Liars and Fools: Climate change deniers

Opinion

Lance Wiggs

Jerry Taylor

I have, somewhat randomly, made it a task to reply to climate change denial comments and articles on NBR.

Thankfully over the years we’ve seen the quality of the environmental writing in NBR and the comments themselves improve but there are still a few writers or commenters who seem to thrive on denying climate change. Denial is a surefire way to incite a good volume of comments but ultimately there are really only two explanations for this behaviour from writers and commentors. They are either liars or fools.

Liars
Over the years I have wondered whether some people were actually being paid not just to write articles but also to make comments supporting climate change denial across a wide range of media. The articles and comments often seemed to be so outrageous in their disregard for facts, spouting of pseudoscience nonsense and reference to other deniers that I could think of no other plausible explanation.

It turns out I was correct – it emerged that there were actually groups (for example in the US but it seems also in Russia) being paid to deny climate change. These groups were and still are not just writing articles and haunting comment sections, but have proven ability to capture mainstream and cable network media time. They do make for much better television – simplistic pseudoscience and strident denial, for example, plays a lot better on Fox News, CNN or in columns than complex science and deep considered discussions of the possibilities.

This systematic media attack, which follows in the footsteps of the anti-tobacco lobby and is often aligned with the extreme right-wing partisan political groups, is arguably one of the biggest civil acts of irresponsibility of our time, and some media (Fox News is the obvious one) have been complicit in that.

It’s hard not to argue these professional deniers deliberately lie to try to present their arguments (and get more airtime), and the fact-checking required to hold them to account is painful and time-consuming.

But it’s over for them – too many people know that there is no basis to their rhetoric, and society is increasingly intolerant of them.

In the US the tobacco lobby was finally stalled by losing substantial court cases, and the same approach is under way for climate change denial. Exxon Mobil, for example, just lost a case where it tried to prevent investigators from Massachusetts and New York from digging into its decades-long systematic climate change denial. Over the coming years we can expect a series of US lawsuits to result in some major behavioural changes, and material loses for the affected companies and people.

However lawsuits take time, and they are a peculiarly American approach to resolving these sorts of issues. Other countries, including New Zealand, traditionally use legislation to lower public harm from private activities like selling tobacco, toxins in food and toxic emissions. Arguably we should see laws against paying for or otherwise supporting deliberate and malicious climate change denial, just as we did against arguments (including via advertisements) that smoking cigarettes was healthy.

The worst of these deniers, I foresee, will not just be seen as pariahs, but may also be condemned and convicted by civil and criminal court systems. As the impacts of climate change become more and more obvious and abhorrent society’s perspectives on these liars will worsen. History will not be kind.

Fools
The purpose of the professional liar deniers is to prevent action against climate change and to preserve the status quo. They do this by using a wide range of media to create and support legions of people in the second category – fools.

I’ve often wondered whether some of the worst deniers in this category just didn’t ever study chemistry, physics and or advanced mathematics, and don’t know how what they don’t know. As the Dunning-Kruger effect explains, they are perhaps so uninformed about the science that they don’t realise how stupid they can sound. This is worse when they are smart and successful in other areas, as that can make them over-confident about their abilities in climate science. My favourite comment from this sub-group is the one where CO2 is breathable so clearly not harmful.

Dumb as that sounds, I would still back everyone’s ability to learn how climate change works but they have to have time and motivation.

I expect most in this group don’t have the time, and even if they accept that they don’t really understand the science, they have put their trust in people who are not credible climate scientists. This rapidly becomes a faith-based argument – my expert is better than yours.

It is, of course, ludicrous to believe that a loud yet uninformed TV personality, a marginal website or extremist politician or columnist knows more than tens of thousands of professional scientists who constantly cross-check each other. But the scientists don’t help themselves either – they are far less accessible, and the deepness of the topic makes for boring columns and TV. It’s also too easy for harried editors or biased platforms to broadcast the loudest voices, and to ignore the quiet boring ones with nuanced but serious messages.

Once the liar perspective has conned someone into believing in climate change denial, it’s very difficult for them to change their mind. That’s just human nature.

It’s especially difficult if they have a legacy of denial statements, private or public. After all, it’s hard to admit that you’ve been conned – and that you have been acting like a fool.

But while avoiding embarrassment is a powerful motivation to pretend to believe that anthropogenic climate change is not real or a threat, it pales before the genuine existential threat we are facing.

So let’s encourage those who have found themselves on the wrong side of truth to please stop behaving like fools and either do their homework or to put their trust in the world’s top scientists. We can point them to the clear and present evidence of climate change, like disappearing glaciers, and to the most obvious fallacies that they are spouting, but ultimately we need to point to the liars who have duped so many.

Happily, millions of people are changing their minds. One good example is Jerry Taylor, who was thoughtful enough, during his previous job as a professional climate change denier at right-wing think tank ALEC to dig into the facts – and then strong enough to change his mind.

We should appreciate just how difficult this is, and reward those who do have the courage to learn and change, especially those who do so earlier.

Deniers with a political cause
Some deniers, from either of the above categories (liars or fools), are active deniers primarily because they are supporting a particular political agenda. They deliberately ignore the “other side’s” arguments and preponderance of evidence.

However we are seeing a generational shift in political parties, and increasingly doing something about climate change is becoming table stakes to get elected. As a society, a world even, we need to help all politicians and their supporters understand that climate change is well beyond politics.

Hobson’s Choice: Liars or Fools?
All climate change deniers, whether they accept the label or not, are stuck between two poor choices – admitting that they are smart and educated enough to believe climate change is real but that they have been deliberately lying, or admitting that they are not smart or educated enough or that they have listened to the wrong people and have been taken for fools. Most are in the second category.

Old Fools
Sometimes the latter is tied up with age – where people are just too old to care about learning something new, and are content to be foolish. (On the other hand climate change from CO2 emissions was reported in New Zealand well before anyone alive today was born). We generally accept that older people can have outdated views, and tolerate the occasional slip-up, and most are smart enough to accept that times have changed and understand that a few of their perspectives are dated. (I hasten to add my own parents are well ahead of the times.)

But sometimes we see well-known people from another era suddenly emerge in the press as climate change deniers, perhaps with a dose of racism and/or sexism. While their rhetoric may be great for generating page views and controversy, it’s sad for all of us to watch.

Unfortunately, the required speed of response to climate change is faster than the speed of generational change. So let’s make sure they are told, gently via their editors and friends, and firmly by society, that their statements are not just foolish, but dangerous to all of us and damaging to themselves. Let’s give nothing to denial.

What about the deliberate liars, or even those who just say they are trolls looking for a reaction? Let’s stop tolerating them, and start digging into their motivations and funding while ensuring we capture the evidence for those future lawsuits.

Those who get it
There are two other categories of people when considering attitudes towards climate change. The first is those who acknowledge the established facts and science, and understand that we need to lower emissions and mitigate the climate change that is upon its and emerging. They know it’s important, and relatively urgent, but there are competing priorities as well. This is the consensus view.

The second group also has some grasp of chaotic systems, positive response and exponential growth, and has read some of the work concerning the ocean currents, ocean acidification, trapped methane and the lubrication effect of the melting ice/water interface. Those people are terrified our ecosystems may become uninhabitable, at the very least our lifestyles irrevocably destroyed, and many are increasingly (and not at all usefully) moved to the point of despair on whether we can do anything at all. They know we need to act immediately, and dramatically, to have a chance of a normal future. This is a more marginal view but if we are going to create great TV and articles, those are voices we should be hearing more of. They are not just credible but it’s increasingly concerning that they may well be right.

Punakaiki Fund manager Lance Wiggs posts at LanceWiggs.com. This post was not commissioned or paid for by NBR.


246 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

246 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 3

Yes indeed.the media need more people who are prepared to confront fools and liars.its too easy to just regurgitate propaganda.fake news is a threat to civilisation.good stuff.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 6

Also good work bringing all the fools and liars to the surface in the comments section.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 3

Trouble is Brent irony does not translate well on the page.
You were employing heavy irony in both your posts?
Surely?

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 1

One of the points of this exercise was to showcase the problem, and the festival of comments below has very clearly done that. There are a good range of fools and liars, although it's usually hard to tell what is real, what is trolling, what is paid and what is blindly following. Its obviously sad to see the evidence below.

My favourites so far are:
- that islanders built too close to the water (Tell that to the I-Kiribati)
- that people study climate change for the money (all those rich scientists)
- that climate hasn't changed while.. .. climate is always changing
- that I should watch a debunked anti-science video
- That we should look at data sources - then cherry pick an immaterial one out of millions
- That I (I infer) wear lycra.

All of these* and all of the other points below are straight out of the climate change denial playbook. They have been debunked time and time again, and I am not here to argue the established science, which is well established, and commenters here know that.

Instead here are two articles - one that Softbank and Saudi Arabia are investing $200 billion in solar power (Why would Saudi Arabia do that?), and secondly, closer to home, the sad story of the disappearing Franz Josef Glacier.

1: Saudi Arabia and Softbank investing $200 billion into a solar farm. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/saudi-arabia-softbank...
2: Fox and Franz are going going gone: https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2018/04/thin-ice/

*even the lycra - while it's funny, it's also a classic ad-hominen attack is intended to align people who don't like a certain group with the denials cause. I don't wear lycra fwiw, and very few cyclists actually do. There is a sub-genre referred to as MAMLs - middle aged men wearing lycra - who are often confused with the rest of us who just want to get to work and back.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 2

The highest irony must be reserved for you calling out ad hominem attacks when a fair proportion of your article is exactly that: you label ‘deniers’ as liars, fools or too old to think.

You flatly state that all commentators who disagree with you as wrong and claim they are all reading from the same playbook. You note that you are not here to discuss ‘settled’ science.

So, apart from insulting those who hold opposing views to you - what was the point of this piece?

Reply
Share
  • 14
  • 2

well I agree with that...the population of humans is the problem.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

But this problem might be self- limiting at least.
Lance provides evidence that this might be the case.
Denial of reality can have nasty consequences.
Those who , like Lance, oppose discourse and the advancement of knowledge using the scientific method, may be hastening their own demise.
If there were enough true believers, then human population reduction(if that is the aim) might be achieved.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 1

Well said. Mr Wiggs is blowing methane out of his rear end. Guess I must be a fool.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 1

But it’s not a view... it’s fact or as close as possible to fact as is possible with science

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 2

The article attacks, and rightly so, those who are deliberately lying and thus slowing our collective response to the greatest peril of any time. They are malicious and their own self interest pales before the negative impact on us all

The rest are behaving like fools because they have been conned. Calling someone a fool - and there is worse about me below and in my email inbox - is ad-hominem. But saying someone, who otherwise may be smart and successful, is coming across as a fool because they have been conned is not ad hominem.

