13% climate change scepticism

Radio NZ report 13% of NZers climate change skeptics

Researchers at the University of Tasmania analysed surveys taken from 14 countries and found 13 percent of those surveyed in New Zealand were climate-change sceptics.

Only Australia and Norway had higher rates, with the United States coming in just behind on 12 percent.

That compares with only 2 percent of Spanish people and 4 percent of Germans and Swiss.

The study found countries with higher carbon dioxide emissions had greater rates of scepticism – and the people most likely to be sceptics tend to be male, politically conservative and less concerned about the environment.

The authors of the study conclude that despite overwhelming scientific evidence climate change is real, scepticism endures and may even be on the rise in many places.

Listen to economist Geoff Bertram and climate scientist James Renwick on Sunday Morning

It depends on the survey wording and the meaning of sceptic here. I’m sceptical about some aspects of ‘Climate Change’ but acknowledge it’s an issue of concern and it’s backed by substantial science.

• Climate scepticism is highest in Australia, New Zealand, Norway and the USA.

• Higher levels of CO2 emissions per capita are positively associated with scepticism.

• Country vulnerability to climate change is correlated positively with climate scepticism.

• Political conservatism, gender and low environmental concern are key predictors of scepticism.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000758

13% is still a smallish minority. Some people will never accept reality if it differs from their fixed views. Others keep looking for the small minority of science that backs their view. Others just seek like minded people to support their scepticsm with.

Leave a comment

39 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  28th June 2015

    I’m happy to be in a minority. I’m certainly in the minority who have a PhD in physical science and studied honours maths and therefore have some hope of understanding the issues and quality of climate science. I have zero interest on the opinions of journalists, politicians and activists whose understanding of science and statistical analysis could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

    Reply
  2. I am educated in Science and Physics and have either lived in or visited more than60% of countries on this globe. The current pseudo-science which claims that human and animal production of CO2 is the source of Global Weather change defies scientific fact and logic. The reality is that the changes in weather patterns for the earth are almost exclusively caused by natural events. The changes in the Sun’s cyclical effects on the temperature and the conti nuing effect of natural and “normal” Volcanic action are the primary causes of climate change and this proposition will be validated by history. In the meantime I will ignore the “Appeals to emotion” arguments of the youth who have not experienced the climatic changes that I have over the last 75 years – and also the fear-mongering of the dedicated group of entrepreneurs who want to get rich on Carbon use gambling. Question, why is the earth now greener than it was in 1905> Why are we able to feed over 7.5 billion humans, animals insects etc etc on less than 50% of the arable land in the Earth than that cultivated in 1905 when the population was less than 2 billion? The answer is increased CO2 and the Sun has changed its effects on the earth as it has done since life began here. To the youngsters of NZ, don’t be fooled by the media, learn basic physics and study the nature of Manand Nature herself, then make up your minds

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  28th June 2015

      I think that climate change (which is undeniable) and global warming from man-made causes are confused, or taken to be the same thing. I do believe in climate change-well, look at what we’ve been having-but also believe, despite having no scientific training, that climate change is cyclical for the most part. Look at the mini ice age in Shakespeare’s time.

      The people whose sloppy thinking told us about the melting glaciers have much to answer for. I believed it then-and I am an intelligent person, I hope.

      Reply
    • “Why are we able to feed over 7.5 billion humans, animals insects etc etc on less than 50% of the arable land in the Earth than that cultivated in 1905 when the population was less than 2 billion? The answer is increased CO2 and the Sun has changed its effects on the earth as it has done since life began here. ”
      The Green revolution had nothing to do with CO2 or the sun. Ever heard of Norman Borlaug?

      Reply
    • kiwi_guy

       /  28th June 2015

      What do you mean you are “educated in Science and Physics”?

      You actually got a science degree in something relevant? I’m picking you don’t.

      Reply
  3. Sorry., I should also have noted that “Science Direct” is NOT an authorative source for Scientific comment on Global Weather Change as is has been captured by the “Greenies” in my view.

    Reply
  4. kittycatkin

     /  28th June 2015

    (hops onto soapbox) I do all the reuse, recycle things that I can, so I would consider myself to be green-minded (but not A Green) But I do dislike Greens who use fossil fuels, have computers and other technology which can’t be made without oil, wear lots of gold jewellery when they protest against mining, fly to places where they proclaim the evils of oil drilling for fuel….and do all the things that they claim are causing global warming !!!

