Member log in

Faith, not facts, drives global warming

The global warming hullabaloo has always been a religious movement. It has never been scientific.

And as its political potency has waned, the modern-day clerics have become ever more strident.

Let me illustrate with a recent and local example.

Back in March, Dr James Renwick appeared on TVNZ’s Q&A to tell farmers to de-intensify. He was in no doubt that man-made global warming was causing the summer drought.

“Yeah, it is. Yeah, climate change, global warming. Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.” The host Corin Dann double-checks: “And you’re of no doubt of that?”

“Oh, no, no. There’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible.”

That’s religious zealotry in action. Science is never that certain. The best-ever scientific knowledge was Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein blew it to bits. That’s the nature of science. It gets nearer the truth but can never declare the truth.

Only religious fundamentalists have certitude. Their knowledge is a belief system that’s immune to real world experience and facts.

Science is a method

Science is also not a person, a job, a group, a qualification, 100 peer-reviewed papers or a received wisdom. It’s a method. It’s the method of critically testing competing theories. Failed theories are tossed and successful theories are only ever tentative.

Anyone can do science. And scientists can often fall short.

It’s Dr Renwick’s certitude that gives him away. That’s not science.

His Q&A comments even fail the test of logic. The one thing that we know for certain is that global warming didn’t cause the drought. That’s because there hasn’t been any.

The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible. As a result the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scary projections have not been realised.

Its best estimate in 1990 was a warming trend of 0.3 degrees a decade. The given range was 0.2-0.5. The actual trend has been 0.14-0.18. The warming didn’t happen.

I can even follow global warming’s playbook and argue from clerical authority: IPCC lead author Dr Kevin Trenberth wrote the 2009 Climategate email that declared, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. 

And IPCC head honcho Dr Rajendra Pachauri admits global warming has been “paused” for 17 years.

The lack of warming hasn’t produced the banner headlines it deserves, but that doesn’t make the result any less true.

Dr Renwick declares, “there’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible” for the drought. But logically that’s the one explanation that can be readily ruled out.

The changes we observed in Y can’t be caused by X. That’s because X itself hasn’t changed. Dr Renwick’s failure is not a failure of science, it’s a failure of logic.

He also declared, “Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.” That’s the theory. But the real world hasn’t followed the theory.

Roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon were added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That’s about a quarter of all the CO₂ ever pumped out by the burning of fossil fuels. And the world’s temperature? No warming trend.

The X variable increased. A lot. The Y variable didn’t budge. The experience falsifies Dr Renwick’s simple theory. 

Will the global warming hullabaloo now quietly go away? Has it blown up with a bang? Nope. It’s religion. And power. And big money.

And history amply demonstrates that religions mixed with power and money readily survive long past their use-by dates.

More by Rodney Hide

Comments and questions

Claims of global warming is a money making scam that's hitting us all in the pocket - for what? Not one cent taken from us is put to any good.

Yeah. Well all I know is that when I walked my daughter to school this morning and we breathed in the motor vehicle fossil fuel fumes, I wished that there were more hydrogen and electrically powered cars on the roads. But why aren't there? Oh yeah, gigantic oil company money and power and their friendly Governments stifling innovation. Rodney your ideology clouds your rational and logical thought. Why would "warmist's" distort scientific findings? What is their gain from doing that?

The statement “The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago.” is factually incorrect. Global Warming Deniers continue to recycle this myth, but it can be easily shown that Global Warming is continuing.

The “Global Warming Stopped in 1998” Lie

Didn't you read what RH wrote? Even IPCC Pachauri admits that warming has stopped. Accept the facts and get real.

No, Pachauri was not quoted directly. It was a potted summary by a News Corp journalist. Certain key words such as 'surface' and 'atmospheric' were probably omitted. The oceans are a great heat store and are net absorbers particularly in La Niña years.

So the world has stopped warming, has it? care to offer an explanation for that, or are you so super smart that you can just make the greenhouse Effect go away with the power of your enormous brain?

FFS, the idea that the world has stopped warming is unbelievably, stupendously, grandiously stupid. The laws of physics demand that the Earth will continue to heat up because the CO2 in the atmosphere reflects heat back onto the ocean and ground.

You need to disprove that if you are going to claim that that heating has stopped.

Popular AGW theory does not conform to the laws of physics. There is no equation of any predictive accuracy that links the actual trace amounts of CO2 to warming. I challenge you to find such an equation.