The point of the piece seems self-evident, given all the comments. They show typical denialist behavior.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 5

Both the article - and your responses to the comments generated - suggest a totalitarian mindset which dislikes opposition & discussion.

You also seem to be trying to redefine ad hominem to exclude your use of it - which I suppose makes sense, given much of your article relies heavily on it.

No time like the present to refuse to engage with a potentially challenging worldview.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 2

You make no allowance for the politically driven lawsuits by the AGs of New York and Massachusetts against Exxon Mobil. Both state administrations are lead by die hard Democrats with political ambitions, who see Exxon Mobil as an attractive target.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

I note you failed to provided few, if any, specific facts requiring rebuttal. This leads me to the conclusion that your views on “human introduction of CO2 is warming the planet” is based on faith, not science. Indeed all the objective measures that might have bolstered the claim seem to have been ignored & discarded (it’s just coincidence that they all fell embarrassingly flat as time passed...) over the last 30 years. This leaves nothing but AGW/Climatista apostles to proselytize about its “certainty” and forces them to label skeptics as heretics, as you have done with this “essay”.

For example the “satellite measurements will confirm our warming” in the late 70’s & early 80’s has fallen from favor it appears as they have documented the inexplicable (and embarrassing) “pause” in temperature rise,. A rise which is not only nonexistent but is now some 0.26C lower. So very odd. Arctic & Antarctic polar ice caps have not disappeared as y’all breathlessly predicted but are within historical norms in their annual waxing & waining. Odd... Sea levels are rising at the same gentle rate they have been since pre-industrial times and I believe a recent survey of land areas within Kiribati (which I have actually visited) have increased in total mass. Again, odd.

With CO2 rising from 350 ppm to 409ppm over the last few decades (15%) you’d think that all the “sky is falling” measurements would be going haywire—unless the “liars & fools” (add in con men with Phd’s committing fraud) were the one’s promoting the AGW/Climate Change scheme, not the investors they sought to cheat.

For you to attack serious intellectuals from a wide range of disciplines, ages, experience & talent as liars & fools marks you as nothing more than an ignorant ideologue. Many people of intelligence have undertaken an objective examination of the “Climate Change” issues, the science & the discernible facts. They have examined the cross claims & allegations of manipulation, distortion, omission & outright fraud & filtered that through their own common sense and knowledge. More & more, including trained scientists who previously shared your views, have concluded that it is junk science built upon actual fraud.

Your attack reminds me of a phrase attributed to Mark Twain: “Better to remain silent & be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” You’ve removed any doubt from my mind as it relates to you & any trust to be placed in your judgment. Without any doubt you are entitled to none.

Mark Fisher, Esq.
Florida, USA

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Almost every scientific claim made in this comment is incorrect or misleading.
1. Satellite measurements confirm warming: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
2. Arctic sea ice is decreasing:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
3. Sea level is rising faster now than in (recent) pre-industrial times
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/110174.
(Here is some NZ data if you'd like:
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-...)
4. To work out how land mass changes you need to subtract sea level rise from the rate at which land is rising. In some places the land is rising faster than the sea so net land mass increases.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Wow. There are a lot of people who think they are cleverer than everyone else on here, and many of them are intelligent, they're just choosing not to see the wood for the trees. I've read endlessly on climate change and the deniers spin the same half-science, false science, and lack of logic as the anti-vaxxers, the anti-flouride people, the twin towers tin foilers, and the moon loons. It's bleakly depressing.
For all our sake's people, take a breath and get over it. There is enough evidence that we should have been doing something about this ten years ago, that we should do something about it today.
If you're looking for conspiracy - follow the money. It sure as hell doesn't lead you back to scientists and local body politicians.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

In the case of vaccines though, following the money most certainly leads you to an increasingly well documented massive conflict of interest within national health institutions and the pharmaceutical industry. Climate change on the other hand not nearly as much as climate change deniers backed by the most powerful industry on the planet. The fossil fuel industry. Climate change denial makes little sense from this perspective.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Lance, here's a graph from the IPCC AR5 (2013) report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%...

Are the climate models correct? Are the IPCC 'liars'? Is it 'fool'ish to believe the consensus amongst the 4 empirical surface temperature datasets that falsify the models?

The temperature subsequently spiked due to the 2015/16 El Nino, a natural, recurring weather event, & has returned to what it was prior now the El Nino has faded. As only a 'liar' or a 'fool' would try to pass an El Nino off as AGW, should we believe the falsified climate models, or the 100% consensus of empirical data that falsify them?

Theory or empirical data - which would Einstein, Newton, & Galileo follow?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Your ignorance boggles the mind. This absurd, no, actually pathetic, article is a testament to the destruction of science at the hands of the globalist fascists of the IPCC and leftist foundations. The truth, however, will win out!!! Welcome to the Eddy Minimum and the real power of the cosmos.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Tim: you are so right... I studied the science, data and arguments from all sides & the GSM theory has the better facts, science & logic. It has the added benefit of either proving itself with a few years rather than 100. Of course the impact on food production will be catastrophic, without the volcanoes & infrastructure destroying Earthquakes.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What you don't seem to mention in your diatribe is the people who believe in climate change (me, I've got a Masters in it); but struggle with the liars and over-exaggerators who revel in the limelight from issuing ever increasing models showing that hellfire and brimstone will shortly be descending upon us.

These people are further away from the consensus than "climate change deniers" and are actively driving people away from where the science actually is (something needs to be done, that thing is technological changes, we are currently well ahead of the game in the A1T, if we carry on like we are then there isn't a problem).

If people are going to call out scientists and non-scientists who do not hold the consensus view (which I would argue is not science, as it is non-consensus views that create step changes in our understanding); but if you feel that this is important then surely it is important to do so equally on all sides?

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Surely it is undeniable that climate is changing as it always has so how much human activity is responsible as an argument is less important than adapting to the likely changes in Agriculture etc whilst continuing to mitigate the effects of human activity.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 1

Yes; human impact on climate change is marginal, but it does have an impact. Technological changes (and by that I'm not talking massive, immediate and expensive changes, just things like replacing coal burning power stations at the end of their lives with natural gas; further improvements in the efficiency and cost of solar panels; a shift towards electric cars over time) will deal with the marginal impact that we have.

The good thing is that these minor changes will have a bigger impact on other forms of pollution that have a far greater effect on mankind and also mean that adaptation is easier to do (solar roofs mean that you don't have a few power stations located near seas with rising sea levels (which are normal for interglacial periods, for example)). The key is to not do things that make no sense to do: so don't scrap all petrol powered cars now; just wait for the technological change to mean that it makes sense to buy electric anyway.

The, much maligned, IPCC are quite clear on this too - they have a number of business as usual scenarios; ranging from a worst case scenario of all electricity generated from coal (oddly enough the only BAU scenario that ever makes it into the models alarmists use) to a best case scenario of technological advance meaning a gradual decrease in reductions and the world becoming wealthy enough to adapt to the few adverse consequences. We are currently well ahead of the latter in terms of the solar price, shift to natural gas generation, and pretty much every other measure.

The simple fact is that anybody using the worst case scenario in their modelling as "business as usual" is lying and their research can not be trusted.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Cite the single most compelling factor that you believe settles the question. Don’t use one based on data adjusted by NASA/NOAA but something that is incontrovertible as a data set.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Does scientific consensus count?
Maybe people want to read the linked paper below. You don't have to be a climate scientist, you just have to know that "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper".
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I don't think that there is anything that settles the question, very little science is settled (although some of it is dusty). That increased levels of CO2, in a closed loop system, would have a warming effect is relatively uncontroversial as you can easily show this through experiment.

The question therefore is what effect it has on a relatively chaotic system such as the atmosphere. I incline towards it continuing to have a warming effect but this effect to be somewhat neutered by other factors offsetting this. Our climate is amazingly stable so I struggle with it having significant positive feedbacks.

I think that any effect is something that we should do something about; we should be looking at alternatives where they are economically viable. But we shouldn't be spending a fortune subsidising uneconomic solutions to a problem that isn't that grave.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

I see this article as just another bullying attempt by people who refuse to stick with the issue.
1. Climate is changing? Yes it has always been changing, and thank goodness it did.
2. Glaciers have been melting since end of ice-age, and thank goodness for that.
3. Calling people insulting names will not do a darn thing about "climate change", you are blatantly trying to frighten good people out of the debate.
4. If it is good enough for you to call people, most of whom you would not know, "liars" "fools" "old fools". Then, Mr Wiggs, it should be okay to call you, someone I do not know and do not want to know, a low-bred cowardly bully.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 1

For all commenters - if your point of view is that climate change does not exist, or is not a problem then:

1: Please state where you learned the basics of chemistry, physics and climate science. Schools, and universities not websites.
2: Please only link to reputable peer-reviewed journal articles for evidence to back up any assertions you make
3: Please state whether or not you are being paid or otherwise benefit from commenting here.
4: Please state where you live

My own responses:
1: Where I learned the basics
I studied chemistry, mathematics & physics at secondary (high) school to Bursary/Scholarship (i.e. last year) level. I studied Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics as part of my B Technology at Massey. This included Analytical and Applied Chemistry, where we studied atmospheric chemistry and climate science.
I studied Industrial Ecology at Yale University's FES - the course included of atmospheric chemistry and climate science.

2: Links - some I refer to are:
https://www.ipcc.ch, Nature.com, http://www.sciencemag.org
https://climatefeedback.org is a great site that has actual climate scientists review articles on climate science.

3: This is definitely not a paid gig.

4: Auckland, New Zealand.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

My point of view is that Climate Change isn't a huge issue as we are solving it and what governments are trying to do is wrong.

1. Maths, Physics & Chemistry at high school in the UK. Natural Sciences (specialising in Earth Sciences; but with modules in Physics, Biology and History of Science) at Cambridge University in the UK. Masters thesis in paleo-climatology.

2. Too many to mention but https://www.ipcc.ch/ and the Stern Review are pretty important. The main things in these is to make sure that you understand the SRES and how these affect the predictions (and where we are in these). Stern Review is useful as it provides a useful measure of cost.

3. Nope, and don't work in the field either.

4. Auckland, New Zealand.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Who denies the climate doesn't change? Nobody. Yet you make accusations that many people do.That's a ridiculous meme. What people dispute is that CO2 runs temperatures....which is irrelevant to whether the climate changes or not. Its like me accusing you of being a darkness denier.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

david,

Good analogy.