    Reply
  5. Brown

     /  28th June 2015

    There you go Pete, up yours. There are plenty of scientists that think its a crock but most fear the assassination on social media by the Marxist bullies so won’t speak out.. 13% being smarter than the 87% is nothing new. Morons tend to go with the flow.

    Greenpeace activist morons are just sport nowadays.

    Reply
    • So there is a conspiracy in which “Marxists” have bullied every scientific institution in New Zealand into silence? Really?

      Reply
  6. Rupert Bear

     /  28th June 2015

    Climate change denial is indeed a strange and inexplicable phenomenon. It is the flat earth experience of this century. It asks that one suspend not only all one knows about our world, its history and the science that describes it but to believe that the overwhelming body of scientific opinion is ….wrong! And what a overwhelming scientific opinion.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together hundreds of the world’s leading scientists to study the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, the impacts of climate change on environment and society, and options for limiting climate change.

    More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries typically participate in the IPCC process. In this peer reviewed, collaborative effort, the highest scientific standards are striven for and reached. For over 20 years this collective of the world’s best and brightest have been warning, with increasing urgency, about basic well-established links:

    • The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth;

    • The concentration has been rising steadily, and mean global temperatures along with it, since the time of the Industrial Revolution; and

    • The most abundant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is the product of burning fossil fuels.

    I suppose it is not too surprising, that in a country with such a long and continuous history of promoting climate change scepticism, (http://www.hotairfilm.co.nz/) we should find New Zealand has such denial. Thirteen percent is indeed high when we consider ourselves an educated people.

    A contributing factor is the media’s treatment of ill informed, minority driven, bias in this country. Generally it gives equal time and coverage to their views without robust challenges. What the sceptical voice asks us to do is embrace their flat earth views as we circumnavigate the world. It is about time we simply say to those who believe they know better than the IPCC that they should join the ranks of those who believe smoking is not a health risk – because really the science has been settled a long time ago. We simply have not developed the courage to accept it and change our behaviour.

    Reply
    • Goldie

       /  28th June 2015

      I wonder where that 13% actually is and what explains their belief.
      I can understand the anti-science beliefs of the Greens (anti-nuclear, anti-GM) environmental utopianism – bonkers but understandable.
      But I don’t understand where scepticism that humankind can pump out billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and there be no effect comes from. My feeling is that it is a fringe of conservatives who have a knee-jerk antipathy towards any authority (especially international authorities such as the UN).

      Reply
    • FarmerPete

       /  29th June 2015

      Your comment would be more readable and credible if you left out the snide ad hominems, arguments from authority, and smears and focussed more on actual evidence.
      There are innumerable respected scientists who have reasonable doubt about the causal connections posited by the IPCC. It must be make you feel special to feel so convinced of your own ‘rightness’ that you feel you can from your lofty perch consign others to the flat earth society.
      I wouldn’t be so quick to trot out the credentials and credibility of the IPCC if I was you, nor would I use the hoary old chestnut of 2000+ scientists either. That delusion was exploded years ago. I find it paradoxical that warmists are so quick to make the link with big oil, but deny the gravy train link with Greenpeace, research grants etc, which keep the climate science community in business.
      Your arguments do you no credit. To link skepticism with flat earth syndrome, and smoking just shows how illogical some warmists are.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th June 2015

      B.s. You simply have to look at the temperature record over the past two decades and compare it with the model predictions to know there is a problem with the religion. And then be capable of independent thought. Which factor do you lack?

      Reply
  7. What a load of bullshit from RNZ. People are not skeptical that climate change happens, they’re skeptical that it’s a problem or that it’s a problem that is can be fixed in any meaningful way by reducing carbon emissions.

    Reply
  8. kiwi_guy

     /  28th June 2015

    This is where right wingers go full retard as nicely demonstrated above.

    Reply
  9. Brown

     /  29th June 2015

    Well Rupert Bear, if I follow the money I find people like Al Gore on your side. The head of the IPCC, who is an unqualified nobody, thinks nothing of swanning around the world by jet to watch cricket. I have a view on the UN and its that the organisation is inherently corrupt, a protector of two bit dictators, stacked with Marxists and should be avoided at all cost. That doesn’t mean there’s no crap on the other side but to think that the UN and its hired lackey’s are a bastion of truth is delusional.

    Reply
  10. Well I guess you there are a few here who didn’t watch this excellent factual documentary on New Zealand – here is a second chance http://www.hotairfilm.co.nz.

