Alan Nicholl series to Gisborne Herald Editor
Saturday 15 May 2010 7.57am
Dear sir,
I have just read your editorial of May 13 and applaud you on some of the points raised, however it appears that you do not fully understand the facts.
Statistics NZ advise that livestock numbers have fallen 8,000,000 stock units since 1990, this amounts to over 900,000 dairy cows,1.3 Million beef cows, 8 million ewes, to say that farmers must play their part, when numbers are already well below 1990 levels is ridiculous.
1990 is the level we are supposed to meet according to Kyoto. Pastoral Farmers have already met this level and more. This means that farming is not to blame for increased emissions but other sections of the economy are.
You also suggest we should do something until science proves humans are not causing warming. Who may I ask will decide when science has decided this, the UN IPCC or science in general? The only people our politicians are prepared to listen to, seems to be the UN. This causes a dilemma as the UN is pushing human caused warming as hard as it can and has no intention of backing down, even though many more scientists oppose the theory than actually support it.
A report from one of the original reviewers at the beginning stated that no scientist found any evidence of human caused warming yet the UN report when published stated there was, and quoted those scientist as their source. Who should we believe? I am aware of scientists who supported the theory initially, that are now against it, once they examined the facts themselves. If you want to investigate this I suggest you contact the science coalition or even Neil and Esther Henderson, I am sure they would happily point you in the right direction.
Failing that on your way home slip into a bookshop and purchase Ian Wishart’s book AIR CON I am sure you will find it extremely interesting reading. All of which can be verified from the thousands of scientific and historical references he gives. All in all this book conclusively rebuts the myth of human caused warming. Remember the UN IPCC findings are only from computer modelling based on false and misleading data, as shown by climate gate and other studies undertaken by non UN sponsored scientist, when they were finally allowed the data, only able to be obtained by legal measures. What did the UN have to hide if they were unprepared to release data for confirmation of their findings. Obviously their findings are false.
The ETS is not a closed cap legislation but is open ended to allow the carbon price to be variable, I have it on very good authority that there are those in NZ who want to raise the price astronomically to maximise the return on their carbon investments. $100 a tonne has been mentioned, this will raise power prices 40% and fuel 32 cents. Do you think this is acceptable, and that the country can afford it. I don’t. It is also the reason I understand Act opposes the ETS totally.
Yours Alan Nicholl
PS I would be interested in your reply
Saturday 15 May 2010 1.30pm
Sir thank you for replying to my letter. I was a little disappointed in the content however. I myself have undertaken fairly extensive reading on the matter and the majority of scientific and related papers would beg to differ with you. These however never seem to be considered by the ones who have promoted themselves as climate experts. You speak of 250 US scientist signing in support of human caused warming and yet over 31,000 scientist including 9,000 with PhD’s have signed a statement refuting humans have caused such warming.
The statement reads “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s Climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (www. petition project .org)
This was reported in Britain’s Daily Telegraph on the 30th of May 2008. 124 times the number you quoted, so much for consensus. Also early this year Phil Jones of East Anglia Uni’s CRU admitted on BBC radio that humans have not caused any of the warming observed last century. A UN scientist stating the exact opposite to his bosses. Also Mojib Latif from Germany’s Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University stated that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that global warning has ceased and also that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to do so for another 20 years. This statement was made a week before Copenhagen and was only done so after he found the parameters of his computer modelling were incorrect. When corrected they gave a different result. What had previously been warming became cooling. I applaud him his honesty, he however still sides with the UN.
Recently researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reviewed 200 climate studies and found that the 20th century was neither the warmest or the most extreme of the past 1000 years. Another study involving more than 240 papers written by thousands of scientist concluded that the 20th century was not warmer than temperatures experienced during the Medieval Warm period and that both this time and the subsequent little ice age were a world wide phenomenon. Down goes another UN assumption. Lets turn to the Artic ice cap, in 2007 TV One news stated that the Northwest Passage was open for the first time ever. History begs to differ as in 1903 Harald Amundsen navigated the passage and documented it, again in 1940-45 a Canadian coastguard vessel regularly used the passage, also in 2000 the same vessel once again sailed the passage. There is also a report written in 1922 in the Washington post of dramatic sea ice decline to 81 degrees 29 minutes north, obviously the passage was open then. Human caused warming causing a reduction in Artic ice, I don’t think so, it is purely natural and will return as the planet cools. Another scientist Dr. Ferenc Mikulicz a Hungarian who has worked out that the UN prognosis of atmospheric CO2 is impossible, and what is more no other scientist has been able to refute his work. This was first written in 2004 and again in 2007. Down goes another assumption.
As you can see I have only scratched the surface with this and yet it totally destroys the UN’s conclusion that human produced CO2 is responsible for warming. We could go into solar activity, cloud and water vapour effects, the oceanic variable and a whole host of other factors all of which play a greater role than CO2. Then we could consider the number of scientist who once believed but now don’t, some I will list
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre first warned of warming 20yrs ago now admits cause of warming unknown.
Geologist Bruno Wiskel -university of Alberta has recently written a book debunking the myth of global warming.
Botanist David Bellamy -global warming a natural phenomenon
These are just 4 of 14 I have information on, then there are all of NZ’s own scientists who are actively working to show the true cause is natural in origin, some of whom have been UN reviewers.
If all of this does not give you cause for concern, then I don’t know what will. I for one am very concerned especially with the plans Key and National have to combat a problem that doesn’t exist. ( Labours plans are even more diabolical) His plan to plant another 500,000 hectares in trees will mean another 5,000,000 su units removed from food production on top of the 8,000,000 we have already lost to forestry. More than likely it will be this area that suffers most as we have the most suitable land for his plans.