The trouble is that if dishonest governments can "prove" it is man made climate change then they can tax it.

There is an old saying that socialists will tax anything that moves. Well the earth moves around the sun, so they have just found a way to tax it.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

You forgot 5. Do you hold Creationist views? Big overlap in my opinion.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Oh please. We are talking about ANTHROPOGENIC Climate change not freaking natural cycles. Don't act like a little toddler about this dire issue. Despicable. The science makes it inarguable that industrialized society has made measurable changes to atmospheric composition and the biosphere. The fact that this is completely denied by people already suggests a complete and utter state of psychosis, blind religious belief systems and a total refusal to look at decades worth of data, basic chemistry and physics. Since it's clear you people have a very low IQ I'll make a simple statement for you to ponder. How can pumping TRILLIONS of tons of industrial waste products and scientifically indisputable greenhouse gasses such as millions of years worth of stored carbon dioxide in the form of fossil fuels into the environment and atmosphere every year for the past 200+ years NOT have a measurable impact on atmospheric compositions, ocean currents the jetstream and thus the planetary climate system? Inconceivable for people to suggest that a global industrialized civilization is not able to significantly impact the environment DESPITE MOUNTAINS of hard empirical data from countless independent sources that make this inarguable without any reasonable doubt. To see the public masses still bickering and fighting about this issue in this late and perilous hour makes me lose ALL hope completely that near term, planetary omnicide due to abrupt climate change and the subsequent collapse of industrialized society can be avoided. Good job folks.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Great article Lance

You are spot on
Your argument also applies to the environment and on both counts the last National government were both liars and fools. Simon Bridges, Paula Bennett and many senior Opposition spokespeople were all part of that and now are trying to rebrand as blue green. It won't work as they have marked their territory as non believers.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 11

Non- believers?
Mate , I never took you for a religious type.
National has a unique opportunity here to tell the truth.
Will they have the courage?
We will see.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 2

"National has a unique opportunity to tell the truth ".yep i guess anything is possible.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 4

Bit rich coming from someone who berates ANZ as being "unethical" for promoting their own products, then cheerfully urns up for work and recommends that his clients should buy shares in a company that he himself owns shares in!!!

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Agree
Will they finally have the courage to agree that the our rivers and waterways are polluted and most are polluted by farmers over use of fertilisers

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 3

Pollution comes from many sources, not just farmers. Farmers using more land and more intensive farming because we need more food. We need more food to fill hungry mouths because the population is expanding. Can I assume that you have at most only one child, or none at all?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Really Sam,do you believe what you just wrote...that farmers are using all that fertiliser for humanity's benefit...and not to maximise profitability? You are good.and yes lots of other pollutants out there but that in no way diminishes the role of nitrogen ex farms in waterways.our lax attitude to pollution ex farms is a de facto subsidy to the farming sector.for the record I am an investor in farms too but acknowledge the responsibility to the environment.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

I reckon that almost everyone agrees that the water in places is no longer pristine, and that we can' t return to that state.
Was it a stupid idea to turn natural gas to ammonia-urea?
Before that , nitrogen fertiliser use was uncommon in pastoral farming.
Nitrogen excepted, over-fertilisation is uncommon and uneconomic.
It is generally accepted by pastoral farmers that overloading the soil in any way is a bad idea.
The phosphorus getting into the rivers is coming from soil erosion in the hills: another problem altogether. The sad fact is that the geology in some areas was such that the land should never have been cleared.
To make any capital out of it, National would have opt for purely science- based policy for climate change, pollution , land degradation , and agrarian reform.
The " truth" Party would not be able to do junk science in this day and age.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Agree
But it was only two or three years ago that the government, farmers, Fonterra and Federated Farmers were in denial. It's great that they now accept they are part of the problem but it was only after they all got caught out after years of denial and complete lies

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

It could be worth keeping in mind that Federated Farmers does NOT speak for farmers : never has, in my opinion. But I have been a member for only 40 years, so I could be wrong about that.
I would suggest that Fonterra, being as it is the creation of the "elite dairy families" , does not speak for all its farmers either.
We expect, and get , nothing more or less than self- interest and self- preservation from government of all stripes, to go with their exploitation of we the people.
So that brush might have been a bit broad :-)

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

If that is is the case, why are the most heavily polluted rivers in urban areas? Another inconvenient fact?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

What a load of bollocks

What the Avon River and Heathcote rivers ( basically creeks ) in Christchurch. There are no real rivers in Auckland. Hamilton has the mighty Waikato that is polluted by farmers from just north of Taupo to the sea. Wellington has the Hutt River which I am unsure of its current state. Tauranga has no polluted rivers or rivers of note near it.

The rest of the rivers are almost all polluted by the rural sector

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 4

Hamilton City is the sinlge largest point source, and the largest overall source, of pollution into the Waikato river.

And that explains the effort by the councils to tax the farming minority to pay for the Hamilton sewerage system upgrade (without losing the urban vote).

Getting back to Auckland and Christchurch, you may call them just creeks and streams but I haven't yet seen an urban waterway I would want to wade in let alone swim in. They're the disgusting reality of the hypocrisy of the urban Greens and their urban backers that they cannot clean up their own backyards. Filled with trash, refuse and detritus flushed straight off the city streets and sometimes even from open sewers.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

So all the Auckland beaches were polluted by farmers over summer? Nope. They were polluted by the waste from city dwellers. End of.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

When Scribe's on your side you know that you are in trouble

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

The question is not whether climate change deniers are liars or fools. By asking that question you fall into the same trap that you are accusing others of.

Climate change is an established fact. Indeed, it has been changing for as long as the Earth has been round.

The real question is “is climate change being driven by physical or chemical influences?”

Physical would be the effects of the Earth's wobbly orbit and the influence of the suns behaviour. Chemical would be hoary old chestnut of CO2 (or methane) emissions.

My issue is that CO2 captures all of the anti-establishment, left-leaning academics. They follow the money just as the left wing follow any anti capitalist dogma. And instead of having an open mind, they decry any individual, academic, or corporate who articulates an alternative view. This, in turn, directly contradicts the philosophical drivers behind scientific investigation. Retain an open mind, theories are just that, theories, and be prepared to countenance alternative points of view. Something that you article appears to miss.

There is no evidence of similar amounts of money going into research around the physical influences, apart from the US military whose primary driver is warfare.

Reply
Share
  • 17
  • 3

Well said.

Anyone who understands language, and knows about the tricks of indoctrination and brainwashing, the term "Climate Change Deniers" is an indoctrination technique. It implies that anyone who challenges the belief that "temperature rise follows man made Co2 increase" is automatically a person with their "head in the sand" and therefore of unsound mind and a lower quality human being, or perhaps retarded.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In my experience "Climate Change Addicts", are those who zealously push the concept of man made Climate Change, and do not want to understand or discuss the science, instead boldly repeating statements, without actually doing an research to see if what they are saying is actually true.

The zealous fervor with "Climate Change Addicts" label their opponents is reminiscent of the religious fervor that labelled and tried Galileo as a heretic when he tried to communicate that the earth circled the sun, not the other way around.

The fact that Co2 increases actually lag temperature increases by several hundred years is a fact that Al Gore and "Climate Change Addicts" consider a minor technicality.

The fact that Al Gore has made millions out of propagating the lie that 'temperature rises follow Co2 man made increases' does not seem to bother the "Climate Change Addicts"

The fact that the major Greenhouse gas is actually water vapour, does not seem to matter to the "Climate Change Addicts". The fact that water vapour is controlled by temperature and that Co2 increases with temperature also does seem to matter. Never let the scientific facts get in the way of a good story.

Since the "Climate Change Addicts" claim that all scientists agree on "man made Co2" is causing Climate change, then they won't have a problem discussing the facts rationally. This includes the fact that all IPCC scientists do NOT agree with climate change. If you discount the "scientists" who are not scientists, and discount the scientists that receive bulk funding for their ideas, or simply rubber stamp other peoples ideas, you are left with a small group of scientists that are divided in their opinions and most provide science that shows the Sun is responsible for temperature variations.

The fact that "Climate Change Addicts" are claiming massive increases in sea level rises, when our own Government and University departments that measure level rise have seen no change in the rate. Science is science.

If "Climate Change Addicts" claim to be impartial then I suggest they take a look at the "Great Global Warming Swindle" - you can watch it on youtube and it goes onto the actual science, and the fatal assumptions that early scientists made with regards to Global Warming.

The fact that on this video are actual IPCC scientists, will no doubt mean nothing to the "Global Warming Addicts". They don't want the science, they just want to be right. They have been brainwashed.

Reply
Share
  • 15
  • 3

Fair point but the argument about tricks for indoctrination and brainwashing is equally applicable to the non believers or those pitching the ' non man made ' argument.

The main point is that we have a major climate change situation that needs urgent attention and the man in the street is scientifically challenged and relies on common sense - which is we MUST change our ways and do something about this problem

Meanwhile the disbelievers and affected corporates like the oil companies and rogue countries like the USA and India who are huge polluters spread more and more lies.

It's time to stop arguing about the full reasons for climate change - there is a huge problem and we have to do something about it
I, like many, actually do care about what my children and grandchildren are left with on this planet and doing nothing or wasting oxygen arguing either argument is not the answer.

We all need to just get on with it and do our best to fix it and that includes all political parties too - this should not be an issue for political point scoring

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 10

Just a minor point: what change in climate are you talking about?

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 1

You are stating "we have a major climate change situation", as if you should be believed just because you said it.

A simple rule of science (and life). You cannot treat a problem if the problem does not exists, or if it does exist but you do not know the cause. If you don't understand the problem, any solution may actually compound the problem.

So, 'The Scribe', using only scientific principles, what is your understanding of what is causing global climate change?

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

Well said, Scribe, and one of the few times that I agree with you. Even though your argument falls back on itself.

It is far too simplistic to posit that oil companies, the bad ole US of A, or India are the rogues here. We are ALL culpable. The rationale - it is POLLUTION, not simply CO2 that is the culprit.

Perhaps if Al Gore et al turned their attention to cleaning up the planet and addressing the contributors to pollution outside of the narrow CO2 spectrum you might get wholesale buy in from us all, rogues states and corporations included.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

It is worth stating here what some people call research is nothing more than parroting so called "experts".

Real research includes checking source data and comparing published claims with the foundational science, engineering, physics, maths etc that our world is based on.

Checking the source data: Take for example sea level rise. The so called IPCC experts claim a certain sea level rise and our Royal Society agreed. The Royal Society cited references so I looked up the references and source data. The source data contradicted the Royal Societies findings. The source data, collected from tide markers all over NZ by diligent NZ scientists, showed no change in the rate of sea level rise.

