Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” as Pseudo-Science

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. (Dr David Kear)

Dr David Kear is a former Director General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) – as such he would have been considered one of New Zealand’s top scientists. He has been publishing on sea levels since the 1950s.

In 2013 Dr Kear prepared a booklet in which he set out his views on the globalist climate project. In the booklet, Dr Kear describes:

  • his experience with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change
  • the corrupted science behind the Global Warming narrative
  • the corrupted science behind the claims of rising sea-levels
  • the demonisation by “Global Warmers” of the “essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide”.
  • how councils are making zoning & other decisions purely to satisfy a false narrative, with total disregard for the facts

Think globally, act locally (UN catchcryDr Kear describes how local councils are ignoring scientific fact in order to satisfy an agenda imposed on them from above. No matter if scientists, engineers and local observers all indicate that the sea is not rising, even retreating – once a council has decided on a policy that assumes that the sea IS rising, the council is immovable, and makes decisions on zoning and building codes on that basis.

Such policies will be being applied in coastal and non-coastal areas alike, thereby contributing to fulfillment of Agenda 21 goals of eventually eliminating small towns and villages and moving people to “sustainable” megacities.

Dr Kear’s text is reproduced here in its entirety with minimal changes to format.


[the NON-EXISTENT, incredibly expensive,
including to our GRANDCHILDREN]

by David Kear, 34 West End, Ohope, Whakatane, NZ

(former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations consultant; & South Pacific geoscientist)


“Climate Change” has become an important international topic – one might almost say religion. It began life as “Global Warming”.

So very many people, including politicians and “news people”, appear to have been overwhelmed by it, and have led others to believe, and follow the doctrine.

It has sponsored a good deal of international co-operation, which can only have been good.

However, the cost of “Combating Carbon” has been extremely high, and the debt and economic consequences are being passed on to present citizens, and, worse still, to future generations, including all our grandchildren.

This booklet attempts to raise, in citizens’ minds, questions regarding the enormous sums of money and effort being wasted on this topic.

Is it soundly based? Will it “do good” or “do bad” for ordinary citizens?  Do those promoting it deserve our attention?

This booklet suggests that Global-Warming-alias-Climate-Change, as proposed by “Global Warmers” makes no sense. You, as the reader, must judge that for yourself – not to help the writer of this booklet, but to help you and your family.

Do you think after reading all this that the proponents are absolutely reliable?

Should you add your voice to those against it, or at least talk to your councillors and members of parliament and see how they feel?


Our Earth’s climate is highly variable, and records show clearly that it always has been so. Animals and plants have had no option but to accept what comes, and to adapt life in ways that suit best. Evolution gave some help by introducing “the Survival of the Fittest”

Humans found early that their discussion and understanding were helped by a belief in some extraneous source being the cause of recorded changes of climate – perhaps with divine power. This booklet uses “Mother Nature” in that role to avoid wordy explanations.

Humans discovered that they could ameliorate climatic effects with buildings, clothing and the rest, and even create “microclimates” through windbreaks, forest clearing, artificial lakes, fossil fuel burning, and the rest. However, no-one originally thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate – our Sun, our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some 3,000,000,000 years), but we are not.


That ancient and acceptable view was amended in the minds of some people whom I call the “Global Warmers”. I’ve heard nothing convincing about their so-called “Science”; but what they publish convinces me that it’s close to nonsense. The most convincing evidence against it comes mostly from the Global Warmers themselves.

In this booklet, the beliefs of “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” have initial capital letters. That contrasts with natural warming, or natural changing of climate – indicated by lower case initial letters. The idea of a human cause is much less than 300 years old.

My interest in our changing climate and sea level
During fieldwork for a PhD thesis I found a coastal exposure of soft sandstone at Ohuka Creek, south of Port Waikato. There were Pliocene fossils of marine shellfish below an extensive horizontal bedding plane. Above that plane were more fossils, but of cool-lovinga plants. A finger could show the exact location of the abrupt change to the cooler climate at the onset of the first of the world-wide Pleistocene glaciations [Ice Ages]. Ice formed widely at the ultimate expense of sea water, so sea level fell. At Ohuka, sea bed had become land. Such changes are rarely seen in a continuous sequence, so I recorded it in a 1957 scientific paperb. That resulted in my joining an informal world-wide Group researching changing sea levels.

