United States. I would provide support for such a statement, but it’s so widely accepted, even among many on the Left, that higher education is firmly under the control of those who desire socialistic and communist policies that such proof is completely unnecessary.

Stage 3. Revolution

After gaining the support of a majority in society, communists often call for a democratic election. If they win, they seize power and abolish democratic elections altogether. At this point, members of opposition parties, along with all other opponents deemed to be a potential threat, are silenced or, in the more extreme revolutions, “physically liquidated.” (In case you aren’t familiar with this quaint communist phrase, it means executed.)

Private businesses and property are then immediately seized and confiscated by the national government. Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements. All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways. A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is then formed. Leaders of every key institution or organization in industry, medicine, police, education, etc., are then replaced or overseen by an official member of the Communist Party. Competence, ability, or fitness for the job is no longer the most important requirement; the prerequisite that matters the most is loyalty to the ruling party.

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

Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” As Pseudoscience

Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” As Pseudoscience  From HumansAreFree.com, 8 February 2020

“The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible.” — Dr David Kear

Dr David Kear is a former Director General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) – as such he would have been considered one of New Zealand’s top scientists. He has been publishing on sea levels since the 1950s.

In 2013 Dr Kear prepared a booklet in which he set out his views on the globalist climate project. In the booklet, Dr Kear describes:

  • his experience with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change
  • the corrupted science behind the Global Warming narrative
  • the corrupted science behind the claims of rising sea-levels
  • the demonisation by “Global Warmers” of the “essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide”
  • how councils are making zoning & other decisions purely to satisfy a false narrative, with total disregard for the facts

Think globally, act locally (UN catchcry) 

Dr Kear describes how local councils are ignoring scientific fact in order to satisfy an agenda imposed on them from above. No matter if scientists, engineers and local observers all indicate that the sea is not rising, even retreating – once a council has decided on a policy that assumes that the sea IS rising, the council is immovable, and makes decisions on zoning and building codes on that basis.

Such policies will be being applied in coastal and non-coastal areas alike, thereby contributing to fulfillment of Agenda 21 goals of eventually eliminating small towns and villages and moving people to “sustainable” megacities.

Dr Kear’s text is reproduced here in its entirety with minimal changes to format.

GLOBAL WARMING Alias CLIMATE
CHANGE

[The NON-EXISTENT, Incredibly Expensive,
THREAT TO US ALL,
Including To Our GRANDCHILDREN]

By David Kear, 34 West End, Ohope, Whakatane, NZ (Former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations Consultant; & South Pacific Geoscientist)

INTRODUCTION

“Climate Change” has become an important international topic – one might almost say religion. It began life as “Global Warming”.

So very many people, including politicians and “news people”, appear to have been overwhelmed by it, and have led others to believe, and follow the doctrine.

It has sponsored a good deal of international co-operation, which can only have been good.

However, the cost of “Combating Carbon” has been extremely high, and the debt and economic consequences are being passed on to present citizens, and, worse still, to future generations, including all our grandchildren.

This booklet attempts to raise, in citizens’ minds, questions regarding the enormous sums of money and effort being wasted on this topic.

Is it soundly based? Will it “do good” or “do bad” for ordinary citizens?  Do those promoting it deserve our attention?

This booklet suggests that Global-Warming-alias-Climate-Change, as proposed by “Global Warmers” makes no sense. You, as the reader, must judge that for yourself – not to help the writer of this booklet, but to help you and your family.

Do you think after reading all this that the proponents are absolutely reliable?

Should you add your voice to those against it, or at least talk to your councillors and members of parliament and see how they feel?

THE ANCIENT ACCEPTABLE VIEW

Our Earth’s climate is highly variable, and records show clearly that it always has been so. Animals and plants have had no option but to accept what comes, and to adapt life in ways that suit best. Evolution gave some help by introducing “the Survival of the Fittest”

Humans found early that their discussion and understanding were helped by a belief in some extraneous source being the cause of recorded changes of climate – perhaps with divine power. This booklet uses “Mother Nature” in that role to avoid wordy explanations.

Humans discovered that they could ameliorate climatic effects with buildings, clothing and the rest, and even create “microclimates” through windbreaks, forest clearing, artificial lakes, fossil fuel burning, and the rest.

However, no-one originally thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate – our Sun, our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some 3,000,000,000 years), but we are not.

THE NEW BELIEF – THE NEW PROBLEM

Introduction

That ancient and acceptable view was amended in the minds of some people whom I call the “Global Warmers”. I’ve heard nothing convincing about their so-called “Science”; but what they publish convinces me that it’s close to nonsense. The most convincing evidence against it comes mostly from the Global Warmers themselves.

