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]

Getting on with the job

Carbon Neutral by 2020: How New Zealanders Can Respond to Climate Change

Carbon Neutral by 2020: How New Zealanders Can Respond to Climate Change is in many ways a cheering book though its title, which was right on the mark when the book was published in 2007, has an aura of faded hope to it now. That fading is largely due to the many New Zealand business and farming leaders who continue to oppose any government move which might be effective in addressing climate change, and a new government which still doesn’t seem to know whether it’s going to take the issue seriously or not.  But the depressing backtracks of government and success of negative lobbying don’t obscure the fact that this book is a sensible publication which accepts the reality and looks at how we can get on with responding to it positively.

The editors are Niki Harrė and Quentin D. Atkinson, both psychologists.  They recognise that climate change is a tough call for the human psyche.  It can seem too big an issue for individuals to affect.  But they want us to own the problem and to find a sense of purpose and belonging in doing so.

They have gathered contributions from a wide range of experts covering many aspects of New Zealand life. The sustainable school programme has large potential for change in community attitudes now and in the future adult population. Housing and home renovation are key elements in reducing energy consumption. The shopping mall of the future offers many opportunities for carbon emission reduction. Computing can contribute on many fronts. The book follows the vision of a carbon neutral New Zealand by 2020 into these and several other segments of our national life – transport, organics, design, ethics, ethical investment, sustainable business, law and political action

What that vision might mean for each segment is pursued in detail, along with the strategies we would need to follow to get us there. In the section on sustainable design, for example, the vision is for a use of resources that does not jeopardise the needs of others on the planet or those of future generations. The strategies include new ways of designing which move us away from the landfill destination to objects designed so that every component can be separated and used again indefinitely.  Interestingly, the writer stresses that design can’t be considered in isolation from our governing and finance systems which militate against such a responsible approach to resources.

This theme of appropriate political and economic settings is never far away.  A central aim of the book is to let individual readers see what they can do in the organisation of their own lives and communities and businesses to contribute towards carbon neutrality. But the various writers are also often fully aware of the wider societal changes that are needed and how we might influence their direction. The chapter on transport, for example, includes steps individuals can take in reducing car use but is largely concerned with the government policy measures needed to change the transport systems so that we have much less need to rely on cars.

It is heartening to read authors in such a wide variety of sectors who are concerned about climate change and have a vision of how it can be addressed in their area of expertise. We need a sense of common concern and common effort in an overwhelmingly important issue. Books such as this reveal a more widespread readiness to confront the crisis than we might credit and encourage us to share in it.

But it remains seriously disappointing that our politicians haven’t come together as they should to communicate solidarity in tackling the questions.  It is hard to see the sort of goals presented in the book achieving realisation without strong governmental support.  So long as government remains tepid there is little chance of the general populace realising that we face a crisis which must be addressed, and little chance of the redirection of the economy which is central to change.  The final chapter of the book is on political activism, which seems to me to continue to be essential for success on the scale required.

This is not the sort of book one should expect to read in one swoop. It has many authors and each section needs separate attention. It could be considered a handbook for readers who want to find ways of engaging with the challenge confronting global society.  The editors have brought together an impressively varied selection of useful material. Publisher Craig Potton have played their part too, not only bringing to the public a book which engages with important issues but also treating it as an opportunity to practise emissions minimisation themselves, as explained in their publisher’s note.

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”