Most interest then was about the rate of sea level rise as the Earth warmed following the “Little Ice Age”. That cool period, from about 1500 to 1700 AD, halted winemaking in England and taro cropping in New Zealand. Our Group determined the rate of sea level rise in many different World regions, from widely-available readings of tide gauges (less variable than those of thermometers). The average for us all was 125 mm/century (“125” here). Hence it would take 8 centuries for sea level to rise 1m – no serious threat to us.

Global Warming Dawns Subsequently, I attended many international science conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of adherents. Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but gave no adequate supporting science. That rate of rise was equivalent to 3,500 mm/century, 28 times faster than our 125. Hence we stupidly ignored it, thinking noone could possibly believe it. But the World did believe, and the Global Warming mirage was born. Had 3,500 been true, sea level should have risen by almost 1 m by today – it hasn’t, not even closely.

This showed unambiguously that those “Overseas Scientists” were not true scientists. They ignored a most important basic rule of true science “Thou shall not publish Science without first checking it. A check against local tide gauges would have shown how wrong 1.4 m in 40 yrs was; they simply hadn’t bothered to check. That was a First Grave Error.

Australian government scientists were concerned about the effects on Pacific Island nations by any sea level rise of around 3,500 mm/century, and launched a project to determine the correct figure at that time. They announced the result at the 1992 meeting of SOPAC – a geoscientific organisation of South Pacific nations. Their figure was 122 mm/century, confirming the order of magnitude of our group’s 125 average value.

Fooling the World The Global Warmers persisted with their use of pseudo-science and made further predictions. Understandably they too all proved wrong. At conferences I began to hear, regardless of the science involved, when a speaker wished to “rubbish” some scientific idea or research, he/she stated that conclusion firmly, and followed it by “Just like Global Warming”. Clearly the Global Warmers heard that too. They didn’t change their pseudo-science, but cleverly changed the name to ‘Climate Change”. [One can disprove warming, but the words change of climate can’t be proved wrong].

The United Nations became interested – major sea level rise could cause havoc in low-lying areas or island groups. They established an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and invited nations to send delegates. Not surprisingly those chosen were almost entirely Global Warmers, because they clearly knew something about it. But to do them credit the Panel members acted a little more like true scientists than those earlier.

They accepted that “1.4 m in 40 yrs” was wrong and re-evaluated it as “0.49 m by 2100”, [roundly a century ahead]. Thus they dropped 3,500 down to 500 mm/century – to 14% of the original. The cause remained unchanged – our CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. In no other human activity would those involved retain a belief when the most crucial item involved was found to be 86% wrong by themselves. That was a Second Grave Error.

In spite of that, the World was taken in. Politicians were able to promise to save us from the consequences, and the Media had an unending “Field Day”. It wasn’t that people necessarily believed, but they lacked the courage to risk that it might come true, and that they might have to bear the terrible consequences that had been so forcibly promised.

The New Errors The new value of “0.49 m by 2100” became widely accepted. In New Zealand, District Councils were instructed by Government Departments, like Conservation and Environment, and by Regional Councils, that they must take full account of the risk that “0.49” implied for a sea level rise by 2100. Councils had to consider that in the same way as earthquake and volcanic risk. Yet that “0.49” value doesn’t stand up to the most simple scientific scrutiny.

First, the rate is four times faster than the current sea level rise, as indicated by regional, widely-available tide gauges; second, no reason was given for quadrupling the value, and third, good science interprets “0.49” in this sense as being deliberately different from 0.48 and 0.50. Thus that effectively claims that those who determined that value know, for sure, where sea level will be a century ahead to ±5 mm. That was, and is, patently absurd

These were the Third, Fourth & Fifth Grave Errors.

Further Damning Disclosures The United Nations appointed me personally to their UNCSTD Committee which assists small countries with their ability regarding Science and Technology Development. Three or so of us would go to a central city to talk and discuss their options with delegates from regional countries. On one occasion we met in Prague, to assist countries on both sides of the “Iron Curtain”. While there, we were invited to visit the World’s only “Institute for Global Warming”. It was founded and funded incredibly by the USA and Soviet Union jointly, at the height of their “Cold War”, in an attempt to fund something “for the good of Mankind”, rather than “for armaments”. Some of its staff could have attended the 1985 Conference, and helped create the 1987 World Declaration.