The law of gravity and the Archimedes law of displacement means you cannot have sea level rises in one part of the planet without it affecting the sea levels all around the globe.

The Royal Society position was based on not wanting to challenge the IPCC.

A good researcher always compares the theories with an understanding of science, and the complex foundations upon which it is based. Contrary to Lance's claims, I suspect that it is him that has not done the research, while decrying those that have. His article is nothing more than labeling those who do not agree with him as heretics.

Reply
Share
  • 11
  • 1

The sun being primarily responsible for recent climate change variations was debunked long ago.
IPCC and many others specifically address this sorts of denialist pseudo science, which is a waste of scientist time and money.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 7

Lance, have a look at the recent work by Svensmark. He has provided convincing evidence based on observations and experiment. https://www.thegwpf.org/svensmark-sr-jr-the-connection-between-cosmic-ra...

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

If it were true that the varying distance from the sun did not impact on the temperature of the earth, then you will need to provide evidence as to why Newton’s inverse square law in respect of radiation does not apply in your universe. The inverse square law applies to all radiation, including heat from the sun, radio, TV, mobile phones and even your home Wifi. It is both ignorant and arrogant to suggest that Newton’s inverse square law which is the foundation of radiation propogation has been debunked. Stick to what you know about. Whoever convinced you that Newton’s inverse square law is no longer applicable, is not a scientist. Newton’s inverse square law is a cornerstone of radiation physics, clearly something you know nothing about.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Pull up a chart of 400 year sunspots. You will notice all 3 minimums (maunder, Dalton and the 1880 minor minimum some call glassberg) correlate EXACTLY with sunspot activity. Also correlates EXACTLY with warming coming out. CO2 stayed the same before, during and after the maunder. The Dalton....CO2 actually went UP as we cooled. Glassberg....CO2 also went UP as we cooled there. As CO2 started its current rise around WW2...we cooled for 30 years????? Temps correlate about 95% and CO2 less than 10% over the last 400 years. Look back 1,000 years and the medieval warm period was warmer than today....when CO2 was 280ppm. All one has to do is look at HISTORY....CO2 doesn't correlate for shit. in fact CO2 rises correlates more with cooling times than warming over the last 1,000 years. Did you know CO2 was used as a refrigerate?

Did you know CO2 can only absorb a mere 3 wavelengths of infrared radiation. I believe 2.3, 4.7 and 15 microns. That's only 8% of total infrared radiation...meaning 92% just goes around CO2. So this little trace molecule that can't even absorb 92% of the energy is supposed to heat the entire atmosphere? LOL Plus CO2 has the lowest specific heat (ability to hold heat) of any atmospheric gas.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

You quickly overlook the sun, our star? The sun is the earth's heater and has a marked impact on the earth's orbit and atmospheric conditions. Did you review the current Solar Minimum cycle, which is due to commence in full by 2019? Sun spot activity is at a low level and may add to the inexplicable drop in average temperatures in recent times. All factors are in the mix.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

But Philip even if you wish to cling to the tenuous argument that the accelerating rate of climate change is not connected to the significant increase in industrial emissions of CO2 over the last 100 years, why would discourage R&D and investment in remedial technologies that will anyway be required when fossil fuels are exhausted? It is no coincidence that the most outspoken of the older generation NBR readers, who is dead set against the effectiveness of the twenty year old NZ electricity market and continuously denigrating successful new technologies such as smart grids, electric cars, solar power, wind generation etc s also an acknowledged climate denier.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 7

Where in this article and the many responses has anyone said that we should not engage in R&D to look at alternative fuel sources? And no on, as far as I can see, is denigrating successful new technologies.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 1

Those wobbly myths have been debunked years ago.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 5

The wobbly myths have NOT been debunked at all. Calculating the trajectory and path of planets rely extensively on the eccentric path of planets. Without it, man could not have landed on the moon, send probes to distance planets, or calculate the journey to Mars. The formulae governing Orbital changes are an intricate part of all space flight calculations used by NASA. To debunk the wobbly theory would mean that all space flights and probes could never have actually left earth and were merely film studio mockups. Is this a resultant theory you are pushing?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Planetary orbits have been predictable for many years. And correlate with temps, proven by Svensmark and also a 4 year study at CERN. Quite stunning for someone to write an article state such a position. There are many cycles...11,000 year....120,000 year....1,000 year...11 year, etc that correlate with rotational patterns and sun pole changes. I am literally stunned someone writing on the subject has no idea.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 1

Astounding isn’t it. Wiggs is trying to debunk the laws of physics. Probably read too many Terry Pratchet novels.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

You are completely missing that the deniers are not using science. They are drawing false conclusions from half truths in exactly the same way the anti-vaxxers do.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

When you follow the science you understand this is an incredibly complex and sprawling issue across the sciences, dealing with complex systems, and complex, often error-ridden modelling of data, and not always a consensus, especially in the details or regarding consequences and timing of consequences, and so publishing an article that doesn't mention the science at all, simply bags people into one of several simplistic groupings, with all sorts of warnings of criminal action, etc, is NBR's right which I'd defend to my dying breath, but that doesn't change it from also being repugnant even if this has become the MO of debate circa the 21st century. I guess I'd rather be a fool, albeit I hope an informed one, rather than belong to the self-proclaimed mind police.

What was the point of this piece, Lance?

Reply
Share
  • 16
  • 1

I think that Lance, having demonstrated that he knows nothing of the scientific method of obtaining (provisional) knowledge, and having had it pointed out to him that it might have been better had he not so demonstrated quite so convincingly, has decided to " double- down", as the Americans say.
Thus removing all possibility of doubt.
Better than a 97% consensus on that, I would predict.

Reply
Share
  • 10
  • 0

The point is self evident from the comments, which are unintentionally hilarious.

They point is that we should let people know that they are coming across as fools, and we should stop tolerating the professional deniers. (I would really be interested in where these comments are coming from - how much sock puppetry is in evidence?)

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 9

I for one was willing to give your article the read it deserved. Now your arrogance is showing and it does nothing to support your comments.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

oh dear, now we might be sock puppets and not real people

Ad hominem par excellence

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

It seems, in the end, that you are the intolerant fool. Perhaps some humility is in order? A sad, misinformed, deluded fool is more pathetic than a hilarious one.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

"we should let people know that they are coming across as fools ..........."
What a great idea, so I will,
Mr Wiggs please.
Sir you are coming across as a fool, so well are you doing it you are running the risk of litigation from the authors of 'The minister of funny walks' and the likes.
For your info. I do not own a coal mine, oil-well or power generator, I am a retired stockman/farrier, did not go to a university, so was able to retain my freedom of thought.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

The most important thing about climate change is what can be done about it. It's already starting with the shift to electric cars. But it's not happening quick enough for some ( the greenys etc ). But with oil expected to last another 50 years or so, it's not going to happen anytime soon. What humans need to address even more is how to stop all the forests of the world from being chopped down, and how to get all the overpopulated countries of the world to change breeding habits. At the moment the only answer seems to be to give them more food so that they can continue to breed.
But those issues have been put on the back burner for the time being, so that everyone can argue about global warming. Maybe next year?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 1

Interesting points Ivan. However.......

Forest need to be chopped down that prime, and then replanted.
Basic Science: During the growth phase, trees consume Co2 and produce Oxygen. Once a tree has matured it starts to die. When a trees dies, withers and disintegrates, i.e. oxidation, it uses up the same amount of oxygen it produced during it's growing phase, and puts out the same amount of Co2 that it consumed as it was growing.

Trees should be cut down. But replanted as well.

Trees are not the sole answer anyway. Moss is being used as a biological air filter. Just a few square meters of moss produces as much oxygen as 275 trees.

https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/21/moss-covered-citytree-bench-combats-ur...

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

That's all good and well. But when you know that the Amazon rain forest is being cut down at the rate of the size of two football fields every minute of every day. If it continues at that rate it will be completely gone within the next fifty years, then we have a problem. Plus it's not being replanted, it's being turned into pasture for cows. Not good.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

Your facts are wrong, and your calculations are way out.

Firstly, at 2 football pitches per minute, 24 hour per day, is 805 years not 50. Nothing like overstating the loss of trees by 1600 times.

Secondly, the rate of deforestation is the lowest it has been since the 70's, at less than 1/3 of those levels.

Thirdly, replanting is not nil as you have suggested. If you search google ( a bit of very low level research) you will find a project that is replanting 73,000,000 trees, and there are moves to increase this.

Despite loss of Amazon Trees, in the 10 years from 2003 to 2013, total world greenery increased. The increase is so noticeable that the world's trees and plants now store almost four billion more tonnes of carbon than they did in 2003.

Ocean plankton and the humble moss were responsible for the oxygen levels of planet earth we have today, not trees.

True, we need to preserve our planet and stop polluting the environment. Over-population is contributing to this. With current life expectancy, an average two adults with average of two children will grow into a family of 6 or even 8 before the first generation is deceased. An average of one child per couple will only keep the population in check, neither increasing or decreasing.

If you are serious about saving the planet, you will probably set an example by having only one child.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Well I suppose a palm-oil tree is still a tree, for all the good it is.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The IPCC & NOAA fabrication of data,
combined with faulty models which consistently evince predictive failure should give any critical thinker pause regarding AGW.

Ideologues that talk of criminalising disssent & characterise opponents as liars or too old & stupid to think clearly should be given wide berth.

Reply
Share
  • 11
  • 0

Maggie Thatcher: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

This is a vicious personal attack on me and my friends. It is not supported by one iota of convincing evidence that man-made greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming. I can only assume that, like the Royal Society of New Zealand, Prof James Renwick and, to a large extent, the IPCC Lance is unable to provide any convincing evidence based on observational data that man-made greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming. As far as I know, the evidence simply does not exist.

What he and his friends rely upon is the output of climate models that are programmed to predict warming if carbon dioxide levels increase. And that is what they do. They assume what they are meant to prove. The evidence is that the temperature rise they predicted is twice as great as has actually happened. In New Zealand, temperatures have dropped slightly in the last 20 years.

They also quote as "evidence" the hypothesis that in a simplistic world without influence from clouds, solar emissions, cosmic rays and the like, doubling of carbon dioxide will cause a temperature increase of about 1.1 And then, by some mysterious process involving water vapour, will be amplified to 3 degrees. But, it seems, increased water vapour leads to more clouds which cool the world.