In this booklet, the beliefs of “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” have initial capital letters. That contrasts with natural warming, or natural changing of climate – indicated by lower case initial letters. The idea of a human cause is much less than 300 years old.

My interest in our changing climate and sea level

During fieldwork for a PhD thesis I found a coastal exposure of soft sandstone at Ohuka Creek, south of Port Waikato. There were Pliocene fossils of marine shellfish below an extensive horizontal bedding plane. Above that plane were more fossils, but of cool-lovinga plants.

A finger could show the exact location of the abrupt change to the cooler climate at the onset of the first of the world-wide Pleistocene glaciations [Ice Ages]. Ice formed widely at the ultimate expense of sea water, so sea level fell. At Ohuka, sea bed had become land.

Such changes are rarely seen in a continuous sequence, so I recorded it in a 1957 scientific paperb. That resulted in my joining an informal world-wide Group researching changing sea levels.

Most interest then was about the rate of sea level rise as the Earth warmed following the “Little Ice Age”. That cool period, from about 1500 to 1700 AD, halted winemaking in England and taro cropping in New Zealand.

Our Group determined the rate of sea level rise in many different World regions, from widely-available readings of tide gauges (less variable than those of thermometers). The average for us all was 125 mm/century (“125” here). Hence it would take 8 centuries for sea level to rise 1m – no serious threat to us.

Global Warming Dawns

Subsequently, I attended many international science conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of adherents.

Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but gave no adequate supporting science.

That rate of rise was equivalent to 3,500 mm/century, 28 times faster than our 125. Hence we stupidly ignored it, thinking noone could possibly believe it. But the World did believe, and the Global Warming mirage was born. Had 3,500 been true, sea level should have risen by almost 1 m by today – it hasn’t, not even closely.

This showed unambiguously that those “Overseas Scientists” were not true scientists. They ignored a most important basic rule of true science “Thou shall not publish Science without first checking it. A check against local tide gauges would have shown how wrong 1.4 m in 40 yrs was; they simply hadn’t bothered to check. That was a First Grave Error.

Australian government scientists were concerned about the effects on Pacific Island nations by any sea level rise of around 3,500 mm/century, and launched a project to determine the correct figure at that time. They announced the result at the 1992 meeting of SOPAC – a geoscientific organisation of South Pacific nations. Their figure was 122 mm/century, confirming the order of magnitude of our group’s 125 average value.

Fooling the World

The Global Warmers persisted with their use of pseudo-science and made further predictions. Understandably they too all proved wrong. At conferences I began to hear, regardless of the science involved, when a speaker wished to “rubbish” some scientific idea or research, he/she stated that conclusion firmly, and followed it by “Just like Global Warming”.

Clearly the Global Warmers heard that too. They didn’t change their pseudo-science, but cleverly changed the name to ‘Climate Change”. [One can disprove warming, but the words change of climate can’t be proved wrong].

The United Nations became interested – major sea level rise could cause havoc in low-lying areas or island groups. They established an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and invited nations to send delegates. Not surprisingly those chosen were almost entirely Global Warmers, because they clearly knew something about it. But to do them credit the Panel members acted a little more like true scientists than those earlier.

They accepted that “1.4 m in 40 yrs” was wrong and re-evaluated it as “0.49 m by 2100”, [roundly a century ahead]. Thus they dropped 3,500 down to 500 mm/century – to 14% of the original. The cause remained unchanged – our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In no other human activity would those involved retain a belief when the most crucial item involved was found to be 86% wrong by themselves. That was a Second Grave Error.

In spite of that, the World was taken in. Politicians were able to promise to save us from the consequences, and the Media had an unending “Field Day”. It wasn’t that people necessarily believed, but they lacked the courage to risk that it might come true, and that they might have to bear the terrible consequences that had been so forcibly promised.

The New Errors

The new value of “0.49 m by 2100” became widely accepted. In New Zealand, District Councils were instructed by Government Departments, like Conservation and Environment, and by Regional Councils, that they must take full account of the risk that “0.49” implied for a sea level rise by 2100. Councils had to consider that in the same way as earthquake and volcanic risk. Yet that “0.49” value doesn’t stand up to the most simple scientific scrutiny.