Once again I return to the question I asked you in my first letter, which scientists do we believe, the ones the UN holds up or all the others whose work has systematically shown the fraudulent way in which UN conclusions have been reached. We have to put aside emotional and hysterical drama as portrayed on TV, at UN behest and focus on facts. We must consider not only the sciences but also history when we consider climate change, for history reveals much about it. Geologic science and archaeological exploration also reveals much, we can learn from where people lived in times past that are now uninhabitable because of ice, eg. Greenland where the Vikings used to run sheep and cattle. Sounds farfetched but true. Revealed in Nordic literature. My other suggestion also stands.
Yours Alan Nicholl
17 May 2010
Hi Jeremy, me again the last 2 letters I sent were predominately for your eyes only, however you are quite welcome to publish them. This too you may publish if you wish. Somewhere there should be a photo of me on your data base.
Enclosed with this letter is a graph which depicts CO2's warming potential, as you will see the amount of warming done up till 1850 at 280ppm is far greater than the possible warming, that the next 100ppm could accomplish. The combined total warming effect at 280ppm is 2.7 degrees centigrade, the subsequent next 100ppm can only achieve 0.15 of a degree centigrade and the next 100ppm will only achieve 0.075 of a degree. There is not a meteorological temperature gauge that is capable of measuring this increase. The likely hood of this increase leading to catastrophic global consequences is remote. The forcing factor of CO2 causing temperature increase would have to be extreme to cause the consequences we keep being told of. In which case the planet would already be a fireball. With the current reduction in global temperatures this is obviously not the case. In the last decade temperatures have reduced by about half the 20th century increase in spite of increasing CO2. While there is this continued emphasis on CO2 and political attempts to control it's increase by certain organisations at a horrendous cost, the climate will continue to do as it always has; fluctuate.
A group of scientists studying sunspot activity have linked our variable climate to this and the two patterns fit together perfectly, there is no need to alter data or anything else. In keeping with this the Little Ice Age which lasted from 1300 -1850 approximately coincided with very low sunspot activity known as the Maunder Minimum with its resulting catastrophic consequences. The population of the world in 1300 was halved by the time 1850 came around. The link between the two is far stronger than with CO2 and climate. This is why the point has to be made that to understand how climate works, those studying it must take into account all data going back as far as is humanly possible. Not just 150 or even 1000 years but hundreds of thousands of years. Some of the science I have read about supporting CO2 causing global warming would make most scientists ashamed. The deliberate removal of the Medieval warm period(climategate emails), the way data from one place was used to compromise data from a 1000 miles away, the deliberate discarding of data which proved the opposite of what was wanted, the refusal to acknowledge other possibilities and other such things. All these do nothing to enhance the warmers cause. In fact they detract from it. To say we should trust those who have already proven untrustworthy is not a good look.
This is why I and others like me challenge the current supposed consensus that CO2 causes global warming, there is no evidence garnered from scientific studies which look back over thousands of years that CO2 causes catastrophic warming, especially when you consider that the earth suffered an ice age with CO2 levels of 3000ppm. If CO2 causes warming then this should not have happened. It should have been physically impossible. It happened.
As you can see there are very good reasons to question the current statements being promoted from certain areas.
Yours Alan Nicholl
19 May 2010
original letter reworked:
I have read the editorial of May 13 and applaud the editor on some of the points raised, however it appears that some facts are not fully understood. Statistics NZ advise that livestock numbers have fallen 8,000,000 stock units since 1990. This amounts to the equivalent of 900,000 dairy cows. To say that farmers must play their part, when numbers are already below 1990 levels is ridiculous. 1990 is the level we are supposed to meet, according to Kyoto. Pastoral Farmers have already met this level and more. This means that farming is not to blame for increased emissions but other sections of the economy are. The concept that science shows human activity through CO2 output is warming the planet is controversial as there are many scientists who believe otherwise. 31,000 have signed a petition, which states; “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s Climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (www. petition project .org) With so many scientists opposed to human caused warming, who may I ask will decide which scientists are correct? The only people our politicians are prepared to listen to, seems to be the UN. This causes a dilemma as the UN is pushing human caused warming as hard as it can and has no intention of backing down. A report from one of the original reviewers at the beginning stated that no scientist found any evidence of human caused warming, yet the UN report when published stated there was, quoting those scientists. Who should we believe? I am aware of scientists who supported the theory initially, that are now against it, once they examined the facts themselves. Remember the UN IPCC findings are only from computer modelling based on false and misleading data, as shown by climate gate and other studies undertaken by non UN sponsored scientists.
News just in from the Space and Science Research Center (Orlando Florida www.spaceandscience.net) warns of a 0.9 - 1.1 degree centigrade drop in temperature over the next 30 months with devastating effects on crop yields, because of what is called the “solar hibernation”. This drop in temperature is greater than what occurred in 2007-08. Combine the two events and the results will be horrific. They predicted the current drop in temperatures based on the reduction in sunspot activity and expect the current trend to continue for decades. So much for CO2 causing global warming!
The ETS is not a closed cap legislation but is open ended to allow the carbon price to be variable, I have it on very good authority that there are those in NZ who want to raise the price astronomically to maximise the return on their carbon investments. $100 a tonne has been mentioned, this will raise power prices 40% and fuel 32 cents. Do you think this is acceptable, and that the country can afford it? I don’t. It is also the reason I understand Act totally opposes the ETS .
Alan Nicholl