I took the opportunity of asking to see copies of the documents that had been brought to  that 1985 Meeting in neutral Austria. Several attendees brought their estimates for sea level rise due to Global Warming. The values, converted to mm/century, ranged from 500 minimum to 3,500 maximum. There can be no doubt that, to ensure that their 1987 World Declaration made the greatest impact, they published the maximum value – contravening the most sacred rule of acceptable science Thou shall not publish items for monetary, political, or personal gain that are not clear un-biased un-inflated truths.

The fact that “up to” was used, might be allowed in non-scientific areas, but not in
Science. If World Media had distorted the message, the Warmers should immediately
have denied what was wrongly claimed, and ensured that the proper statement got
equal publicity. Using a maximum value for greatest effect was the Sixth (and
Worst) Grave Error.


19th Century science posed a important question. Why is our Earth’s average temperature significantly higher than that calculated from the then-recent determinations of our Sun’s distance and its radiation? Knowing my interests in climate, DSIR librarians found me a publication in German that answered that puzzle early. It had Scandinavian author(s), if I remember correctly. Its answer was that the CO2 in our atmosphere acts like glass in a glasshouse. Both change the optical physical nature of the Sun’s infra-red rays [that carry the warmth to us] such that they may enter, but cannot then leave. So we are warmed by the heat trapped below our CO2; like the glasshouse below its glass.

I surmise that the Global Warmers, along with Al Gore, noted correctly that CO2 keeps us warm, but thought wrongly that more would make us warmer. The analogy with glass is important. Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker) glass does not cause more warming, so more CO2 probably doesn’t either. The effect is like that of polarising spectacles, where the change takes place as light begins passing through the lenses. Thickness makes no difference. Polarisation is either 100%, or not at all. A coincidence timed the Little Ice Age’s end with the Industrial Revolution’s start. The Warmers blamed the undoubted warming on the latter – ignoring the glasshouse evidence.


NIWA The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) retains New Zealand climate records. It has a history of persuading successive governments that Global Warming and Climate Change are both real. It often encouraged media headlines like “We are Getting Warmer”, when any news item suggested any higher temperature. Science progresses by new concepts and ideas being aired freely for scientific scrutiny. That has sometimes taken centuries to be completed. Although I don’t agree with some of NIWA’s views, it is proper that they should be aired for discussion, as in this booklet.

One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records began. I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998, and probably cooler. I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished in 1998. In the roundest of figures, the Little Ice Age lasted for some 200 years. There would be no conflict with accepting that the following warming should similarly last for some 200 years.

As always in Science one seeks confirmation whenever possible. I have seen many items that lead to that same view of “no warming since 1998”. The best was a written debate in the Imperial Engineer of autumn 2008. [That scientific journal is produced for engineering graduates of Imperial College, London – arguably UK’s top university in engineering.] The debate was on whether Humans were to blame for current changes of climate. Prof Joanna Haigh blamed Humans, Lord Monckton blamed Mother Nature. The only point on which they both agreed was that there had been no warming since 1998. That confirmed NIWA’s statement perfectly, along with several comparable pronouncements.

My conclusion is that warming since the Little Ice Age’s end is now almost certainly finished. That was supported further by NIWA’s release at the end of 2012,concerning the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Their report was that 2012 had been drier and colder than 2011. Citizens also notice that warming seems to be over. Skiing seasons are extended, winter fires are needed earlier, and some of us travelling overseas have been asked by those from Queensland, even Hawaii, whether we in New Zealand feel colder generally – as they do. I conclude that the New Zealand climate has not been warming since 1998.


Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat: Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all. Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the statements – which contained grave errors.

Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change. The projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits & options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.

A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being. In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.

Perhaps the saddest part has been that the essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide, has been demonised and criminalised. It is essential in creating plant growth using chlorophyll and photo-synthesis. It is thus essential for our very existence. Crops grow better in a CO2-enriched and warmer atmosphere, when heated by an oldfashioned vertical kerosene heater. It gives off “carbon emissions” that are valuable to us all.

