Category: Climate cranks

Long hot summer

kanga.jpgThere’s record heat in Australia and deep snow in England (with more to come, say Met men), and it’s all consistent with continuing global warming. Over at Wellington’s leading public transport blog, this is enough to inspire a remarkably ill-informed diatribe:

Following the news as I do, it was delicious today to see the global warmers claiming Melbourne’s summer heatwave was proof of Pope Gore’s alarmism, while ignoring the inconvenient truth that the heaviest snowfalls in decades are falling in London, Paris and much of the north-east of North America.

The really inconvenient truth, of course, is that both weather events neatly demonstrate some of the impacts of global warming and the changes in climate that result.

Continue reading “Long hot summer”

Star witness

homer.jpgThe Environment Court is currently hearing the appeal against consents granted for Meridian Energy‘s Project Hayes windfarm in Central Otago — and has been forced to sit through some evidential nonsense from climate cranks. Auckland property developer Roch Sullivan joined the appeal last year, and announced that he intended to bring some leading climate cranks to give evidence. Last Friday it was Chris de Freitas’ turn and he did our plucky little NZ cranks collective proud, as the Otago Daily Times reports under the headline “Professor denies greenhouse effect“:

Prof de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change. “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this,” Prof de Freitas said.

He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.

“One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide,” he said.

No evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change? I think the good professor is somewhat understating the case — at the very least, being economical with the truth. How a respected academic can ignore 150 years worth of physics and four successive IPPC reports is a matter that might be of interest to psychologists (perhaps even his head of department), but it gets better.

Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd. “The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact,” he said.

In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous. “There’s no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot,” he said.

The jury is still out, not on the reality of climate change, but on whether so misrepresenting the evidence amounts to a contempt of court. The duties of an expert witness before the Environment Court include:

5.2 Duty to the Court

5.2.1 An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the Court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

5.2.2 An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness.

Since de Freitas’ areas of expertise include tourism, climate in caves, and suitable clothing for Canadian winters, it appears he is somewhat overstating his expertise in daring to advise the court in those terms. I do hope the judge is lenient, for his sake. Or perhaps de Freitas simply wishes to be acknowledged as an inexpert witness…

[Neko Case]

Monckton & the case of the missing Curry

Monckton’s eruptive bellow was still echoing round the halls of Tannochbrae Manor when old Scrotum, the wrinkled retainer, shuffled quietly into the laird’s library. “You called, Sir?”, he queried in his soft Highland brogues. The last few weeks had been hectic at Tannochbrae — the master had been unusually busy with his scientific interests — and the comfortable rhythm of Scrotum’s life had been jolted from a gentle 4/4 joggling (with pipes) to a jaunty 6/8 contra-bounce (with accordion). Jimmy Shand would have approved.

“Scrotum, I appear to have lost a Curry. Please institute an immediate, that is not to say precipitate, but carefully thought out, considered yet complete search for the fellow. Draft in all the help you need from the estate, but find him you must.”

“Would that be a chicken korma, or my lord’s preferred vindaloo (hot)?” Scrotum asked.

“Of course not, you wretched little man. I speak of Curry, esteemed co-author of Curry & Clow (1997) whose scientific labours conclusively prove that current global temperatures are unremarkable and that we therefore have nothing to fear from the closet socialism that is warmist science.” Monckton was quivering with barely supressed excitement. A fleeting concern scampered across Scrotum’s bushy brow and buried itself behind his ear. He left the room. This could turn out to be another of his lordship’s dreadful hunt the haggis days…

Continue reading “Monckton & the case of the missing Curry”

I can’t tell the bottom from the top

homer.jpgA couple of weeks ago I blogged about NIWA’s climate summary for 2008, but inexplicably missed a most excellent response to the figures from the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition’s energy expert Bryan Leyland. He must have been digging through some dusty tomes in the library, because he arrived at the astonishing conclusion that New Zealand was warmer 141 years ago:

New Zealand’s national average temperature of 12.9 degrees C during 2008, described by NIWA as ‘milder than normal” was in fact cooler than it was 141 years ago, this, and worldwide drop in temperatures since 1998, demonstrate that claims of man-made global warming have lost touch with reality.

Oh really?

Mr Leyland said it is important that all New Zealanders, but especially politicians, understand the significance of the two sets of temperature readings.

Quite so, Bryan, quite so. Let’s see if I can help out a little…

Continue reading “I can’t tell the bottom from the top”

Baby, it’s cold outside

Pegsnow.jpg In the make-believe world of Climate Debate Daily, where there are two sides to a great “debate” on the reality of climate change (there aren’t), a great gulf is opening between the opposing teams. Cranks are investing a great deal of (wasted) time and effort into spreading the idea that the world is cooling, while climate scientists think a new record high global temperature can’t be far away.

In The Australian today, The Great Communicator (for it is he!) runs the cooling argument for all its worth:

Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown. […] Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world’s granary belts.

Meanwhile, in an interview with Robin McKie in The Observer, Jim Hansen nails his colours to the mast:

Deniers should show caution, Hansen insisted: most of the planet was exceptionally warm last year. Only a strong La Niña – a vast cooling of the Pacific that occurs every few years – brought down the average temperature. La Niña would not persist, he said. “Before the end of Obama’s first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that.”

There’s a collision coming…

Continue reading “Baby, it’s cold outside”