Lance, read this paper that provides observational evidence that the climate models seriously exaggerate warming: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

Lance Wiggs is also against one of the fundamentals of science – open debate. He wants us shut down, rather than being prepared to debate with us. And given the lack of arguments in his article, it is not surprising.

If Lance has the evidence that, it seems, nobody else has, there is a $5000 prize waiting for him at the New Zealand climate science coalition. "Put up or shut up!"

Finally, I am a major shareholder in a small hydro scheme that makes windfall profits from the emissions trading scheme. I am speaking against my own financial interests. Is he?

Reply
Share
  • 12
  • 1

Hi Bryan

Of all the commentators on climate change in NZ, you would be one of the few with the most credentials and understanding of the science.

The difference between knowledge and understanding is a minimum of 10,000 hours of applied learning. Lance has knowledge but not understanding.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

Bryan
Margarete Thatcher was never a Climate Denier: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/19/thatcher-understoo....

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

If you want to debate the science then do so as scientists do - in decent journals. Try Nature Climate Change. I’m happy to read any article published there.
https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Lance, how about this from the American Meteorological Society?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1'
The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.

BTW, if you had studied climategate you would have discovered how Jim Salinger and other senior people in the IPCC conspired to try to get Chris de Freitas fired from Auckland University and how they fiddled peer review to prevent papers being published.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

The mark of an expert is that they do not need to rely on publications, journals or papers to prove an argument. Experts are equipped with an understanding of the proven hierarchy of principles of their vocation, which they apply to the raw source data.

What is written in a journal is someone else's ideas. Ultimately, the scientific principles have to stack up.

There are people writing in the media that say the world is flat and they actually believe it. Yet to anyone than knows about visual perspective and the concept of a horizon can verify this by up a mountain or in a plane and confirm it.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

That's a massive filter Lance has applied to his willingness to look at the science - only one journal.

Sure you can't look at them all unless it's your job. And yes, different publications have different editorial positions on what type of papers they consider relevant to their publication.

But having made the claim that those who have a position of skepticism about the role of CO2 in forcing climate change in a particular and possibly adverse direction are deniers of the evidence for this, yet who put up links putting an evidential basis for their skepticism, should be respected by looking at the paper, not denigrated ad hominem

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

the most important thing about climate change is to accept that it is happening and has been happening since time began.What is more it is critical to our planet that it keep on happening or we will be wasted matter.
Life is dependent on constant change in all things.
Liken it to us ageing so too is the planet and the universe that supports it.
It is constant change and constant re-balancing.
Forget about Co2 being the cause...that is nonsense....we could not produce enough Co2 to make the slightest difference in 500 years on its own.
Stop cutting trees down because they provide earth drainage, stop pumping our rain water as a waste out to sea and provide every house build with a water tank.
Stop sucking water out of the ground and store rainwater instead.
The Planet will adjust to natural change it does not need us to think we know better and force change that is totally undesirable .
Life on earth will be for ever more so get used to it.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

This article is a classic case of projection by a person who is either unwilling or unable to discuss the related science.

The question is simple enough: Will human emissions of CO2 ever cause catastrophic global warming/climate change?

If the answer is "no" - which all available evidence (or lack of it) suggests to the case, then we should not be wasting trillions to try to prevent it.
These wasted trillions have real-world negative consequences , for which people like Lance Wiggs bear a shared responsibility.
I am not paid by anybody to state my opinions and will leave it to other NBR readers to decide whether Lance or I is the fool.

Reply
Share
  • 10
  • 0

There is plenty of credible scientific research which suggests the sun is entering a cooling phase and that we will have a mini ice age in the next couple of decades. So our warming problems will be solved.
I'm not a global warming sceptic but I remain to be convinced that it is caused primarily by human activity.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

Talking of liars. In Al Gore's "documentary" he states that one South Pacific island had already been inundated by rising sea levels, and its population were all evacuated to New Zealand.
Now thar is just not true.
So, did Gore know it was not true, and deliberately lied to advance his thesis?
Or did he just not bother to check whether there was any truth in such a major factor supporting his thesis?
I'm not sure which is the worse.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

Unprecedented isolated sea level rise are often quoted as proof, but cannot happen because of the laws of gravity and displacement. I've read about the Islands quoted, and what happened is result of building on an Island close to sea level. It is called coastal erosion., something we all studied in high school geography.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

"laws of gravity and displacement"...

I've avoided commenting on this thread but I couldn't help taking the bait in this case: May I assume you're suggesting that islands float on the ocean and if so are these real scientifically proven laws or just the low-calorie ones that those who have little knowledge can cope with?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

If the water rises 5 metres in one part of the world (as opposed to land subsidence), it will rise 5 metres elsewhere as well. If that was not the case the whole Global Warming argument where the melting of the ice caps would hold no 'water' and not affect anywhere else in the world.

Clearly you skipped high school. What nature creates, nature can take away. It is not sea level rise, it is land subsidence.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Not entirely true.
The water near the center rises more, and the water and the top and bottom less. It’s more complicated than that too, but there are handy maps where we can forecast what coastlines will look like in the future.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

The seal level has risen steadily at 1.5-2 mm per year for the last 100 years.

The accurate Australian sea level gauges on Tuvlau and other Pacific islands show the similar rises. The only exception is the Carteret islands that are in a subduction zone.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Lance near the Centre of what? Gravity is a constant all over the surface of the earth. There is no centre, no top, no bottom. That is purely for representation on a square piece of paper called a map. Water does not congregate in one area. Newton’s law of gravity has not changed. I suppose now you will say that Newton’s laws have been debunked.

How Brand damage are you really trying to create for yourself?

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

The main issue with the Pacific Islands is over-fishing of parrot fish and destruction of corals. The sea level moves up, the corals grow towards the space, parrot fish eat the coral and their detritus washes up and builds up the island to cope with the sea level increase.

Changing this almost symbiotic relationship is dangerous; which is why islanders need to know not to destroy their corals or kill their parrot fish. Man-made climate change has nothing to do with it as climates change, sea levels move, but the islands remain reasonably static a few meters above sea-level.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

There are regional lensing effects due as I understand to sea floor features. But these can be accounted for when looking at overall sea level change measurements.

It may or may not be that the sea levels are rising. To date this would appear not to be the case, putting a discount on one of the claims about imminent and real effects of CO2 increases.

If rising sea levels were in clear evidence it is a completely different matter to demonstrate the possible/ lilkely causes of this. The CO2 argument would merely be one proposition as a forcing cause.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Paper (linked in article) out last year by maybe the worlds foremost sea level guy ....Morner. Shows from actual tide gauges around the world there is hardly any sea level rise. The only place that shows rise is the manipulated (yet again) satellite data. http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/23/new-study-tide-gages-find-no-glob...

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

My belief is that the satellite data was probably not manipulated, but simply wrongly interpreted. After all satellite data when dealing with % of a mm 30,000 kms above the earths surface is not that accurate. Imaging try to measure your child's height and therefore growth by satellite, especially when it conflicts with your tape measure.

A satellite is the wrong tool for measuring minute differential changes, tens of thousands of miles away.

More importantly, a professional scientist will always calibrate the measuring device against existing known standards before embarking on a measuring process. Wrong measurements caused by un-calibrated measuring devices or systems is actually quite common.

The fact the satellites measurements did not equate to the tidal markers, a known standard, should have alerted the Nerds at NASA that their measuring process was flawed.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Sadly,,, on this occasion, your ignorance and self praise are both in significant proportion.

The science that denounces climate scaremongering is beginning to see the light of day and clearly proves the extent yo which data has been manipulated and/or ignored in order to prove cases on the exteme edge of reality.

You should get out more and read more widely to appear credible.

Reply
Share
  • 11
  • 0

After reading this, I think its pretty clear there needs to be an urgent research study into the deterimental neurological effects of sustained periods of wearing lycra.

Reply
Share
  • 12
  • 0

Well Lance - you have exceeded yourself once more Too much time on your hands and no knowledge
Insulting people who actually follow the science is the last resort of the uninformed or plain stupid. Ad hominem attacks never defeat science;
I could return your insults by suggesting you look in the mirror for the fool but would rather you take the advice of Cicero and understand fully both sides of the issue prior to jumping to conclusions .
Junk science spouted by the media is failing the convince the public as 50 years of their predictions have proven to be wrong and they can no longer be fooled
Mother Nature is firmly in charge and the climate variations are natural and follow the pattern of not only the Holocene period but prior periods
Take some 9nstruction from Bryan Leyland and others before bouncing into print on a subject of which you seem totally uninformed.
I gather you are good at finance so why not just stick to your knitting ?

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

Be reminded Lance = there is no such thing as absolute certainty

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

That’s the bit that terrifies me - the climate change models seem to err on the side of conservativism, and have not really factored in some of the potentially exponential effects.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 6

So you doubt the “science” that you claim supports this long screed of hysterical nonsense?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Conservative? LOL Hardly. Like the temp models here that were all WRONG. Too high. This is what your "science" is based on. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs...

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Lance, The climate change ( aka man-made dangerous runaway global warming - until it didn't work out ...) business model uses fear and lies to induce expenditure on all sorts of crazy energy inefficient applications. Fear as in "we're all going to die real soon", and because carbon dioxide has been labeled world enemy number 1. Such is the fraud that sits comfortably with so many pseudoscientists and those who have come to rely on the myth that CO2 is a pollutant. It is indeed a great earner for those riding the band-wagon. You said in a blog that you get bored easily. ( https://idealog.co.nz/venture/2009/07/wiggs-world). You really should undertake a proper due diligence of the merits of the IPCC forecasts and actual outcomes over 20 years, and the untruths about CO2, just as you would do to expose charlatans selling a "too good to be true" investment proposition?

(Edited)

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

I would believe Bryan Leyland over Lance Wiggs and The Scribe any day.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 1

Lance, the real problem man faces is his own extinction by being stupid. I'm sure you mean well, but believing that others are too ignorant, and so you have therefore reduced to calling others liars and fools. How is that educating your fellow man?

I believe you summed it up in your opening statement, "I have somewhat randomly.........."

People like Bryan Leyland have spent their entire life in renewable energy and the science of energy, so have a depth of understanding cultivated by many tens of thousands of hours of study and application.

A "somewhat randomly" look into energy outside of your busy successful financial career does not make you an expert.

When climate change advocates start spouting out theories that make no reference to the baseline natural universal cycles, principles, and constants, it questions the sanity, reasoning, and credibility of those spouting forth the theory.

To people who understand science, you may as well have written this article about the world being flat and anyone who disbelieves you is a flat earth denier.

You are a man of money and investment. Who benefits from man made Global Climate Change theories? Al Gore certainly did. If he found out he was wrong is he going to pay back the hundreds of millions he has made from it. Yeah Right.