Funny that Pachauri has a PhD in Economics and is Chair to several BIG oil companies

Seventeen might be an exaggeration because of poor quality ground-based temperature curves. Looking at satellite data there is no doubt that warming has been absent since the beginning of this century. Warmists have tried to invent warming for our century by fraudulent means. One example comes from Hansen. He claimed that 2010 and 2005 were both warmer than the giant super El Nino of 1998. Checking his claim we find that 2005 is pure fabrication. 2010 happens to be the peak of the 2010 El Nino. Global mean temperature is not the same as El Nino peak temperature. To get global mean you must average the temperatures of the El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nuna valley. The La Nina closest to the 2010 El Nino is the 2008 La Nina, the one that drove Trenberth nuts. Their mean lines up neatly with the horizontal temperature platform rhat starts with our century. Hansen also makes a big deal of the observation that nine out of ten warmest years came after 2000. It so happens that the super El Nino of 1998 brought much warm water across the ocean which then created a step warming of 0.3 degrees in its wake. 0.3 degrees is a third or more of the entire twentieth century warming. It lasted only four years and was the only warming within the last 33 years. All the years after 2000 sit on top of the warm platform created by this step warming. The warming itself was oceanic in origin, but Hansen wrongly attributes it to greenhouse warming of which there has been none this century.

This article sounds like the drivel written by RH about the 'need for a merger' in Auckland! Now, 3 years after the event, we see the impact of his stupidity & blind faith in rhetoric!!
Spare a thought for the Poor Auckland ratepayer!


Please don't read my column. There's no need and they clearly upset you. I sense too that you are frustrated because they upset your world view but you appear incapable of a counter argument. The abuse does you no favours and doesn't trouble me. Stick to your view, be happy and leave debate to civil people who like to question and to learn.


Get yourself back into parliament, Rodney. I reckon Epsom might just need a new candidate at the next election, or, dare I say it, at a byelection.

Oh but then I wouldn't get to write my column!

You might do... As Mayor...

Alright then. Forget Epsom. Pick a quiet seat where you will get a few spare minutes to write your column. Just be sure to win it, and let another Act candidate win Epsom.

Even the hypothetical doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels turns out to be a croc. Callendar selected 280-290 ppmv on the flimsiest of evidence.

There is ample indication that a more accurate average may well have been 330-350 ppmv. CO2 levels were measured at circa 500 ppmv during the period around WWII and quickly fell back.

The whole thing is built on quicksand and the foundations have already slipped below ground level.

Interesting. Every bit of it that I have looked into is wrong. There must be something they got right. But then maybe not!

I've covered most of it here

More about CO2 – Page IV – Four key names


Too lazy to follow your link if you are too lazy to give some description of your opinion.

And whats worse, the Greens really believe it, and they'll be running the country by the end of next year

Here's a good exercise. Sit down and calculate how much CO2 (and a bunch of other much more toxic chemicals) have been belched into the atmosphere since Mankind figured out that coal, oil and natural gas can be extracted and burned for energy.

Think of all the fossil fuels that have ever been burnt by steel mills, power stations, glass factories, smelters, stoves and even BBQs. Where did all the newly liberated CO2 go?

Then ask yourself: can it be possible that Earth's thin layer of atmosphere has been able to absorb these billions of tonnes of CO2 with no detrimental effects?

If you believe that, try locking yourself in a greenhouse and starting a coal fire. See what happens.

Even Al Gore doesn't think CO2 will be at levels in the atmosphere toxic to humans. Or maybe he hadn't thought of that one yet!! The alarmists have just announced it's hit 400 parts per million. Human physiology won't have noticed. But it's great plant food!

If you have evidence -based answers to the questions that you posed, then why not say so?
This is a matter for science, not ill-informed conjecture.
It appears that you have no understanding of the carbon cycle , and the amounts of carbon involved , let alone an understanding of the complexity of climate regulation.
Yet you seem prepared to jump to conclusions in the absence of hard facts. Are you perhaps an admirer of Greenpeace?

The average daily CO2 reading hit 400 parts per million. Meanwhile:

"From studying air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists know that going back 800,000 years, the carbon dioxide level oscillated in a tight band, from about 180 parts per million in the depths of ice ages to about 280 during the warm periods between. The evidence shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels are tightly linked."

400 is just a number. It is only humans that give it more weight than 399 or 401.