    @ FarmerPete it was not my intention to be snide. I notice that your rather aggressive reply is somewhat light on credible evidence. I know of no more credible body than the IPCC on this subject. No doubt you do and will be willing to share that knowledge.

    Denying climate science is like saying the earth is flat; it’s just plain wrong. The scientific community – that is the scientists who actually research things like the climate system, ocean currents, atmospheric chemistry, etc. – completely agree that climate change is being caused by humans.

    So how does this massive disinformation campaign get away with what they they’re doing? Why don’t the scientists just smack the deniers and say “we’re right and you’re wrong,”?

    First off, scientists aren’t well-trained public relations gurus, they’re, well, scientists. More importantly, there’s a common belief among scientists that no scientific theory can ever be proved. Theories can be corroborated by evidence, and they can be disproved, but they can never be proved.

    The corroborating evidence for the theory of human-caused climate change is abundant, and all attempts to disprove it have been in vain.

    So no scientists will ever tell you, “we’ve proved climate change,” but no scientist will ever tell you, “we’ve proved gravity,” either.

    Even when theories are disproved, it does not mean they are thrown out the window. Often they are replaced with a more robust theory that explains everything its predecessor did, and more.

    So when Einstein’s theory of general relativity (a theory of gravity) replaced Newton’s theory of gravity, it didn’t suddenly mean that you could jump out the window without breaking your legs. All the implications of Newton’s gravity still held true, but Einstein’s theory was also able to explain phenomena unexplained by Newton’s theory.

    Similarly, our scientific understanding of climate change will evolve and grow, and the science of climate change may be very different in the future than it is now. But, just as apples will always fall from trees to the earth, human-made greenhouse gases will always trap heat in the atmosphere and change the climate.

    @Brown I try to stay away from terms like “Sides”. However it has been my observation that folk who, deep in their hearts, know they are wrong, always get angry and rude when the links between climate change, big oil and big tobacco are made. Climate change denial involves denial or dismissal of the scientific ….. As one tobacco company memo noted: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of …

    As a reasonable person I hope you would rather have Al Gore on your side than those that paid for and continue to pay for the horrendous crimes behind these PR campaigns.

    @Alan Wilkinson So you have no rational response to the facts and links presented. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to make that obvious.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  30th June 2015

      The only link and reference you provided before I commented was a film. I told you I’m only interested in what scientists and engineers think, not advocacy lobbyists.

      Reply
  11. @ UglyTruth

    Congratulations you appear to be on the last of the six stages of denial:

    1. CO2 is not actually increasing.

    2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

    3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.

    4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

    5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

    6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it , and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  30th June 2015

      Drivel. No sceptics believe CO2 is not increasing. Most of the remaining points are indeterminable at this time. One thing we can be certain of is that the wealth, knowledge and technologies available by 2115 is at least as unforeseeable now as our present ones were in 1915.

      Reply
    • Congratulations you appear to be on the last of the six stages of denial…

      Point 1 is wrong, point 2 is a non sequitur, point 3 has no evidence, point 4 is misleading, point 5 is a red herring, and point 6 is humanist fatalism.

      So what is it that you think that I am in denial of?

      The MSM isn’t reporting on climate change agents like ionospheric heaters (HAARP etc) and active geoengineering (aka chemtrails). Throw in the fudging of the data to favour the alarmists and the alarmist propaganda that was spewed out by William Connelly courtesy of Wikipedia and you’ve got the makings of an epic conspiracy theory.

      Reply
  12. Brown

     /  30th June 2015

    Rupert, the problem with climate science is that its become a political cause and at that point science goes on holiday and politicians run the show. You can put on a white lab coat but I still won’t believe you until I see some real science as opposed to computer models without cherry picked or manipulated stats.

    You can go and buy a Prius with its grubby battery and pay more tax to the Marixist cause if it makes you feel better but I’m not going to roll over.

    Reply
  13. Magoo

     /  2nd July 2015

    As far as I know ALL scientists, both sceptics and alarmists, agree that CO2 contributes to global warming, they even agree how much. But the media are only telling half the story, the IPCC says that CO2 only accounts for 50% of the warming in their computer models, and their own empirical data from the AR5 report shows the other 50% is missing:

    http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

    Why would the media avoid this vital part of the information? It’s quite common to see comments deleted on stories when someone mentions it. I wonder what they’re afraid of, it’s only the empirical science from the IPCC’s AR4 & AR5 reports after all, not something from a ‘big oil’ advocacy group.

    Reply
  14. It does seem that I am something of a minority myself, within this forum; however for the sake of the effort I will make one last response to the kind gentlefolk who have responded above.

    Frankly, I do this with little hope that I will influence their thinking: I reply because the misguided understanding that might arise from their comments should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially when the sources with which they try to cloak those unhelpful comments are so totally lacking in credibility. I will come to that issue in some detail shortly.

    This topic arose because recent research showed a significant minority still believe that our climate is not being change dramatically for the worse by human activity. Moreover, New Zealand is among those countries with the highest level of climate change scepticism! This is not a club we should be in and those who encourage us to aspire to it are mistaken and often afraid.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence from surveys of climate scientists which have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding anthropogenic global warming amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010) there exist some who wish to dispute or argue this. They claim, for whatever reason, that the issue is not proved, agreed or some other nonsense. This helps defers the conversation we should be having about the changes we need to be making. It is against the interests of every future New Zealander as well as those living today.

    It is not difficult to reason who would want to defer that action, however if you have difficulty I offer again this source

    or should you wish to see directly the nasty links without the back story go here:

    So to come to the source Magoo offers: Does this make sense – is this credible? Frankly it’s a joke. A dangerous joke none the less because it helps with this process of sowing doubt and confusion. What is offered on his link is underwritten entirely by Joanne Nova and Roy Spence.

    Who are these people?

    The first is an Australian right wing communicator (ex TV presenter) who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and her denialist weblog. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. She has absolutely no climate science credibility.

    The second, Roy Spencer, is a climate contrarian with strong links to the ExxonMobiles as well as credentials. Those credentials have not stopped him from propagating some real whoppers, however. To gain a good insight to the regard with which this man is held within the broad scientific community read this article here:

    Elsewhere you will find Roy Spencer’s recent contributions (as referenced by Magoo’s link) described as:

    “… not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”

    “This new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument…[and] is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

    …if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh…”

    And this is exactly what we should do with Roy Spencer and the people who promote his mischief.

    Reply
    • You may be a minority amongst commenters on this topic but there’s always a lot more readers on blogs. You may nor sway those you’re debating with but you’re talking to a much bigger audience. In any case different views are welcome here, especially those that challenge common opinions when well stated and well backed.

      While I usually stick to a position or point of view in blog debates I also usually learn from opposing views if well presented.

      I’m a bit of a floater on climate change, I think there are genuine concerns about many aspects of it but also some big question marks about what will actually happen and how much we can do to alter that.

      Reply
      • @Pete George. First, I thank you for allowing me to voice my thoughts and concerns on this blog. It is because of the point you make in your second sentence above that I submit my comments.

        With the deepest of respect we have gone beyond the point of indecision and none should remain a floater on this issue. To remain floating (or waiting to see what will turn up next) is exactly what those who self-describe themselves as skeptic want. They seek to spread doubt and confusion and invite inaction. This has been well documented time and time again. The funding and close ties of those skeptics, with (and most often without) scientific competency has also been shown repeatedly. They are there simply to serve the misguided interests of their masters – they do not further our understanding – their business is doubt.

        The tactics used by Magoo (and others here) is to find small inconsequential issues and tie up our valuable time proving them mistaken or wrong. Even when they are right (which is seldom) one ends up scratching one’s head and asking what was that about – because the basic concerns remain. And when they are proved wrong they just pop up with another distraction.

        Their work is to maintain the status quo politically and their tactics is exactly like that of the tobacco lobby. Again and again this has been well and reliably documented.

        Without wishing to broaden this thread too much, each of us in our hearts know that as a species, we are our futures own enemy. We are certainly not the friends of our environment, planet earth. As individuals and most importantly as communities we must find better ways to live – how we are presently living is not sustainable.

        I, perhaps like you, have had the opportunity to travel widely and have seen the scars and devastation our species is inflicting on mother earth. I have witnessed during my journeys hour after hour of unrelenting destruction. The habitat of many, many others destroyed to serve man’s profit and greed. And in this mistaken and misguided quest we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

        While the climate change contradictors will jump to say weather is weather (when it suits them) what is already perceivable is (or should be) enough to realize the results our actions summon.

        This past month unprecedented June heat scorched portions of four continents during the past week, and many all-time heat records are likely to fall across multiple continents this July as the peak heat of summer arrives for what has been the hottest year in recorded human history. Already on July 1, in Wimbledon, England–site of the classic Wimbledon tennis tournament–players are enduring the city’s hottest day in tournament history. The mercury hit 96.3°F (35.7°C) at Kew Gardens, the nearest recording site, topping the previous record of 94.3°F (34.6°C) on June 26, 1976. London’s Heathrow Airport has risen to 98.1°F (36.7°C) so far on July 1. This is not only a new all-time July record at that location, but also a July heat record for the UK, topping the previous record of 97.7°F (36.5°C) in Wisley on July 19, 2006.

        We’ve already seen two of the planet’s top ten deadliest heat waves in history over the past two months; the Pakistani government announced on Wednesday that the death toll from the brutal June heat wave in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, had hit 1,250. According to statistics from EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, this makes the 2015 heat wave in Pakistan the 8th deadliest in world history. The heat wave that hit India in May, claiming approximately 2,500 lives, ranks as the 5th deadliest.

        The graphical depiction of the above two paragraphs along with relevant links and other information on a global scale is alarming and may be accessed here: http://climatecrocks.com/ as well as elsewhere.

        What can be done? Well we can stop denying what is very evident. We can open our eyes and see the converging lines of evidence – there are plenty to see. We can stand up to those who wish to sow confusion and bully with intimidating language and we can remember.

        When we remember, we are able to ask ourselves how we got here.

        In New Zealand’s case this documentary may prove very helpful: http://www.hotairfilm.co.nz

        Thank you for allowing me to share this.

        Reply
    • Farmerpete

       /  4th July 2015

      Earlier up the thread you accosed me of being aggressive in my response. If that is true then I would describe you as passive aggressive. You may not mean to be snide but you are and again your comments do you absolutely no credit. I had decided to discontinue the dialogue, but your latest effort rteally is a shocker.
      Do you really think that if you discredit someone by accusing them of being in the pocket of big oil that you can discount any argument /evidence they may have. What a crock. As far as I am concerned nothing you write is worth reading if you lace your comments with such garbage. That is the standard of discussion one would expect in a pub after a few drinks, not from someone who thinks seriously about an issue. You may have been to university sir, but you didn’t learn how to think!
      And thank you for your efforts to correct my ‘misguided understandings’ (heavy sarcasm). Perhaps your education could start by learning the difference between weather and climate.

      Reply
  15. …..And now for something completely different with links:

    It does seem that I am something of a minority myself, within this forum; however for the sake of the effort I will make one last response to the kind gentlefolk who have responded above.

    Frankly, I do this with little hope that I will influence their thinking: I reply because the misguided understanding that might arise from their comments should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Especially when the sources with which they try to cloak those unhelpful comments are so totally lacking in credibility. I will come to that issue in some detail shortly.

    This topic arose because recent research showed a significant minority still believe that our climate is not being change dramatically for the worse by human activity. Moreover, New Zealand is among those countries with the highest level of climate change scepticism! This is not a club we should be in.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence from surveys of climate scientists which have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding anthropogenic global warming amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010) there exist some who wish to dispute or argue this. They claim, for whatever reason, that the issue is not proved, agreed or some other nonsense. This helps defers the conversation we should be having about the changes we need to be making. It is against the interests of every future New Zealander as well as those living today.

    It is not difficult to reason who would want to defer that action however if you have difficulty I offer again this source

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

    or should you wish to see directly the nasty links without the back story go here:

    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

    So to come to the source Magoo offers: Does this make sense – is this credible? Frankly it’s a joke. A dangerous joke none the less because it helps with this process of sowing doubt and confusion. What is offered on his link is underwritten entirely by Joanne Nova and Roy Spence.

    Who are these people?

    The first is an Australian right wing communicator (ex TV presenter) who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and her denialist weblog. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. She has absolutely no climate science credibility.

    The second, Roy Spencer, a climate contrarian with strong links to the ExxonMobiles with real credentials. That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however. To gain a good insight to the regard with which this man is held within the scientific community read this article here:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate

    Elsewhere you will find Roy Spencer’s recent contributions (as referenced by Magoo’s link) described as:

    “… not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”

    “This new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument…[and] is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

    …if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh…”

    And this is exactly what we should do with Roy Spencer and the people who promote his mischief.

    Reply
    • I reply because the misguided understanding that might arise from their comments should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

      Typical statist mentality where everything happens by permission. I also notice that you’ve failed to substantiate your statement about my alleged apparent denial.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  3rd July 2015

      Ad hominems and appeals to authority are not science. Is this news to you?

      Reply
  16. Magoo

     /  2nd July 2015

    Actually rupertdebear, it’s not underwritten by Jo Nova or Roy Spencer. ALL the data and predictions in the Daily Media Review article are from the IPCC’s Working Group I sections of their AR4 & AR5 reports, nothing else. It’s quite simple, the IPCC made a prediction in their AR4 report that the IPCC states accounts for 50% of the warming in their climate models, which is empirically falsified by ALL the temperature datasets in the IPCC’s AR5 report – the links to the IPCC’s prediction and empirical data are provided for all to see in the article.

    If you have a complaint about it I suggest you might like to raise it with the IPCC. BTW, Roy Spencer considers himself amongst the 97% of climate scientists, as do all scientists, that is because they don’t disagree about CO2, only the feedbacks as outlined in the article. Nice try at a straw man argument though, shame it doesn’t wash – facts are facts and data is data after all.

    Reply
  17. Freeze – Burn or Drown – which way do you want to go?

    Radio New Zealand had a troubling report this morning:

    NIWA say June was a month of weather extremes with parts of the country getting double the normal amount of rain, and others getting much less than normal.

    In its monthly climate report for June, NIWA said Whanganui, Palmerston North and Central Otago had twice the average level of rain, and Dunedin had three times more.

    In Whanganui, the rain spurred on the worst flooding the city had ever seen.

    A forecaster, Chris Brandolino, said the weather was extreme but not necessarily rare.

    “It all depends on what [weather] pattern you’re in.

    “Averages are created by extremes.

    “You’re going to have peaks and valleys with rainfall – that’s how you get an average. You’re smoothing out the highs and the lows, so to speak,” he said.

    While the weather was extreme, Mr Brandolino said it was too soon to say if it was due to climate change caused by humans.

    “It takes many months, if not a year, to understand that and try and quantify it to any extent.

    “Though I can say with confidence as we go into the future, we will be seeing more extreme weather events as our climate continues to evolve and change.”

    This is a strange. I find the commentary difficult to follow because it is contradictory. Allow me to explain:

    First we are agreed that extreme weather events are not desirable. These events tend to be disruptive and damaging to our lives.

    Mr Brandolino’s final sentence strongly suggests that he has confidence that such events are going to be more extreme in the future. In other words he believes that our weather is changing for the worse and significantly so.

    Given the world’s scientific community overwhelmingly hold climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activity, what reason could Mr Brandolino have for holding a belief that our recent extreme weather is not being driven by humans in the form of anthropogenic change ?

    Yet Mr Brandolino, while acknowledging that the weather was extreme, said it was too soon to say if it was due to climate change caused by humans. Really ?!! Is weather not driven by the same forces that drive climate ?

    Is the difference between “weather” and “climate change” that the former tends to be local while the later is global. If so let us look at what is happening presently on the planet.

    This past month unprecedented June heat scorched portions of four continents, and many all-time heat records are likely to fall across multiple continents this July as the peak heat of summer arrives for what has been the hottest year in recorded human history.

    On July 1, in Wimbledon, England–site of the classic Wimbledon tennis tournament–players are enduring the city’s hottest day in tournament history. The mercury hit 96.3°F (35.7°C) at Kew Gardens, the nearest recording site, topping the previous record of 94.3°F (34.6°C) on June 26, 1976. London’s Heathrow Airport has risen to 98.1°F (36.7°C) so far on July 1. This is not only a new all-time July record at that location, but also a July heat record for the UK, topping the previous record of 97.7°F (36.5°C) in Wisley on July 19, 2006.

    We’ve already seen two of the planet’s top ten deadliest heat waves in history over the past two months; the Pakistani government announced on Wednesday that the death toll from the brutal June heat wave in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, had hit 1,250. According to statistics from EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, this makes the 2015 heat wave in Pakistan the 8th deadliest in world history. The heat wave that hit India in May, claiming approximately 2,500 lives, ranks as the 5th deadliest.

    In the USA they are suffering an early onset of record burning temperatures across the continent. One location, La Crosse, WA for instance. broke the all-time records on Friday (June 26) for that date, not just by a degree or even two, but by five degrees. That’s five degrees hotter than any other June 26th on record. The next day (Saturday June 27) it broke the record for that day too, exceeding the hottest June 27th on record, not by one, or two, or even five degrees, but by nine degrees.

    If you think that’s impressive, consider that on Sunday (June 28) it tied the all-time record for any day, not just for that date. And it was not even July or August (the usual hottest months) yet. As for the daily record, of course it broke that. Not by one degree, not by two, not by five, not even by nine. It broke the June 28th record by fifteen degrees.

    “But it’s summer,” you say. Yes, but this isn’t normal.

    In France the heat is bringing back memories of the killer heat wave of August 2003. Centered in France it was the deadliest in world history—more than 70,000 people died across Europe that month

    This month the weather site MeteoFrance called for “special vigilance”—warning that the current heat wave could top out above the one in July 2006, arguably the hottest in the nation’s history.

    On the 1st July the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued new joint guidance on Heat–Health Warning Systems to address the health risks posed by heatwaves, which are becoming more frequent and more intense as a result of climate change.

    So let us return to our weather and the somewhat banal “too soon to say if it was due to climate change caused by humans” reported statement.

    It is possible, perhaps probable, that these remarks are the result of scientific rigor (and a desire to not alarm someone).

    However, when are we going to join the dots up and see that we live on one planet and call the extreme events for what they are – hell we might even show some alarm!

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  4th July 2015

      Weather is full of extreme events which is why statistical analysis requires a long sequence of reliable and consistent measurements to assert with any confidence that the overall pattern has changed. It is easier, though not easy, to tell if the average temperature is changing. That is why it is significant that the average temperature is little changed over the past two decades despite significant changes in CO2 emissions but little can be said with confidence re extreme weather events. Of course it would be rather surprising if they reacted independently from temperature to CO2 concentrations though not inconceivable. However it would take a long time to establish that as fact rather than your eager supposition.

      Reply
    • Given the world’s scientific community overwhelmingly hold climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activity…

      Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

      Reply
  18. If you are reading this please refer to my third paragraph in reply to Pete George yesterday.

    @UglyTruth. Once again the same “sad parade” that contrarians are obliged to refer to.

    Let’s look at them to see just how credible anything they say might be.

    The Watts-Up-With-That website is a well known source or false and misleading information. It is run by Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) who is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]

    So who is behind the article that denies “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

    Why it is none other than Roy Spencer and Joseph Bast – Well, we described Roy earlier (see 2nd July above) but just for good measure here is a link to describe Roy.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/oct/21/global-warming-contrarian-paper-unrealistic-inaccurate

    So what about Joseph Bast ? Now I wonder if that could be the same Joseph Bast who is the President and CEO of the Heartland Institute?

    For those who don’t know, The Heartland Institute, according it’s web site, is a nonprofit “think tank” that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.

    A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group’s lack of credibility:

    “Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations….makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading…. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. … The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”[2]

    Allow me to repeat the last two sentences.
    “The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”

    So what is known about Joseph Bast to determine if he is an objective and credible source of information .

    According to the website sourcewatch – an August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast’s lack of credibility and reliability:

    “Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.”[3]

    Allow me to repeat the last sentence:

    “Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court”

    The question I hope that arises at this point is why are these rogues given the time of day on the world stage. A large part of the answer is because they can afford to buy it. Look beyond them at their puppet masters and you see the same individuals and corporations and they are v-e-r-y wealthy. I will leave you to judge their business but I am sure they feel threatened.

    It is not difficult to find out about them as they are increasingly being outed – They hate it. That is why everyone should see this New Zealand documentary: http://www.hotairfilm.co.nz because it places this issue into a kiwi context and you will see in the news reels and ‘interviews of the time’ how we came to have 13% of NZers climate change skeptics and no progress on change.

    __________________________

    1. Cubby, Ben (2012 [last update]). Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think tank. watoday.com.au. http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html

    2. Nature Volume: 475, Pages: 423424 Date published: (28 July 2011) DOI: doi:10.1038/475423b (2011-07-28). Heart of the matter. Nature: Nature Publishing Group. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728

    3. “The Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition et al. vs Williams et al. (pdf),” D-1-GN-11-003130, (District Court of Travis County Texas 2014), 335 to 336. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#cite_ref-2

    Reply
    • Farmerpete

       /  5th July 2015

      Your arguments are simply disgraceful. Falsehoods, innuendos and smears. You should be blushing about the quote ‘inflammatory and irresponsible language’.

      Reply
  1. Cilmate debate contrarians | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s