The distance between the sun and the earth varies according to celestial constants. I do not know what the rate but a rough calculation I did some time back using Mars and Venue temperature variations as a base, it came out to 1°C per million Kms from the sun. The distance variation can be as much as 5 million kms, but due to the latent thermal mass of the earth, changes do not happen overnight. My figures might be out by 100% or much more, but the point is, distance from the sun has a huge effect, and the latent thermal mass of the earth is such that 50 years of a very minor Co2 change is not going to do anything.

Blaming Co2 for temperature changes while ignoring the sun, is like moving in closer to a large campfire and concluding that there must have been chilli in the beef stew because your body temperature is suddenly shooting up.

Your article and subsequent comments are an insult to those of us who can think, and only serve to expose yourself as a lazy thinker.

Successful film stars don't automatically make good politicians or political experts; Finance experts don't automatically make good physicists. The difference between a novice and an expert is understand and 20,000 hours. Tell me you have invested that much in learning physics and science, you will get my attention and intelligent conversation. Until then I'll listen to seasoned experts like Bryan Leyland who have been learning and doing their whole life.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

It'll be cool when there is a complete global warming study that factors the suns energy and distance to earth on climate since earth began (or even last 200 years).

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

This is an appalling article, with no substantive content to back up his opinion that his opponents are "liars" - apparently simple assertion of his position is sufficient, and we should just accept that he has scientific and moral right on his side.

This is simple religious fervour not rational argument. Not even an attempt to persuade, just the usual imprecations against the unbelievers and the threats of hellfire for sinners.

This article has no place in a business journal which purports to promote rational discussion.

I feel completely disgusted and let down by NBR.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 1

In contrast, I think quite genius of NBR.

Consider that, as a result of this 'article', Lance's career, credibility and reputation may now be so permanently compromised (if ever existed in the first place)...

NBR now have documented evidence with which to say "sorry Lance, you blew it" rather than being accused of the same unobjective bias (being kind here) the author descended into or for. NBR have hung him out to dry (just without the 2degrees heat rise).

NBR 1 Lance 0.

Smart

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

I support the NBR. Open debate is needed and it is happening right here.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

I praise the NBR for this - it is important to have a platform where people can speak their minds and others can debate with them.

Unfortunately free speech is under grave threat worldwide so it is all the more important that we hold platforms that allow it to higher regard.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

The article is an important public service announcement for NBR readers since the NBR has several active science deniers actively trolling it's comments sections.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 2

In fact, I am so disgusted by this article, that I am cancelling my subscription to NBR.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Clearly a foolish move.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 3

Hi Ms Laan, do not despair, i too think the article is an abomination, but unlike you I applaud NBR for giving a fool enough rope to hang himself. If he doesn't hang, at least NBR have set him up to receive a richly deserved kicking which he is undoubtedly getting.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

A decent volcanic eruption or two, will lay waste to the nonsense that Mr Wigg's espouses. Nature will always triumph over mankind

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

No doubt Mr Wiggs is at best being provocative. His comments are rhetorical and as usual for climate change fanatics, lack any fact as there is none. Science says the atmosphere consists of about 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen and 2% Greenhouse gases. Of this 2%, 3.7% is Co2 and of the about 3.5% is man made. So how much are we really responsible for - about 0.0026%. Now there is some fact folks - and by the way, our trees need it. The rest is rubbish.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

David Parker announcing too many cows tonight claims go have the election.
This is the AG who won't be prosecuting his colleagues for obtaining political gain by deception but probably wants to assert positional independence when it suits.
When you discount for broken promises and constititionsl corruption there is no win and certainly no mandate.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Oh how true.
We have a whole bunch of doubtful experience and skills.
They have been allowed to put themselves in charge because the rest of us were and are too stupid to put a stop to a system that will fail all of us.
You can feel the economy pointing down and gathering pace.
Soon enough we will see the results of the fools and liars.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

You cannot have it both ways. The Maldives should have gone by now as should the air pollution in major towns. Also science doesn't work on concensus. And the models don't follow their prediction s without another fiddle of parameters.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

This is a great article. I think the Russian denial is particularly interesting. Putin is personally invested in the fossil fuel industry to a massive degree but also Russia is about the only country that is better off under global warming, gaining vast tracts of arable land, a coast and a large part of an ocean which they have already claimed. The Russians have a monumental propaganda machine that has even allowed them to install their agent into the US presidency. Trump is trying to do all he can to bring global warming on fast (e.g., promoting coal, tariffs on solar panels). That is an act of treason because in the strategic race between Russia and the US, global warming will strengthen the former and turn the latter into a dust bowl. The way social media (and perhaps soon AI) has been used to subvert populations means that the vested interests promoting denial are formidable.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Oops, Andrew has the immaculate perception eluding the rest of us. Lance will be glad to latch onto this

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

According to the UN’s own climate models, the Paris deal is predicted to “maybe” decrease global temperatures by three-tenths of one degree, at a projected cost of $100 trillion, over 100 years. Not really a good use of other people's money, given that the current climate is benign, and that we have serious pollution , bio- security , economic and social issues to deal with here in Godzone, should we not get on with the things we can do something about?

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

Many countries wouldn't join, Obama agreed to pay a $100billion "green fund" to start the initial funding. Basically pay for the other countries that balked. That's why Trump got out. Around 2030 there will be Trillions of money paid from this...to a small select few. Its 100s of Billions, if not a Trillion, business now. That's why the elites keep peddling this. There will be more money from this in the next 15 years than all of online retailing. Let that sink in. Gore and his ilk keep it up for the money. That's why all the constant doom predictions.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

What annoys me about the Paris accord is how the goal of these deals (i will include the failed Kyoto) seems to be to enforce a limitation on economies. These agreements always appear not to boost economies in a different direction, but to punish them - to be punitive, how on earth has this come to the point it is deemed reasonable to combat climate change first world nations pay billions to a faceless entity whilst 3rd world countries carry on as normal.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The largest and easily the most lucrative component of this climate change fear mongering is the CDM market, administered under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is a peculiar racket centred on the manufacture of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), classified under Kyoto as greenhouse gases infinitely more potent than CO2. The way the racket works is that Chinese and Indian firms are permitted to carry on producing the refrigerant gas known as HCFC-22 until 2030, but a by product of this process is HCFC23, over 10000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, the firms can then destroy HCFC23 claiming allocations of carbon credits worth billions of dollars in doing so, its a complete con.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Excuse me? First, we who know the science and have studied it do not deny 'climate change'. You'd be hard pressed to find a person in that category. Secondly, carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW periods of warming since the beginning of history. Third, YOU are the liar. No idea if you are a fool but generally speaking, most liars fully understand the lie they are telling to the fools.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Not sure why NBR continue .to allow Wiggs’ comments.
If the science is so settled and the disbelievers are fools and/or liars I wonder why ,A. This article has attracted way more comments than usual and B, by far the majority are content to be labelled either fools or liars.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Cos dairy farmers pay a lot of our bills with the revenue they earn from selling milk and these guys want to cut into that revenue with no alternative plan because of ideas he is talking about.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 2

100% correct. A profitable industry plus weak numbers on election day = easy target for tax. And, "all for the good of Mother Earth", sounds a whole lot better than, "we want to fund our friends who don't want to work".

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

Lance,

Your claims of debunking of any effect of the sun and planetary orbits and cycles is at odds with the accepted works of Keppler, Newton, Milankovitch and dozens of other scientists who have discovered how our solar system and indeed the milky way work. And not to mention the entire NASA exploration program is based on science established by these scientists.

To someone who is learned and understands science, your debunking claims could only be real if this science and laws of the universe did not exist. You appear, to those who understand the science, as someone would to you if they tried to insist that 8 plus 8 equaled 88, not 16. You would probably think they were insane, or worse, on drugs.

Trying to put forward theories, no matter how convincing, that would require established laws of physics to be wrong, is pure insanity. That you also need these laws of physics to be right to help prove your argument is muddled thinking. It has about as much logic as a man inventing a time machine to go back in time to shoot his grandfather before he had children to stop his father being born and beating him. It is a paradox that cannot exist.

You cannot rely on established science while at the same time as putting forward theories that would only be possible if that same science was wrong.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

You may have too much time on your hands but that’s no excuse for inflicting thousands of words of this bilge on the rest of us.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Like most agitprop this piece is long on vitriolic rhetoric & short on facts. Anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the science will conclude that Chicken Little is the lead scientist. The facts & experience over the last 30 years contradict the entire AGW/CO2 narrative.

First, Paleo climate research strongly suggests that temperature was significantly higher during several pre-industrial eras e.g. the Roman Empire so the notion that higher temperatures alone are unprecedented & catastrophic are pure nonsense.

As for the idea that CO2 drives temperature increases, again Paleoclimate studies seem to uniformly place CO2 as a TRAILING indicator of rising temperature-- when they move in upwards in "tandem". Odd given that this is the threshold premise of ClimateNazis. Indeed as CO2 has risen from 350 ppm to 409 ppm over the last 20 odd years (15%) temperatures have not only remained flat but decreased .26°C.... odd, odd, odd.

Add in the demonstrated (by comparison of their OWN graphs) fraud of NASA/NOAA et al and we understand the emailgate conspiracy to fudge data to obtain results (driving billions in funding to the fraudulent actors). Examples, beyond fabrication of data points and color coded alarmist maps showing hot spots where there are no weather stations (e.g. S.Central Africa) you have them eliminating the 1930's (with all those record high temps that still hold the record for above 90°F temps across the U.S.) in order to CREATE the impression of significant temperature increases. Odd that the space satellite measurements have contradicted the easily "adjusted" and shrinking number of ground stations.

I could go on and on with the fact that sea level rise rate has been unchanged throughout the last 130 years, continuing at the same rate without an uptick that MUST be occurring according to alarmists like the idiot who wrote this piece. On I could point to the fact that not only are the polar regions still encased in ice that they wain & wax just as much now as when they first were assessed.

The Sun is the forcing element in play. When it waxes in output (now occurring as Cycle 24 drops into uncharted territory) Galactic radiation is pummeling Earth and with it comes some initial valudation of theories of volcanic activity, Earthquakes & substantial increases in cloud formation (Albedo effect) that magnify the apparently "small" effect of reduction in Total Solar Irradiance. Whilw yet unproved (but encouraging results) the Grand Solar Minimum, coupled with the accepted Pacific & Atlantic oscillations in deep sea current theories, the problem for the Climatistas like Wiggins is that they work better & have a better track record than the IPCC 30+ models that have NEVER.... NEVER been accurate (or even close). You people disgust me. Vilification as liars or fools when a Florida lawyer can disassemble your nonsense in a single post.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

Mark Fisher, I fully agree with you, you are so right.