There is little doubt that CO2 levels are higher now, we know we are releasing CO2 that has been stored as a solid for millions of years, of course the levels are going to rise.

The real debate is about causation and net effects. Proving causation is extremely complex but a few equations are enough to scare off most people so scientists can get away with almost anything. There aren't enough data points to confidently use Antarctic ice and there is huge selection bias. Even harder is proving that the net effect is negative. If warming is occurring then it is positive for agricultural production in Russia, less so in central Africa.

If you believe that, try locking yourself in a greenhouse and starting a coal fire. See what happens.

Don't be silly. That could kill you. You are using an inappropriate analogy.

A "coal fire" produces all manner of pollutants. So you must use modern pollution-removal technology to remove the dangerous emissions and leave the innocuous water vapour and carbon dioxide that does you no harm. Greenhouse owners routinely pump CO2 into them to raise levels to between 1200 and 2000 ppmv and increase plant growth. Those levels are perfectly safe for humans.

You suggest without quite asserting it that all those emissions of ours have been dangerous, yet the fact is that the temperature has not become dangerous. This is emotional but not logical.

Part of the reason is that the ocean, plants and the earth itself has absorbed about half of all our emissions. Oddly, as our emissions rise, the amount absorbed by the environment also rises. Why this should be so is a mystery unexplained by science.

Would you sooner live in a cave and wrap yourself in skins?????

I saw Al Gore's scary TV film on Global Warming. I knew only one of the proofs he gave; that was that the inhabitants of one Pacific Ocean nation had to be evacuated to New Zealand due to rising sea-levels. I knew that was untrue.
Now, either
a. Gore knew it was untrue, but used that lie as proof, and is thus a deliberate liker, or
b. He didn't know it, so obviously didn't check his "facts".
In either case his TV drama can claim no validity. But he makes a lot of money out of "global warming"

Yes. His movie is a bit like spot what he got right! I can't help but wonder of there will ever be a holding to account for the misrepresentation that has cost everyone so much.

I have no view on global warming but I do notice that a person's opinion on this subject has a high co-relation to their political leaning.

Another nice piece of writing Rodney; Just the Facts. Loved the X and Y analysis.


Socialists want to control everything, for the betterment of society, in their eyes. Naturally they believe they can control the climate through taxation. Perfectly logical.

Why didn't Q&A ( or TVNZ in general) know that global warming stopped 17 years ago?

Why didn't the NZ Herald notice this huge story ( front page in Australia) when Dr Pachauri declared that a "standstill" began in 1996, and that no global warming has been detected this century.

Is this a conspiracy of silence or just a refusal to undermine the faith of the publisher?

I wish I knew the answer to that one. It's a lot more important and more interesting than Aaron Gilmore's emails!'s called advertising from 'green-mailed' corporates who daren't go against any of this tripe.
It is part of the parallel universe the IPCC mercenaries operate in and goes neatly with the old adage for academics.....'publish or perish'. They've turned it into 'publishing about perishing'.....and hit-up the foundation and UN monies....who like the corporates, cannot stand against 'research and science'.
No mysteries there; just greed.

Derrr, I always thort you were think Rodney. But not thick dumb and stupid surely?? So what else is causing the planet to heat up, the poles to melt and weather patterns become even more erratic? It don't take a Dodo Bird to work that out!

Yeah right!

Apart from appalling grammar, atrociousl spelling, and a total lack of logic, your contribution is excellent. Well done.

St Bernard: Touche.

A saying for Thick or What "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Nice article Rodney - keep up the good work. Someone has to be a voice of reason.

How do you account for the ice caps melting at increasing rate in the last few years, creating new shipping lanes that have never been accessible, and low lying islands being swamped from a recent rise in sea levels?

If there has been no increase in global temperature in the last 17 years as you have reported (which may well be right), what is responsible for this phenomenom?

You are wrong ; it has happened before. Read your history books; it is cyclical.

The new shipping lanes opened have never been sailed before, so that indicates you are wrong, ya dim wit?

Ships date back to the beginning of human endeavour , right?
Sorry, epic fail!
The planet has been here a lot longer than ships.

Please name the "new shipping lanes" opened that have never been sailed bfore.

The two major shipping lanes in the Arctic are the North West and North East Passages. The North East passage was first navigated in 1878, and the North West in 1906.

While you are about it can you also explain the droughts in the US of the 30's, the little ice age in the 1500's or thereabouts, and also the 'global warming' that bought about the last ice age 10,000 years ago?.