Costs and Dangers of Local Measures to combat the Non-Existent Threat: Local authorities were compelled to adopt measures designed to combat the nonexistent threat. Typically, maps were drawn showing the coastline’s position now, and in the year 2100 with intermediate zone(s), assuming that sea level would rise 0.49 m in the next 100 years. Onerous restrictions have been emplaced within the zones that were thus defined.

Many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released by the erosion of hills and mountains, continuously raised by Mother Nature. Their coastline extends seawards steadily. Citizens in such regions have long noted (with surveys and photos) that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with
many Councils’ imposed belief in “0.49” which demands landwards movement

Councils seem unable to accept their citizens’ constant and loud protests about all this. They seem to feel that higher authorities insist that they must ignore such views. It is not just (a) the absurdity of restrictions about where houses may be erected (only inland of certain lines), etc.; or (b) the increasing costs to those building their first home. At the other end of the scale there are enforced dangers; a requirement for higher floor levels, leading to more steps, with unnecessary risks to elderly folk falling, when using them.

The fact that sea level is no longer rising is a new extra factor for councils to ignore. In the example of Ohope Beach, a Commission of enquiry, set up by Council, backed the Council’s view of landwards inundation. That rejected all citizens’ factual evidence of seawards net movement for periods ranging from 50 to 5,000 years. Council also rejected the advice, supporting the Citizens, by one who was highly qualified in engineering and science and had had long and successful experience in coastal work.

Much worse, the Council’s own appointed consultants provided an additional report based on every coastal survey for which a record was available. It showed a “retreat
of the sea” [seaward shoreline movement, or accretion] at the only three Ohope sites, of 0.30-0.94 m/yr over 130 years that was still ongoing in 2008. Clearly neither Council nor Commission had bothered to read that critical report, written by highly regarded consultants, who had been appointed for this project by the Council itself.

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and a massive bill for all, for nothing useful. When will citizens revolt effectively against such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially their elected employees? When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral standards of their profession?

References to Kaawa-­‐Ohuka

a) Couper RA & McQueen DR 1954: Pliocene and Pleistocene plant fossils of NZ and their climatic interpretation. Trans Roy Soc NZ 77(3): 398-­‐420

b) Kear D 1957: Statigraphy of the Kaawa-­‐Ohuka coastal area, West Auckland. NZ J Sci  Tech B 38 (8): 826-­‐42

c) Kear D 1963: Geology of Te Akau, West Auckland & regional implications. PhD thesis, London University. 2 vols, 599 pp (copies at libraries of GNS, and of London, Auckland &
Waikato Universities).

ISBN 978-­‐0-­‐473-­‐25154-­‐3

July 2013

Biographical NoteDr David Kear has a background in geology and engineering, becoming the Director General of the DSIR (New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) in 1980.  He is a Fellow and Past Vice-President of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and Past President of the New Zealand Geological Society. Dr Kear has over 100 publications on New Zealand and Pacific geology, vulcanology and mineral resources.  He has been publishing on sea-levels since the 1950s.


See also:

CLIMATISM : 2019 State Of The Climate Report   Jamie Spry compares truth and fable with regard to “areas of concern” such as the polar icecaps, sea levels, snow, heatwaves, and the Great Barrier Reef.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (pdf): Marc Morano details petitions and submissions from the years 2007-2010 addressed to the likes of Ban-Ki Moon, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and the public, signed by top scientists around the world, including many from New Zealand.

Climate Depot, Another Dissenter: “Dr. Kear joins many other scientists who recently publicly dissented from man-made climate fears”.

Global Warming Petition Project: 31,000 American scientists have signed  a petition asking the US government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement. A summary of peer-reviewed research is included.

petition project


46 thoughts on “Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” as Pseudo-Science

  1. There are two propositions that must always be viewed as highly suspicious: 1) the science is settled, and 2) it is logical to follow the projection unquestioningly despite data to the contrary. Both require a consensus however constrained, and are also highly suggestive of ulterior motives.