The writer of this article is a liar and keeps the fraud of Global Warming because of CO2 Greenhousegasses ongoing and keeps on forcing the Governments of this world to keep on fraudulent foolish spending of hundreds of billions USD on useless environment and landscape polluting windmills.

Yes you are disgusting Global Warming Religious Elites on its way to accumulate more power and more money on the back of hardworking taxpayers. Yes you are worse than disgusting liars and should be put in jail.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Another typical diatribe by a progressive pervert member of the global warming cult.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Lance, you've fallen into the common trap of treating climate change as a binary issue, one people either "believe" or "deny", and where the science is either "settled" or not.
The fact that CO2 has an affect on the climate is widely accepted. The magnitude and consequences of this affect fall within a wide spectrum of possible outcomes. There's no settled science on how much warmer the "climate" becomes as CO2 increases (I say "climate" because climates vary significantly across the Earth are not likely to change uniformly) and how the rate of warming changes over time. Nor is there settled science on what the totality of the effects of this warming will be (it is likely, somewhat shockingly, that there will be some positive effects as well as negative. Good luck trying to find a scientific consensus on how to weigh that up).
The real problem with such framing though is that climate change is not (only) a scientific issue, it's a policy issue. Climate change (from CO2) is largely a result of our energy production. How do we measure the risks of climate change against the benefits of fossil fuel energy, which has lifted missions of people out of poverty, and continues to do so as we speak? How do we factor in the uncertainty of the magnitude of all of the possible risks and benefits of climate change, our capacity to adapt to climate change, and the capacity and potential of other forms of energy to replace fossil fuels? These are vastly complex political, economic, and scientific (including the science of energy production) questions, which can't be brushed aside with a simple "trust the scientists, there's no debate on this issue". How about engaging with the complexity of the issue at hand, rather than straw manning your opponents by picking the lowest hanging fruit?

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

As you say the issue is complex, and and needs work. For example it is widely known (as in the media) but not widely accepted that Co2 has an affect on the climate. This is an idea perpetrated by those who made assumptions. Co2 increase actually follows temperature, not the other way around. This is one of many fundamental flaws in the "science".
Climate change from Co2 change is therefore not correct.

That Co2 increases through energy production yes, but the change is to be expected, no less than Co2 production because humans and animals are breathing. Should we stop breathing? I don't think so. The challenge is to find alternatives to fossil fuel. But is we don't do so in the next 30 years, the earth is not going to self destruct.

Co2 is not the major greenhouse gas, water vapour is. This is another fundamental flaw in the "science".

You might like to walk through the scientific principles as outlined here regarding Co2 and water vapour:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/wat.html

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

You know, if you were to change "climate change" to "God," "scientists" to "clergy" and "Science" to "the Church" you wouldn't have to change another word to get this piece published in the 17th century...

But I digress. In any case. Global warming. What Lance sees is people who oppose the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis for the exact same reason they oppose Darwinian evolution, "rock music," or the bikini.

These people exist. Why wouldn't they? But it's an entirely false opposition. They are allowed to exist because their existence demonstrates that opposition exists. Progressives need your regular hour of hate against the "deniers" otherwise they'd give the game away that we actually live in a One-Party state in which they are the supreme rulers.

But when a corrupt system suppresses opposition, it focuses on its most capable and accurate opponents. All you have to do is make it clear to young, ambitious scientists that working on the production of evidence to substantiate theory X is not a direction that will further their careers, and theory X will die.

For example, if theory X consists solely of the idea that some other theory Y, already established, is rotten to the core and deserves nothing less than the axe - that is, if theory X is an entirely negative result, and a result established not by science but by metascience, the philosophy of science - there can be no possible reason to invest one's career in it.

This is path-dependence in a nutshell. Again, why should the world be pretty? What, does it owe us?

It’s also worth mentioning that Earth’s climate, which in cosmic terms is incredibly stable, probably has a lot of stabilising feedback mechanisms that we don't understand. Moreover, when it does go wonky, it tends to be in the direction of cooling rather than warming. Interventions against warming are a lot more straightforward than those against cooling.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Hi Lance

There is no evidence of dangerous global warming. There is no evidence that climate is any different now that it was pre-industrialisation, i.e. hotter, more variable, etc. There is no evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere is anything but a positive.

No doubt you dismiss me as a liar and fool but why not provide for others the above evidence rather than "lots of people" say it's real.

It's 50 years this month since Dr Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" was published. It was widely believed. Still is. He's still listened to. And dawned over. He predicted hundreds of millions would die in the 1970s from starvation with 65 million in the USA alone starving to death.

Since then, the world's population has doubled and prosperity has increased spectacularly lifting millions out of poverty.

Back in the '70s those like Julian Simon who marshalled the facts and opposing argument were dismissed as fools or liars. I remember thinking that too.

It's Ehrlich's book, and the 1972 "Limits to Growth", that gave rise to the entire bollocks of sustainability and the very deadening effect of appalling policy and planning process that bedevils us today.

It was only when I opened up to the possibility that I could be wrong that I began to learn. I am making a gentle hint.

I note that as one of you liars/fools/both I am keeping very good company.

Best

Rodney Hide

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

When I hear someone who descends to abusing anyone who disagrees with them I think perhaps they have run out of facts to support their position ...

So people who disagree with you are either fools lairs politicians oil company PR people or simply old and out of touch? ...

Good grief mate are you serious? ...

So I'll drop a few gems for you so can get even more hot and sticky and stamp your foot in righteous indignation ...

First ... Yep we are experiencing climate change ... Got that? ... Yes the climate is changing ...

The issue is have we caused it? ... Or have we contributed to it? ... Or is it simply a natural reoccurring phenomenon? ...

Yep we are horrible custodians of our world and we have abused it to the nth degree ... We have plundered resources and pretended that they are infinite and not thought about the consequences to our kids and their kids ...

We have polluted water and damaged the air with our endless discharges of noxious gases ... including but not limited to CO2 ...

So we must change our ways we must become aware of our environment and we must move away from petrochemical solutions for powering the stuff we use ... We must stop making plastics that don't degrade and we must look to sustainable practices for everything including farming ...

But here are a few puppies about climate changes that you may not like ...

There have been literally thousands of climate movements and many hundreds since man walked around and started thinking about plundering the environment ...

These were both massive glacial and inter glacial events that changed the planet with icecaps over the northern and southern hemisphere and periods where the ice almost completely disappeared ...

Man migrated from Africa and Europe through the northern land bridges to the Americas by walking because boats didn't exist and uber wasn't available ...

There have been many glacial and inter glacial periods in our recorded history where the northern seas passage through the arctic was open water and sailing ships used it! ...

In the middle ages there were ice advances and retreats and massive climate changes ... Go read your European history ...

It often happened rapidly ... Remember Mammoths caught in ice with grass in their mouths and bellies ... Not one but hundreds ... The literature is packed with this evidence ...

So re us and our CO2 emissions ... Yep awful ... But are we solely responsible for climate warming and change? ...

Hmmm one good volcanic eruption dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than a few years of north american cars and industry put together and all the cows farting for a decade or more ...

So happy to have a debate but the minute you start to be hysterical and abuse anyone who disagrees with you ... You loose me and many many people who just stop listening ...

Yep we are a contributor to climate change through our CO2 emissions but we are not the sole cause ... This shift happens all through our anthropological and the geological records of our planet ...

Yep stop using plastic ... recycle ... Look at alternatives to hydrocarbons to power stuff ... teach cows not to fart ... But above all don't descend into abuse to get your point across ...

Alan

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

I am not sure how one can be an avid proponent of totalitarianism without necessarily condoning extreme abuse.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

This is a paradox I don't think Lance has run out to its end point - the only way to achieve the arrest of CO2 production to the point of actual decline of the man made portion is drastic totalitarian control of effectively everything.

This is why the residual of hard core socialists the world over co-exist quite happily with believers in Green policy solutions, giving rise to the water melon Green moniker

The other paradox is that man made CO2@ production is primarily a function of wealth production. If you're wealthy whether by high parliamentary salary or private business or whichever way, or in the process of becoming wealthy you are the bigger contributor to man made CO2 than the less wealthy person, this is irrespective of how you organize your personal consumption and living space to have a so called low personal carbon footprint. Because your wealth is still at work in ways impossible to ring fence unless solely as gold coins in a big box Scrooge McDuck style, never ever to be spent or used as collateral.

Even if your investments are in successful green technologies you can't avoid the intrinsic involvement of of your wealth gain in the carbon producing economy of all consumption and production.

Even substituting large scale use of hydrocarbons with say electric powered vehicles, while cleaning up the air of cities even more than has been achieved to date, will do little to impact the involvement of carbon in the totality of human economic activity

What is actually required to make a functional difference in man-made CO2 levels is monstrous in all respects and it is utterly hypocritical to to insist we only need to stop this or that or do this or that to save the day. All that such an endeavour would achieve however is Kim style joy of total control and North Korean levels of personal consumption

Was there a call for some honesty somewhere in Lance's article?

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

If you want to get rid of man-made carbon dioxide, nuclear power way to do it. It is clean, safe and environmentally friendly. And, unlike wind and solar, it is reliable.

The fact that the people who were pushing global warming hated nuclear power was what started off my interest because it didn't add up to common sense. And they still don't show any common sense.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Similarly the same people who tell everyone to go with the consensus on climate change (and ignoring that lukewarming is the consensus view, not climatic meltdown for now) refuse to follow the consensus opinion on the safety of GM crops and foods.

I wonder what it is about the consensus on climate change that is different to the consensus on the safety of nuclear power and genetic modification?

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

It's not an outlier at all, totalitarian consequences are baked into the entire game. After all, if you aim to control the "environment" you also aim to control the people because people are part of the environment too. 

It always pays to listen to people's words:

A good way to find the most powerful people is to find the most responsible people. No one is scheming for power. A lot of them seem to be "working for change." No one is brainwashing the masses. A lot of them seem to be "educating the public." No one is ruling the world. A lot of them seem to be making "global policies."

The problem with people is everyone thinks they're doing good works. They all want to be Boromir, no one wants to be Frodo. That's the thing about power, once you get a taste, the path only ends when the planet is painted in your own favourite colour.