I notice the term global warming has been out of favour with its proponents... they now favour climate change. This allows them to explain events in both directions of temperature! Very handy that.

The earth has warmed and cooled for a long time. The question is does man interfer with this process? Like Rodney points out, instead of using science many propents are using a belief system to explain it.

"If you believe that, try locking yourself in a greenhouse and starting a coal fire. See what happens."
You will be killed by the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide will cause the plants to grow even better. It will also get warmer which will make the plants grow better.

"Why didn't the NZ Herald notice this huge story ( front page in Australia) when Dr Pachauri declared that a "standstill" began in 1996, and that no global warming has been detected this century"
I complained to the Press Council about the Herald's lack of balance in its coverage of global warming. The Press Council found in their favour and, at the same time, expressed confidence that the Herald would soon publish information on the lack of warming. I am still waiting. I suspect I will wait a very long time. It is nothing short of scandalous.

You would EVENTUALLY be killed by the CO and CO2, but it would take time.
Obviously the greenhouse example is contrived, but it makes the point. Our plants do like CO2 and will consume much of the new supply, but the fact is that Mankind has dug up a sh*tl%$d of carbon that was sequestered over many millenia and released it in blink of the eye (in historic terms).
I am a scientist and businessman and I have no difficulty at all 'buying' the global warming story. At the end of the day, however, whether melting of the icecaps is induced by Man or a cyclical phenomenon, it is happening, and coral reefs are dying because of increased water temperatures. I am very concerned for my children.

Coral reefs are not dying because of increased water temperatures. As the water temperature increase, some of the organisms die off – coral bleaching – and are replaced by others. During the La Nina/El Niño cycle the Great Barrier Reef experiences major temperature changes. It has survived them for thousands – maybe millions – of years.

Most of the coral species on the Great Barrier Reef also thrive around New Guinea where the water is warmer.

"Think of all the fossil fuels that have ever been burnt by steel mills, power stations, glass factories, smelters, stoves and even BBQs. Where did all the newly liberated CO2 go?"
Man made of carbon dioxide is a tiny proportion of the total exchange between the atmosphere and the earth and the sea. The extra carbon dioxide does some good in promoting the growth of plants without the need for extra water in areas like the Sahel where extra carbon dioxide has caused the desert to retreat.

I would have thought an engineer such as yourself would know how the carbon cycle worked. Maybe not.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I have no view on AGW, but I do wonder whether the many armchair experts consider that there may be AGW that is offset by natural cooling.

A man weighs 100kg. While engaging in behaviour that (all other things being equal) causes weight loss, he also simultaneously engages in behaviour that (all other things being equal) causes weight gain. His weight is a constant, but nobody can say that neither type of behaviour has any effect by itself.


HI Rodney,

This has been a very entertaining and polarising article.Thank you.

I hope you can write a peice on judge performance and accountability one day, which is also fascinating and somewhat misunderstood issue.

Whether or not global warming is a real phenomenom or not is debatable. What is real is the corporates and governments are making billiions from producing 'green' products and increasing the tax take through the ETS. Unforunatley this has clouded the science.

I am waiting for CERN to publish their final report. Their interim report stated if I recall correctly that there is between 50% and 100% certainty that changes in climate are caused by the effects of sun activity on cosmic rays hitting earth's atmosphere mainly the upper atmosphere. They carefully limited their statement to science facts. The implication and deduction by many is that they expect to prove that virtually 100% of climate change is caused by the sun. In a way it is not surprising. If I go outside now I can feel its warmth. It makes me a lot warmer than CO2 ever did.

The real question/problem is what can or should be done about Global Warming.
1) If we stop burning fossil fuels, the world’s economy gets submerged.
2) If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels, sea level will rise enough to submerge a lot of the world’s cities. (Will take a few centuries.) (Plus a few other nasty things.)

Your choice. (I don’t have a good answer.)

Even if you were right Bill (and you cannot show that ) a few centuries seems like plenty of time to adapt.
And of course , in a few centuries , we will most likely have stopped burning fossil fuels, but not for the reasons that you suppose.
So there is no problem; so do nothing about CO2 emissions, but by all means regulate against atmospheric pollution.

There is an answer, it comes out of third world Africa.