First, the rate is four times faster than the current sea level rise, as indicated by regional, widely-available tide gauges; second, no reason was given for quadrupling the value, and third, good science interprets “0.49” in this sense as being deliberately different from 0.48 and 0.50. Thus that effectively claims that those who determined that value know, for sure, where sea level will be a century ahead to ±5 mm. That was, and is, patently absurd

These were the Third, Fourth & Fifth Grave Errors.

Further Damning Disclosures

The United Nations appointed me personally to their UNCSTD Committee which assists small countries with their ability regarding Science and Technology Development. Three or so of us would go to a central city to talk and discuss their options with delegates from regional countries. On one occasion we met in Prague, to assist countries on both sides of the “Iron Curtain”.

While there, we were invited to visit the World’s only “Institute for Global Warming”. It was founded and funded incredibly by the USA and Soviet Union jointly, at the height of their “Cold War”, in an attempt to fund something “for the good of Mankind”, rather than “for armaments”. Some of its staff could have attended the 1985 Conference, and helped create the 1987 World Declaration.

I took the opportunity of asking to see copies of the documents that had been brought to  that 1985 Meeting in neutral Austria. Several attendees brought their estimates for sea level rise due to Global Warming. The values, converted to mm/century, ranged from 500 minimum to 3,500 maximum.

There can be no doubt that, to ensure that their 1987 World Declaration made the greatest impact, they published the maximum value – contravening the most sacred rule of acceptable science Thou shall not publish items for monetary, political, or personal gain that are not clear un-biased un-inflated truths.

The fact that “up to” was used, might be allowed in non-scientific areas, but not in Science. If World Media had distorted the message, the Warmers should immediately have denied what was wrongly claimed, and ensured that the proper statement got equal publicity. Using a maximum value for greatest effect was the Sixth (and
Worst) Grave Error.

OLD SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS ON CLIMATE IGNORED

19th Century science posed a important question. Why is our Earth’s average temperature significantly higher than that calculated from the then-recent determinations of our Sun’s distance and its radiation? Knowing my interests in climate, DSIR librarians found me a publication in German that answered that puzzle early.

It had Scandinavian author(s), if I remember correctly. Its answer was that the CO2 in our atmosphere acts like glass in a glasshouse. Both change the optical physical nature of the Sun’s infra-red rays [that carry the warmth to us] such that they may enter, but cannot then leave. So we are warmed by the heat trapped below our CO2; like the glasshouse below its glass.

I surmise that the Global Warmers, along with Al Gore, noted correctly that CO2 keeps us warm, but thought wrongly that more would make us warmer. The analogy with glass is important. Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker) glass does not cause more warming, so more CO2 probably doesn’t either.

The effect is like that of polarising spectacles, where the change takes place as light begins passing through the lenses. Thickness makes no difference. Polarisation is either 100%, or not at all. A coincidence timed the Little Ice Age’s end with the Industrial Revolution’s start. The Warmers blamed the undoubted warming on the latter – ignoring the glasshouse evidence.

THE NEW CLIMATE REGIME


NIWA

The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) retains New Zealand climate records. It has a history of persuading successive governments that Global Warming and Climate Change are both real. It often encouraged media headlines like “We are Getting Warmer”, when any news item suggested any higher temperature.

Science progresses by new concepts and ideas being aired freely for scientific scrutiny. That has sometimes taken centuries to be completed. Although I don’t agree with some of NIWA’s views, it is proper that they should be aired for discussion, as in this booklet.

One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records began.

I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998, and probably cooler. I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished in 1998. In the roundest of figures, the Little Ice Age lasted for some 200 years. There would be no conflict with accepting that the following warming should similarly last for some 200 years.

As always in Science one seeks confirmation whenever possible. I have seen many items that lead to that same view of “no warming since 1998”. The best was a written debate in the Imperial Engineer of autumn 2008. [That scientific journal is produced for engineering graduates of Imperial College, London – arguably UK’s top university in engineering.]

The debate was on whether Humans were to blame for current changes of climate. Prof Joanna Haigh blamed Humans, Lord Monckton blamed Mother Nature. The only point on which they both agreed was that there had been no warming since 1998. That confirmed NIWA’s statement perfectly, along with several comparable pronouncements.

My conclusion is that warming since the Little Ice Age’s end is now almost certainly finished. That was supported further by NIWA’s release at the end of 2012,concerning the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Their report was that 2012 had been drier and colder than 2011.

Citizens also notice that warming seems to be over. Skiing seasons are extended, winter fires are needed earlier, and some of us travelling overseas have been asked by those from Queensland, even Hawaii, whether we in New Zealand feel colder generally – as they do. I conclude that the New Zealand climate has not been warming since 1998.

THE AFFECTS ON CITIZENS


Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat: Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all.

Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements – which contained grave errors.

Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change.

The projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.

A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being.

In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.

Perhaps the saddest part has been that the essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide, has been demonised and criminalised.

It is essential in creating plant growth using chlorophyll and photo-synthesis. It is thus essential for our very existence. Crops grow better in a CO2-enriched and warmer atmosphere, when heated by an oldfashioned vertical kerosene heater. It gives off “carbon emissions” that are valuable to us all.

Costs and Dangers of Local Measures to combat the Non-Existent Threat: Local authorities were compelled to adopt measures designed to combat the nonexistent threat.

Typically, maps were drawn showing the coastline’s position now, and in the year 2100 with intermediate zone(s), assuming that sea level would rise 0.49 m in the next 100 years. Onerous restrictions have been emplaced within the zones that were thus defined.

Many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released by the erosion of hills and mountains, continuously raised by Mother Nature. Their coastline extends seawards steadily.

Citizens in such regions have long noted (with surveys and photos) that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with many Councils’ imposed belief in “0.49” which demands landwards movement (“inundation”).

Councils seem unable to accept their citizens’ constant and loud protests about all this. They seem to feel that higher authorities insist that they must ignore such views. It is not just (a) the absurdity of restrictions about where houses may be erected (only inland of certain lines), etc.; or (b) the increasing costs to those building their first home.

At the other end of the scale there are enforced dangers; a requirement for higher floor levels, leading to more steps, with unnecessary risks to elderly folk falling, when using them.

The fact that sea level is no longer rising is a new extra factor for councils to ignore. In the example of Ohope Beach, a Commission of enquiry, set up by Council, backed the Council’s view of landwards inundation.

That rejected all citizens’ factual evidence of seawards net movement for periods ranging from 50 to 5,000 years. Council also rejected the advice, supporting the Citizens, by one who was highly qualified in engineering and science and had had long and successful experience in coastal work.

Much worse, the Council’s own appointed consultants provided an additional report based on every coastal survey for which a record was available.

It showed a “retreat of the sea” [seaward shoreline movement, or accretion] at the only three Ohope sites, of 0.30-0.94 m/yr over 130 years that was still ongoing in 2008. Clearly neither Council nor Commission had bothered to read that critical report, written by highly regarded consultants, who had been appointed for this project by the Council itself.

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful.

When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees?

When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?

References To Kaawa — Ohuka

  1. a) Couper RA & McQueen DR 1954: Pliocene and Pleistocene plant fossils of NZ and their climatic interpretation. Trans Roy Soc NZ 77(3): 398-­?420
  2. b) Kear D 1957: Statigraphy of the Kaawa-­?Ohuka coastal area, West Auckland. NZ J Sci  Tech B 38 (8): 826-­?42
  3. c) Kear D 1963: Geology of Te Akau, West Auckland & regional implications. PhD thesis, London University. 2 vols, 599 pp (copies at libraries of GNS, and of London, Auckland &
    Waikato Universities).

ISBN 978-­?0-­?473-­?25154-­?3

July 2013

By Dr David Kear, Guest writer

Biographical Note: Dr David Kear has a background in geology and engineering, becoming the Director General of the DSIR (New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) in 1980.  He is a Fellow and Past Vice-President of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Past President of the New Zealand Geological Society. Dr Kear has over 100 publications on New Zealand and Pacific geology, vulcanology and mineral resources.  He has been publishing on sea-levels since the 1950s.

Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”:

Thousands of climate scientists and professionals have signed petitions and letters, rejecting the claims that humans are responsible for global warming. 

More than 1,000 scientists challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President
Al Gore:  More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (pdf)

Letter to the UN: 500 Climate Scientists & Professionals Sign Letter to UN: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

Global Warming Petition Project: 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition asking the US government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement. A summary of peer-reviewed research is included.

Purpose of Petition: The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

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

Links to previous articles

Environmental battles

The Great Global Warming Hoax

By John Rofe, Auckland, New Zealand.

Editor’s note: this post comprises a series of emails and submissions to NZ Ministers, shadow Ministers and major NZ media describing the current global warming hoax, together with compelling supporting evidence.

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 4 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 20th 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 19th 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…

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…

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

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2011474380_Habibullo_I_Abdussamatov

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?

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…

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 20th 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…

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…

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

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 20th 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….

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 :
New Finnish Study Finds No Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change

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…

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.

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…

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.

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

Environmental battles

The dogma of sustainability and renewables is ruining the power system

‘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.

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