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Do you have a free ticket to Hilary Clinton?
Why is she here?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Wiggs has totally lost the plot here. Probably close to a ragequit type article, where the next time you'll hear from him on this subject will a "swearing off" of posting clickbait Global Warming (Fanatical climate change) articles with faux impassioned pleas to criminalise thoughts of others he doesn't agree with. Get real dude, you've lost it.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

Dear NBR
You've made my Monday morning - what a great start to the week.
I read Lance's diatribe over the weekend and was gobsmacked at the invective - I'm obviously in the 'fools and liars' category (even with a doctorate in earth sciences). I have a great deal of respect for engineers like Bryan Leyland even though I've never met the man.
The reason I'm so upbeat this morning is that I've been feeling a bit isolated lately. Many social functions I attend I seem to be in the minority of 'liars and fools' re man-made global warming - many people seem to be drinking the same kool-aid as Lance and believe everything trotted out by the MSM is fact. I've found this concerning.
The reason I'm so upbeat is that I have found it refreshing to have read the comments to Lance's article this morning - reasoned, rational, unemotional, well written and largely opposed to Lance's views. I now realise I'm not alone and that there is hope that more of us (fools and liars) will challenge the group-think that Lance and his fellow travellers have signed up to.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

I find that Earth Scientists have a far longer frame of mind to the atmospheric scientists that make up the main contingent of "climate scientists" that the media frame as experts.

Most of my ex-colleagues when I read Earth Sciences were very wary of the alarmist view of climate change - even whilst agreeing with the basic premise that mankind is having some effect on the climate. When you look at the system as a whole, over far longer periods, you can see that it is extremely well-buffered and that even enormous shocks have very little long-term impact to the system as a whole. The main drivers behind the Earth's climate (in order) are the location of the continents on the planet, associated oceanic currents, and the eccentricity, tilt and precession of the planet's orbit. The effect of atmospheric gas concentrations are negligible.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Next time you're at one of those parties, try practising what Czesław Miłosz called "ketman." It's thirsty work, but good fun.

The idea is to not only reject the whole ridiculous circus but derive real visceral pleasure from the exercise of pretending to conform with it. See how close you can match your conversation partner's beliefs with word-perfect phraseology and then try to push them further by announcing even wilder claims and ideas.

I tell ya, it's a lot of fun.

I once got an unnamed lady to believe our warming climate was getting so bad that it was causing the moon to withdraw even faster from its orbit because the changing level of sea-water was increasing the gravity radiating from this planet. I even watched her recite it to another person in her next conversation.

But don't hate Lance et al. They're only trying to be part of the fashionable people. If he was in the USSR circa 1925, he'd be writing articles on how people just needed to stop arguing about Lysenkoism. Or if Germany had won WWII, he'd be writing about how important it is to plant trees for all the animals and enact policies to curb air pollution....

Oh wait...

Hmm, that's awkward, isn't it?

Reply
Share
  • 3
  • 0

Yes, we should all be very grateful to Lance for the timely reminder that the spectre of totalitarianism is always lurking, and will always attract adherents.
I wonder how members of the R.S.A. feel about Lance's advocacy.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

I always thought Mr Wiggs is a man of substance, until now. Calling people liars and other names for raising legitimate questions just makes him a typical climate activist. On the contrary to Mr Wiggs's claim it is these activists that get most of the media coverage, not the deniers. There is not a day go by without a media report linking an event to climate change.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

And the answer is always more taxes. More taxes will cure climate change. Thats the message we get from the Left. Just pay more taxes and all will be well. Then we get reports from some that the PIs are getting Bigger not smaller. There is as many versions of the "truth" as there are scientists. Lay people like myself get told so many versions of the "truth" its impossible to know who to believe expect that lightening my hip pocket will cure climate change.

Reply
Share
  • 4
  • 0

Well it's pretty obvious that like the dogs and the bikes debate, this is another one that's going to go forever with no clear winners on either side.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Just as we look back at those earnest people who said the earth was flat and if you sailed far enough you would fall off it so in some future time people will look back and smile at how some people said unless you paid a lot of tax to prevent climate change the climate would well...........................change.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

This reminds me of the Democrats in the USA who said they were not paying enough tax. Yet they didn't avail themselves of the donation ability in their tax returns to pay gratuitous lump sums to the fiscus. And they also didn't act on their promises to leave the USA if Donald Trump won. Now they are in disarray. But whenever they were in power, they always increased taxes as though this was the cure-all. For socialists, it is the cure-all, because it brings with it the ability to purchase voters with hand-outs and create generational dependence on the state. Democrats want more illegals, lower voting age, legalization of pot, free education etc. With the AGW scam, the amount of taxes that they are looking at capturing will be so massive that there will have to be a one world UN tax department which will then apportion who gets what. And of course, if they get their way, it will result in a de facto one world government. Saving the world and fear mongering whilst lining their pockets and securing new socialist power structures is their goal. AGW is the means.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Lance: Below is a graph from the IPCC AR5 report comparing the climate models to 4 surface temperature datasets:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%...

Source: IPCC AR5 report, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, Technical Summary, page 87, Fig. TS.14.

There was a subsequent, temporary rise in temperature due to the 2015/16 El Nino (a natural weather event), but temperatures have once again returned to those prior now the El Nino has faded. BTW, an El Nino is a cooling event as the ocean vents heat to space via the atmosphere.

The graph shows 2 main things:

1/ The climate models fail when compared to empirical temperature datasets - the same failed models used to predict a climate apocalypse that hasn't eventuated.

2/ There is no 'consensus'. If there is what does the consensus agree on, the falsified climate models or the empirical datasets that falsify the models? If the models, which failed model in particular do they agree on? Remember, a consensus of empirical data trump failed theory.

Name calling and frothing are nothing but desperation in lieu of supporting scientific data, something that is becoming more apparent from the alarmist crowds as the models & the doomsday predictions increasingly fail.

The Working Group I chapter from the AR5 report also shows no increase in extreme weather, a hiatus (IPCC) from at least 1998 (something that is recommencing now the 2015/16 El Nino has faded), and the failure of positive feedback from water vapour that should be visible with the upper troposphere warming at a faster rate than the surface - a feedback that is supposed to provide 50% of the warming. Perhaps you should try reading it Lance to inform yourself of the empirical scientific data instead of ranting publicly in ignorance about conspiracy theories.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

If all the 'Liars and fools' who read the NBR change their minnds after reading this article will that help stop global warming?
This is not a NZ issue,this country can do nothing to stop global warming or to change the minds or behaviour of the other 7 billion humans on the planet.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Hi Lance, well written. I have followed the comments on NBR for sometime with a growing sense of disbelief at quality of discourse amongst what might be considered the business leadership of New Zealand.

My only solace is the knowledge that the amount space this group takes up in the comment section doesn't represent the views of the general readership, who have better things to do.

I also had reached the same liars/fools conclusion and am alarmed by the implications. Perhaps I was naive that NZ would be immune to the sorts of shenanigans we see overseas.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 8

That's the stuff Mr Nick. You along with Mr Wiggs continue to enjoy exquisite bliss in your sure knowledge that you and he are right and anyone else wanting to debate your tenants are simply not worthy of your attention and should be just dismissed as fools and liars.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 0

skipped the article and jumped straight into the comments section. I won't read the article - its Hillary Clinton 'deplorables -esque' headline put me off - but I am really enjoying the discourse and in particular comments made by Samuel Foster, Ant Darwall, and (of course) Rodney Hide. Thanks for chiming in and please keep up the good work. We should have run out of oil and submerged Australia by now. Cheers.

Reply
Share
  • 8
  • 1

I propose a new national policy on climate change:

Firstly, get rid of the ETS. The Govt can then set up an account where those who believe in catastrophic global warming can pay voluntary donations. Payments can only come from individuals who are resident in NZ (use IRD no.), not environmental groups or foreigners. As the majority are supposed to support AGW, and the others are a small minority of cranks, 'fools, and liars', the donations should be enough to cover our emissions bill.

If people argue that not enough will be contributed and the effect will be minimal, then the same rings true for NZ reducing our 0.5% of global CO2 emissions while large emitters such as India & China are exempt. Those who donate to the fund can 'lead by example' in the same way they say NZ should, as according to their argument others are sure to follow their example.

At the end of the financial year the govt can tally the donations to see how strongly NZers believe in AGW, because surely the vast majority who believe would be sure to donate. To believe & not donate would not only be hypocritical, but would show they don't care about the environment or believe in AGW.

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 0

It’s amazing how many deniers this article dragged out in the comments section. Some are clearly paid by the word judging by the length. Please NBR publish a follow up article analysing the IP addresses of the various commenters.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 7

That's right dismiss any that disagree and want to debate the issue as having a vested interest. Or call them "liars" "fools" "deniers".
This is the typical response from the self-appointed conservation brigade to anybody that doesn't agree with them.
But it does give the reader a good indication as to their breeding, character and intellect.

Reply
Share
  • 7
  • 0

Deny what exactly?

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 0

Some of us attach our surnames to our first names. But of course some denier could be masquerading as me out there

But more specifically Mr Andrew X, I challenge you. I challenge you to find one respondent in this thread who both disagrees with Lance and also claims to be a climate change denier.

Or are you just so alarmed by the extent of competent reply to Lance that you must believe it's all a set up? Because this is what you imply

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0

Funny I have never seen anyone deny that the climate changes?

Reply
Share
  • 6
  • 1

Lance, I am not a climate change denier, yet I wholeheartedly disagree with much that you have written here. Are you now going to call me a liar and a fool too? Or will you attempt to soften your claim by declaring that I might be suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome?

Climate has been changing for millions of years and the fact that we are here is testimony to those changes. What you should be arguing about is whether human life is now having any significant effect on the changes. You allude to the idea that carbon dioxide is dangerous when you talk of its breathable properties. I wonder how much you know of the stimulus that carbon dioxide provides to regulate breathing rate in humans in their uptake of oxygen. I wonder how much you know of photosynthesis, of where the oxygen comes from as a result of that process. Those of us who know science are familiar with the chemistry which tells us that carbon dioxide is essential for photosynthesis to take place. Without it? No plants, no grazing animals, no meat to eat and, surprise surprise, no oxygen to breath.

What is clear from your writing is that you don't believe in science, otherwise you would not deny debate so vehemently. This is evident from the content of your writing too, which is riddled with accusations and name calling without an iota of factual evidence in support of any of your defamatory claims, never mind any substance proffered in support of the cause that you claim to be writing about. Know that Michael Crichton said that there is no such thing as consensus in science. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.

For your information, I live in Lower Hutt, Wellington, New Zealand and have taught the sciences for almost 40 years. I have a PhD in chemistry, an honours degree in applied science and I graduated in both of these degrees in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Reply
Share
  • 5
  • 0