I have been intrigued by the dead silence of the press in NZ to cover Prachuri's admission (along with the recanting of serious scientist about the "dangers" of GE and other serious and important topics). I made excellent money out of the Y2K fiasco and am trying to figure out a way of profiting from the "climate change" group think also.

Who should most people take seriously regarding the science of our climate?:

1) NASA (who can land a car on Mars using a crane suspended from the sky), the Royal Society and every other major scientific institution and scientific body on the planet, with no exceptions, some of whom have invested multiple millions of dollars in sophisticated research and hundreds of thousands of man-hours in the hard work of collecting data and evidence over at least thirty years.

2) A has-been right-wing politician frightening the dim of mind with conspiracy theories.

I'm sure that NASA will also confirm that there has been no warming for at least a decade. In fact James Hansen himself admitted this in a recent publication

AndyS, you, being an outspoken serial opponent within internet forums of taking any action to mitigate AGW by any means - other than nuclear energy - know full well the fallaciousness of your observation. It has been pointed out to you often enough. Readers can assess NASA's stance for themselves:

Actually you shouldn't listen to anyone in one sense. Least of all to me. But what you should do is listen to the argument, consider the evidence and make up your own mind. If you listen to anyone or a group, no matter how prestigious, you are making the mistake that I describe in my column.

Well, it seems we shouldn’t listen to you - that’s for certain!

You are getting basics wrong.

Let’s start with your analogy that, “The best-ever scientific knowledge was Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein blew it to bits.”

That is incorrect.

If you can’t get right something that simple, that well understood, why should we expect anything you say on climate science to be right?

Einstein’s work did not ‘blow Newtonian mechanics to bits’. The latter is very widely used, very usefully. Einstein’s work relates to conditions outside of the sorts of speeds, time-frames and distances that are typical of our daily lives.

You’ll see Newtonian mechanics used by engineers and scientists everywhere. It’s perfectly good for that. In fact, Einstein’s alternatives are inappropriate and needlessly complex for most applications.

Heck even simulations of macromolecules, something I have some familiarity with, uses Newtonian mechanics. It’s not ‘perfect’, but it is science; it’s pragmatic, used, and gets useful results.

You do realise that in writing “That’s incontrovertible” you are presenting certitude, the very thing you claim to oppose?

You also get wrong a very important basic. You offer that people should not listen to groups, implying that members of groups are ‘speaking in concert’. What you don’t say is that’s not the case for science. In science the consensus is the consequence of *criticism* of each other’s findings. Scientists don’t ‘toe lines’ the way members of political parties are obliged to!

...coincidentally, the New York Times had something to say about this issue, just in the last few minutes.

With all due respect Mr. Hide, I have much more faith in the Times' reporting than your personal, well-intentioned but untrained opinion.

The answer, Richard, is that you should believe the side which can demonstrate that their theory fits the observational evidence. Currently, with respect to the terrestrial climate, that's not NASA.

Your appeal to authority is worth exactly nothing. Only evidence counts.

Theory: That increased volumes of greenhouse gases will lead to global warming.
Observation: Temperatures have been steadily increasing over the past 100 years with some stochastic variability.

Mr Hide, fascinating to see the usual back and forwards debate, but your most valid point is that this is now a religion.
There are folk who desperately need validation and faith especially if it delivers them money and attention.
I look on the sorry so called scientists and fellow travellers worshipping at the alter of Al Gore with the same curiosity as those clasping hands in a circle praying to their chosen deity.
In my eyes, sciences sad souls.

The photo of Rodney on this column with signifiant orange tanning, taken in the last few years, is certain evidence of a hotter sun and the esistane of global warming.

I am an engineer and I don't need some windbag to confirm to me 2+2=4. I thought climate change was a hoax so I went to the science and did my own calculations which are not difficult. The answer? Human race will live only above about 46 th parallel (Pennsylvania) if we react now and we will become extinct if we do not not. Regardless of what we do, human population will be reduced by x10 or more. This is coming in our lifetime. When there is no ice in arctic in summer (2016-2017), there will be no rain (already no rain in July) and no food.

Are you a Professional, Chartered Engineer?

Humans can live anywhere. We can build structures that can have their own internal environment. Humans currently live in deserts with temperatures >40 C. I haven't seen any evidence that Baltimore is going to be significantly hotter than that under any global warming predictions. The real limit is how effective air con systems are.

We are only tied to land for agricultural production. Russia has plenty of land that could do with a few extra degrees of heat.

The author has very little scientific knopwkledge or aptitude.

