climaterealists's blog

From the 'Outside the Beltway' group

Two members of our team have put the following message together in the hope, perhaps forlorn, that the politicians, and people like Peter Gluckman, a marvellous paediatrician, but no analyst of matters climate or weather, and will take note of reality

....

“ OK.....

So it is Tuesday, and we  are grumpy, very grumpy..    Why?  

Because our Government is still talking nonsense on CC – even at CHOGM

 

Below is a link to  the full version of a serious message that should be noted by all.

And Tony Abbott will love it  - Christopher Monckton at his best. 

 

John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce, and Tim Groser (et al) , not to mention all those pantywaists in MFAT, would do well to read and take note.  It is hopeless to attempt to persuade people like the idiot greens, who are more like a sack cloth and ashes cult than a sensible political organisation.  Even though they may not confess it, we are sure that they are aware of the truth.

Letter from Bryan Leyland to Ralph Sims in response to his article in the NZH

Read the article  (Thursday 14 November 2013) by Professor Sims here:

 

The response from Bryan Leyland:

Dear Ralph,

 I have read your article carefully and I am disturbed that an academic and an engineer could write something that is so misleading. You make many statements which are  unsupported and, in many cases, in direct conflict with the evidence.

 As you know, I am an engineer with 55 years experience specialising in renewable energy. Over the last few years, I have worked on a number of small hydro schemes – and I actually own one – and I have worked on tidal power, wind power and solar power projects. I am currently helping the Faroe Islands with wind power. I have also tried to run Rotoroa island – which is a nature reserve off Waiheke – from solar power. The economics simply did not stack up – and by a very large margin.. The best we could do was about 50% solar power and 50% diesel. On Motutapu island, where they have solar cells and diesels, the diesels run about twice as much as predicted.

 I have always been on the practical side of the business and therefore I actually believe that “engineers can do for five bob what any fool can do for a quid”. It seems to me that you are far from this commonsense objective.

 I comment below on a few of your most glaring errors.

Newsletter number 12 2013

Newsletter number 12  2013

Contents:

Commentary on IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Environmentalists' exaggerations

Matt Ridley: Global lukewarming need not be catastrophic

A Changing Climate- The Spectator

Climate Sensitivity

Sea Level Rise- a challenge from Bryce Wilkinson

Generation Zero's local election hopes

That Victoria University survey

Ice Caps- now it's global COOLING

Looking after-the planet?

To Victoria University Psychology Dept lecturer regarding recent survey

Dear Taciano,

My name is Esther Henderson and through the NZ Climate Science Coalition I received your email requesting participation in your survey along with a request to forward it on to our networks.

The Climate Realists Network which my husband and I founded and run  (www.climaterealists.org.nz ) has been forwarded your invitation which has since generated quite a response.

I have decided to collate the responses I have received thus far and send them along to you so you gain an understanding of some of the shortcomings of a survey of this kind.

As you read through the responses below, bear in mind one or two of these people have emailed you separately. I have still included their responses in this collation for your convenience.

 

Tags: 

The IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report-comment by Dr Vincent Gray

I  have studied, reviewed and appraised every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the First Report made it plain that constructive critics are unwelcome these have been very few. I believe I am the only one who has commented on every Report. They did not answer my comments and most were ignored. It is unpaid hard work.

Why have I done it? It has given me a valuable insight onto the operations of what I have slowly become convinced is a comprehensive international-based fraud, and an attack on genuine climate science. There are many who try to control the flames from  the dragon;s jaw. I believe in striking at the heart.

Tags: 

Latest article from Melanie Phillips

shared by Sonya

It’s over – but its adherents will never admit it. Just as the exposure of the excesses of Stalinism drove many true believers into an ever more fanatical and deluded defence of Soviet communism, so the conclusive destruction of anthropogenic global warming theory is provoking ever more fantastical contortions by warmist zealots who, contrary to all reputable evidence, claim that the planet is about to turn into a furnace and (pace Bob Geldof )(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10353206/Were-facing-a-mass-extinction-event-claims-Bob-Geldof.html) ) it’s all over for the human race.

The recent release of the IPCC’s Final Draft Report of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/review-drafts/)  revealed, beyond any measure of doubt, the intellectual vacuity, sophistry, and outright corruption of the AGW industry. Presented as an authoritative statement of the current state of climate change evidence, it was nothing of the kind. Indeed, it wasn’t even any kind of statement of evidence. It was instead a politicised draft summary of evidence that was to be amended

God's sense of humour

By Sonya Jay Porter  September 2012

In Rio de Janeiro this summer, the city's 130 ft statue of 'Christ the Redeemer' was bathed in green light for the UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, the latest international get-together to discuss Global Warming and Saving the Planet. But this UN publicity stunt, perhaps a childish message to show that the environmental religion was now replacing Christianity, backfired badly. Not only were many delegates, Christians and others, horrified but also God showed his displeasure or perhaps his sense of humour. For the three days of the Conference, the statue, on its mountain top, was concealed under thick fog, heavy clouds and pouring rain.

Newsletter number 11 2013

Newsletter number 11 2013

Contents:

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Due out Friday

NIPCC Report

Australia and Climate Change

Marshall Islands sinking

Climate Change- hoax, or crime of the century?

From Quadrant online

Ice increase riles global warmers

The Australian Press- waking up at last?

Renewable Energy

Climate Change survey

Links from Sonya

Greenland and AGW

S Jay Porter
 

If there remains anyone who still believes in man-made global warming, think of Greenland.
 
In 891 AD. Eric The Red set off from Iceland with a few followers to explore a land to the west which they had probably spotted some time before while sailing out in their longboats, and then returned three years later with about 500 fellow Vikings.  At first they settled on the south-east coast, close to the tip of this new land and then, as the population grew, created a further settlement to the south-west.   They called their new home ‘Greenland’.
 
It has been said that this name was a ‘spin’, a publicity stunt to entice more Vikings to come to join the new settlers, but this would have been  pointless if it had been impossible for them to survive.   They must at least have been able to create their own dwellings, build their own fires, make their own clothes and above all, grow their own food.  The settlers might have been able to trade such things as polar bear-skins and fox furs for iron and other necessities on occasional trips to Europe, but their compatriots in Denmark and Iceland would have been neither able nor willing to row their longboats out each month with groceries.

0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%

by Viscount Monckton of Brenchly

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a little-known journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

Tags: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - climaterealists's blog