  2. The support of the unsupportable by warmists and politicians surely emphasises the relative ignorance of most people on scientific matters. This is yet another example of the many clear and simple papers which use logic to understand the fallacy of Global Warming. The problem is not the lack of such papers, but the reluctance of even well-educated people to take the time to read and understand them. I frequently recommend they follow the blog “WattsUpWithThat”, but I suspect they rarely do!

      1. None of the believers are stopping eating ! We humans all inhale 1 part and exhale 100 parts of CO2 and no-one seems to consider that fact. How will dear Mr. Honda make and sell his cars when his new factory has no machinery, consumes no energy and employs no people ?

  3. This is right on the money. There is a nefarious agenda behind the climate change agenda! It needs to be stopped!

  4. This article is well thought out and put together. It is not written by someone in an ivory tower but someone who has been personally involved at high levels with people for and against the science and who has thoroughly researched the subject. We need more like this and many thanks to the author for coming out with the truth. Our govt and particularly Simon Upton, now the Commissioner for the Environment need to get this and he needs to respond.

  5. “The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
    with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
    water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
    changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
    The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome,
    premier environmental think-tank,
    consultants to the United Nations

  6. An incredible indictment on those in position and power, and those in the fourth estate who choose to censor any non AGW debate and material. TheyI continually face this bias. Kear stands alongside many eloquent NZ scientists, including the legendry climateologist Augi Auer , in opposing this farce.

  7. The CO2 issue is one that has bothered me for many years as the recipient of the preceived problem . According to test on ancient ice CO2 has fluctuated both in cooler and hotter periods to little effect. All of this fails to look at a longer history , as an example when most of North America was covered by glaciers estimated to be 2 miles thick , and disappeared when there was zero human influence on environmental issues. Nor does any of this take on the 5 known kill cycles the last 12,800 years ago with a asteroid impact in Greenland; . Nor has any of this taken into account changes in the thermal out put of the sun which is also heating up the other planets ! Then the variations in elliptical orbit of this planet around the sun in long terms 64,000 / 100,000 year cycles . So if the human influence is in the .01-.02 % for global temperature change is it in the interest of people to attempt to change activities ? Knowing full well that any changes are cyclical and random as asteroids or volcanic eruptions? Simple question , why has no one attempted to postulate any reasons why Egypt that would have had to have been lush in order to build the pyramids has been arid for so many centuries and that expansion of desert has in recent centuries expanded at about 15 miles per year ? This starts to look more like a C02 deficit than an excess !

  8. Dave died recently, sadly for all of us. But his words stand and he was one of the greats! Brett Keane

    1. Very sad to hear that news Brett – I would very much like to have shaken Dave’s hand for such an eloquent & fact filled expose of the great climate change (aka global warming) swindle that has taken in so many who should know better!

  9. Where in this paper is there acknowledgment of major loss of ice mass at the poles or displayed in the world’s glacial fields? Or recognition of increasing extreme weather events? Not doubting the world handlers (Al Gore et al.) will use this as an excuse to tax humanity into final extinction it would be more useful to discuss weather modification technology. International programmes, run by the military, such as High-Frequency Active Auroral Programme which are making this an awaiting disaster. He has betrayed the very grandchildren he talks about either through deception or ignorance. In his case ignorance is no excuse!

    1. 1) I introduced a piece by Dr Kear. My introduction was brief, though I did highlight Ohope’s council’s determination to declare the sea to be rising despite the evidence that it was in fact retreating. If I felt inspired to rework the article and enlarge my introduction or bibliography, it would be to talk about issues raised by Dr Kear such as sea level, CO2 or the corruption of science, or about Agenda 21 and the globalists who are behind this scam. Not about “extreme weather” or “the polar bears” or whatever is the current diversion from scientific realities

      2) Rejection of the globalists’ narrative on climate is not based on whether the world is warming or not at present, but on the science.
      -Human activity generates about 3% of atmospheric CO2, so it is clearly not the major cause of the rise in CO2
      – the principle greenhouse gas is H2O, ie water vapour. The hottest nights are when there is heavy cloud (keeping the heat in) after a clear sunny day (with nothing to keep the heat out). Horticulturalists pump CO2 into their greenhouses, because plants grow better when CO2 is 800pm. Nobody to my knowledge has produced evidence that this keeps the greenhouse warmer at night. Find a map showing geological history – there have been periods of glaciation when the CO2 was many times higher than it is today, when it is coming out of a deep trough (hopefully).

      3) The poles melting away …. This is claptrap. Yes there a large number of volcanoes in Western Antarctica which cause some melting. But Vostok station is currently showing a temperature of -59C. That’s MINUS 59 degrees. How does that fit in with your vision of a world burning up (because of CO2), with ice-free poles and drowning cities? A NZ expedition to the Ross Ice Shelf summer of 2017-8 revealed that the ice was *freezing*, not melting. Up by the North Pole, The Russians have just upgraded their ice-breakers, for a reason.

      4) CO2 causes tornadoes … Even the latest report from the ghastly, politically-driven IPCC admits there is no increase in extreme weather reports. But far more reliable sources show fewer droughts in Australia, few hurricanes hitting America. Wellington hasn’t had a storm like the Wahine since 1968. “Extreme weather” is just another straw to clutch at, like polar bears, who are doing very well, btw.

      5) I’m not sure whether you are supporting geoengineering to save the planet, or opposing it. Certainly, Bill Gates is funding research to fill the atmosphere with chemical particles, or aluminium, in order to block the sun. If anyone tries it in Wellington, I’ll sue.

  10. “Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker) glass does not cause more warming, so more CO2 probably doesn’t either”. That’s an enormous and unjustified extrapolation. It seems to me that CO2 as 410ppm of a gas will have significantly different effects on light waves than glass as a liquid. What proportion of light waves/photons will even hit a CO2 molecule on their way through the atmosphere? And it’s central to the whole debate. So dismissing the CO2 argument using a baseless assumption is in itself pseudo-science. Does anyone have proof that the “thickness of glass” analogy applies to CO2.

  11. Look, all is lost anyway. The Brits seem determined to leave the EU and for something much worse. Now Bojo is fighting to agree a deal, similar to that which was rejected three times but was marginally better that his current offering. In a world as mad as ours what chance is there for common sense and reason to prevail ? Why do we not simply plant billions of trees to replace those which we hacked down in the name of industrialisation ? Is that too simple or does it not offer bonuses for the politicos and hangers on to the new religion ?

    1. On the contrary, I don’t share your catastrophist sentiments Stuart.

      I think the ‘Brits’ will do just fine following Brexit, as will both NZ & Australia with the inevitable new trading T’s & C’s that will emerge between ourselves & the UK to our mutual benefit.

      In so far as trees are concerned, we in Australia plant (& harvest) many on a sensible, regular, rotating basis. That benefits both the environment (the trees just love CO2, indeed can’t grow without it & we need the oxygen that they generate!) & for commercial purposes too – few houses & lots of furniture would not be built without them!

      So, all in all Stuart, it’s that ‘simple’ IMHO. I have every confidence that our world will do just fine under both Brexit & increasing levels of CO2 – we’d be dead without the later!

      1. Hello Jim,

        Thanks for your response. Interestingly we disagree and agree on the two points of debate. Having spent my working life in and around Europe I am a decided European. The older and more experienced I become the more uncomfortable am I with the English xenophobic attitudes. I am almost 100% English
        ( mother was a Scot ) but I see that my kinfolk do not know, they do not understand so they do not like !
        70 years and more with no European wars, barring the unfortunate Jugoslavian episode seem not to count,

        What I do relish is the fresh air and common sense coming out of NZ. I am not a scientist, rather an engineer, but I manage to understand the content of the various papers on this pseudo science. I also am amazed at the way in which politicians, manufacturers, financiers, have accepted all of the clap trap published in the wake of our new religion. I witnessed a film by SKY showing an iceberg floating and slowly melting and as a result, the sea level rising. A downright teminalogical inexactitude ! Schoolchilden know better. Only today did our BBC announce that a glacier in Antarctica, the size of the UK, is melting and that the world wide sea level will rise by two feet Just do the maths.

        Keep up the good work and kind regards.


      2. Hello Jim,

        May we ignore the Brexit madness over which we will agree not to agree ? For some time now my sleep has been disturbed by worrying that, perhaps, I have missed something. Yesterday I flew to Hungary in a 737 -8 and was fortunate to be able to talk to the second officer. Making allowances for loading factor, crew, etc. it seems the the fuel consumption is some 150-170 miles per gallon per person ( may I please reserve the right to refine my figures ?). We are being castigated for flying and destroying our world whilst car drivers, often single occupants, are generating far more CO2 than this when driving their fat little children to school and back. The world has barely 30,000 passenger jet airliners and how many millions of cars, yet we allow a Norwegian 16 year old to tell us to stop flying.

        In order to understand where I am going wrong, I bought an expensive scientific magazine, from the USA, only to find he same drivel written in it as one finds in our cheap newspapers, i.e. emotional claptrap devoid of any scientific facts. It would seem that we should be in favour of ‘ carbon sequestration’, so as to reduce the CO2 level in the atmosphere whilst this self same thing would stunt plant growth, food harvests and our living standards. When oh when are ‘ our leaders ‘ going to start listening to the real scientists who are not just in the new religion for personal gain ?

        Finally, what is this ‘ carbon neutral target ‘ to which we should all commit ? Combustion of anything will generate CO2 and it always has. A piece of paper signed by some wallah thousands of miles away, undertaking to plant a few trees, is meaningless but seems to satisfy our leaders. I agree fully that we should replace the billions of trees which we destroyed in the name of industrialisation and I am strongly against wasteful practices but there must be room for common sense.

        kind regards,

        Stuart Shelton.

  12. Would somebody please send a copy of this to the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern and to the leader of the National party and to the leading newspapers of the country and to anyone else in authority and who might have some influence in ending this madness.

  13. An excellent article from which it is easy to identify ‘truth and goodness’ and apportion ‘deceit and evil’. As it can no longer be trusted, perhaps it is time the world started ignoring the pseudo science and instead begin asking it’s creator God, just what He intends for us in respect of this world that He created? The BIBLE [Believer’s Instructions Before Leaving Earth] actually gives us a pretty good insight. Why not join me in considering these seven facts: 1. CREATION WAS VERY GOOD – Following the Creation, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31); 2. GOD’S PLANS ARE NOT FOR HARM – During a time of trial for His people Israel, under the old Abrahamic given covenant, God assured them: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 16:11-13); 3. TODAY’S NEW COVENANT SAVES – The same promise exists today for anyone under the Christ provided new covenant, simply by claiming Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, the son of the living God. He said, “Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine and disclose it to you. In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me.” (John 16:15-16). 4. THE WISE CANNOT COMPREHEND LIFE – Well before Christ’s initial coming, the wise teacher Solomon, reflected on the futility of worrying about life when he stated, “When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the labor that is done on earth—people getting no sleep day or night— then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it.” (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17); 5. BE PREPARED FOR CREATION CHANGE – Finally, as Jesus clarified fo us, immediately before his return [and he is coming soon], “the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken…. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ” (Matthew 24:29,30…36-39). 6. A NEW HEAVEN & NEW EARTH – Peter clarifies that creation change is for the good, “You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:11-13). 7. A NEW CREATIVE ORDER – John’s revelation completes the certainty when he writes, “Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” (Revelation 21:1-5)

  14. This is a ‘must read’ for town planners.

    A story very much from the heart. I understand the angst.
    Unfortunately, such is the pressure, and the consequences, that its now unwise to rock the boat. We are told that bankers, fund managers, industrialists and captains of industry are taking on the idea of ethical investment.

    That’s not for me. I am a contrarian investor. I’m investing in coal mines. Really top notch dividends at 12% when term deposits are at 1.5%. That makes a lot of sense.

    As for the idea of Agenda 21 goals of eventually eliminating small towns and villages and moving people to “sustainable” megacities…… Well, if that’s what they want the ethical investors are welcome to it.

  15. Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist
    Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    Book “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
    BREAKING – Dr.Tim Ball wins against Dr Michael Mann lawsuit
    There is no political will to develop our oil and resources in Canada.

    1. Thanks for these, I look forward to watching. Gotta love that Tim Ball, for a lot of reasons – his knowledge, his integrity, his courage, his humour. Not least his quip about Michael Mann belonging in the state pen rather than Penn State.

Leave a Reply