He claimed that "Only religious fundamentalists have certitude. Their knowledge is a belief system that’s immune to real world experience and facts.". This is laughably wrong. He, for example is implying that people who insist the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that cyanide is poisonous, or that the oceans are mainly water, are being unscientific.

He also claims that Einstein blew Newton's theory to bits. That is not true. Newtonian physics is an excellent approximation for Relativity in many cases under the sort of conditions in our solar system (e.g. speeds slow compared to the speed of light). When we sent a man to the Moon, all of the calculations were done using Newtonian physics. Of course, me being certain men have walked on the Moon would be anti-scientific, because the author condemns certainty! Indeed, the author's belief that Relativity is better than Newtonian physics is an example of him being certain of something, but didn't he tell us that certainty is unscientific?

The author actually argues that the fact that the Earth has heated by 0.14 to 0.18 degrees per century is proof the Earth has not heated. (I really don't make these things up.)

He also argues that because it was warmer 17 years ago than last year that there is no global warming. There he goes again--he is "certain" that it was warmer 17 years ago...yet he advised us that you cannot ever be certain of anything or you are being an unscientific religious fanatic. He also fails to understand that it was never claimed that each year will be warmer than the previous year, every time. Global warming is a background effect which is small over time periods of a year. Short term factors overwhelm the global warming on short-term time scales. By the author's reasoning, if October 3 is not warmer than October 2 (in the Southern Hemisphere) every year, then it disproves that summer is going to be warmer than autumn.

So many straw man arguments; so many better things to do.

Kenneth - falsifications can be decisive. Verification is only ever tentative.


Ah, early 20th-century philosophy of science. A good start, though ironically expressed here with a good deal more certitude than is warranted.

Look into Bayesian Inference. In brief: *nothing* can be decisive. Both falsification and verification can present *extremely* strong evidence. They are symmetric.

Science can indeed never give *certainty* of a given hypothesis. But it frequently indicates *overwhelming probability*. To claim that this technicality is equivalent to never being able to truly know anything, as you do, is intellectually dishonest.

An inconvenient truth and a little discussed fact, is that the oceans produce more CO2 than any activity of any kind, that occurs above sea level. Its called plankton

You got it.
Staggering this discussion could go on in a volcanic of many about the world.
I guess the Goron 'climate scientists' (have you noticed all the chancers on TV are now given this nom de plume....for that is surely what it is) and sundry adherents would just graph any of that away too.
Wake up. Most of our ETS contributions to date have gone to the Harvard Pension offshore elitist club. Any thoughts on wot they've done with that ill-gotten gain from a naive govt????
They certainly haven't 'saved the world'

If climate change isn't cause by human activity and the planet isn't warming, then how come 97% of climate scientists from every corner of the globe say that it is? Are they stupid? Or are they in the employ of Al Gore or the greenies or something?

How out of 13,974 peer-reviewed articles written between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected global warming? How come incredibly prestigious journals like Nature, The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences are willing to publish papers supporting the human influence on climate change? Have they stopped caring about their credibility?

The holy grail for scientists is to introduce an idea that radically challenges existing knowledge, so how come no scientists have published anything substantive that challenges climate change?

And how come almost every "expert" who has come out against man-made climate change either hasn't published or worked in climate science for a long time, has a financial connection to industries that will be hurt by reducing carbon output or has absolutely no expertise in climate science? Or they're a closely linked to right wing political parties?

I'm not a climate scientist, but I find the likelihood of Rodney's conspiracy theory being true a little hard to accept.

There are other drivers of climate apart from the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's a tricky business, and climate scientists have to understand the contribution of all physical processes. I suspect this is what Kevin Trenberth is driving at, the travesty is that there is something going on they don't understand. It's good science to say so.

A comment about Newton. He actually never made a claim about about what gravity was. He constructed a mathematical model which agreed with all his experiments and observations, and which was as simple as possible and necessitated a force (gravity) acting at a distance. A lot of other scientists of the era were blinded by their own complex models involving the ether, streams of particles, etc. Newton's brilliance was in not approaching any problem with any preconceived ideas.

OK, I just watched the James Renwick interview. At no stage does he say that this years drought was caused by climate change. He correctly states that global warming does change the probability of drought.
This is typical of the way deniers such as Rodney works. Take something out of context, misquote it, and then attack the strawman argument.

See the TVNZ Press release here: "Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought"