My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« CRU says leaked data is real | Main | Science Media Centre can’t take the heat on climate change »



CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding Hypocrisy:

Bamm Bamm

John Boy

Plimer was on ZB this evening. He was interesting. So, its out there now and hopefully to be properly debated. If GW is found to be a fraud in the due course of time the people behind it should be locked up. Nick Smith, you can go first.


Does anybody know what time Plimer was on ZB?

Thomas Everth

Guys you amuse me!

Listening to this blog and the others like it out there and you all appear just like a pack of hungry wolves ripping to bits a dry bone handed to you by a Russian hacker. You all must be so proud of yourself now!

1) It would have been all to easy for anyone with an agenda to spike stolen emails with bits here and there to distort the facts to anybodies liking. Are you being fed a poisoned bone?
Also peddling in and republishing of stolen emails is a criminal offense. That would include you guys here and Ian in particular and I could imagine that it will have legal consequences for you. How would Ian react if somebody was to post his private documents all over the Internet...?

2) The Earth cares little about what you think or do about all this. Nature herself will decide on who is right and who is wrong in the entire climate debate. There is no doubt about that.

3) Nothing in here has changed my reasoning after many years of studying all this in detail that the science as represented by the IPCC is sound. The observations match the trends they projected, and at the upper end of their scale of error for that.

4) In the unlikely event that anybody will actually listen to you and act on your advice to carry on biggering and biggering our CO2 emissions at will and we end up in a climate disaster, history will be rather unkind to you.

5) On the other hand if we begin to cut back the use of fossil fuels vigorously by making them more costly while favoring sustainable generation technology and R&D and it turns out we were somewhat wrong about CO2's role, then we won anyways as fossil fuels are a limited resource and whoever comes up with the best replacement technologies first wins big time. And if we do not replace fossil fuels before they become scarce, then we are doomed like a train that can not stop in time before a fallen bridge.

So I think - science aside - from a simple poker game point of view - you are bluffing with a very poor hand while betting the planet! Poor strategy my friends.


Just listened ZB's Larry Williams interview Nick Smith. Smith dismisses the Climategate emails ("that's conspiracy theory stuff").

Williams presses the point.

Williams: "Minister, there were 3000 documents released over the weekend..."

Smith (dismissively): “Yeah I’ve got tons of emails on that..."

Williams: “They were compelling, they were damning – that doesn’t concern you?...”

Smith: “No they were not... I don’t accept that. I think that you’re getting to deal with the fringe conspiracy theorists ...”

Smith then suggests that Larry invite David Ratt from NIWA onto his show; read Gareth Morgan's "Poles Apart"; and read John Key's Chief Scientific Advisor's (that's right, the paediatrician) views on the subject.

Which simply goes to demonstrate what a snide little droid Nick Smith has proven to be. I agree with you wholeheartedly, John Boy. Smith should be chucked in the clink first.


Dear Doubting Thomas:

1. Some of the most incriminating email content was confirmed genuine by CRU director Phil Jones on the day the story broke. The forensic evidence seems to weigh in strongly that the entire archive is genuine. You can verify this for yourself if you are intellectually honest enough. Whether or not the accessing and subsequent dissemination of the content was criminal does not change the objective facts of the content itself.

2. That argument can and is spun both ways in the AGW debate. It is as about as dishonest as your “criminality” distraction when dealing with the facts of this case.

3. Whether or not you – Thomas – changed your mind at all over an arbitrary number of years is a subjective irrelevance. What is relevant is the objective fact that according to the emails and the computer source code contained within the archive the models were manipulated dishonestly to fit the observed data. This is quite contrary to your assertion that “the observations match the trends they predicted".

4. What? That is about as relevant as me speculating that in the unlikely event that you learned to speak out of your rectum, people would be more likely to take you seriously.

5. A dangerous, costly, fallacious Chicken Little argument, Thomas. Tell me – why wouldn't we simply find an alternative to fossil fuels anyway? Surely it’d cost a whole lot less than the UN’s harebrained scheme!

In summary: “So I think [questionable] – science aside [without doubt]”

Thomas Everth

"A dangerous, costly, fallacious Chicken Little argument.... Tell me – why wouldn't we simply find an alternative to fossil fuels anyway?

Exactly, why don't we?

Guess why: Because it's a massive task requiring massive investments and forward planing beyond the horizon of most investor's current interests. And unless cost pressures point into the right direction not enough will move until its to late. Besides many gathered in here would do their utmost to bedevil any sustainable energy concepts anyway as we have heard at nauseam.

John Boy

"Does anybody know what time Plimer was on ZB?"

I guess 5.30 ish. Plimer said its all about money and egos. Mainly money. Lots of it being passed through sticky fingers to the UN and then back through more sticky fingers on the way to the poor. Lots of money in grants as well. At least the lies, if that's what they are, didn't come cheap.

"2) The Earth cares little about what you think or do about all this. Nature herself will decide on who is right and who is wrong in the entire climate debate. There is no doubt about that. "

Exactly Thomas. Nature will do what its always done so stop pretending you can boss it about. The staus quo is temporary whether you like it or not.

Thomas Everth

John Boy: I am not pretending I can boss nature around at all, none of us can, to the contrary: Nature will react to 400ppm, 500ppm, 700ppm... CO2 exactly the way she will. We will live to witness it. Our children and grandchildren will hold court over our actions or in-actions.

Thomas Everth

Bryce: just to illuminate the magnitude of a switch to non fossil fuels on a meaningful scale:

"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day."

[Tim Garrett,associate professor of atmospheric sciences Univ. Utah.]

Put to that the observation that we will be looking at past peak oil decline rates of between 5% and 10% per year in oil production and the urgency of the matter might dawn on you.


Thomas: Firstly, businesses are motivated primarily by profits. Energy companies (and their shareholders) would be very unlikely to continue blithely into financial oblivion if they believed that the imminent end of fossil fuel reserves was going to spell the end of their existence. No, they and others will freely invest in research and development of alternative energy solutions. It is only the radical green zealots of this world who appear to be tripping over themselves to send humanity crashing back into the stone ages.

Secondly, in case you haven’t grasped it yet, the science is NOT SETTLED. There IS NO CONSENSUS. Why must we “stabilize [CO2] emissions”? CO2 is NOT a pollutant, Thomas. You breathe it out. Trees “breathe” it in and convert it to oxygen. Historically, life on earth has thrived during periods of far, far, FAR higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than it currently has. Furthermore, the forcing from atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic in nature (NOT linear) – in other words a saturation point is quickly reached, and once concentrations exceed that point any associated increase in atmospheric temperature is negligible. That means, Thomas, that we could (if it were possible for humans to do so) effectively double (or quadruple) current concentrations of atmospheric CO2 with NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE.

Thirdly, even the peak oil argument is without consensus.

This is why your reasoning is dangerous and fallacious, Thomas. You are in effect telling NZ taxpayer’s that they should be prepared to incur HUGE financial burdens “just in case” the sky falls. The authors of the “Climategate” emails share your dishonesty. They felt justified in hiding “inconvenient facts” from their scientific peers (and the public at large), and peddling false, deceitful “models”, in order to force their ideological-political agenda upon a gullible world.

John Boy

"We will live to witness it."

Yes we will Thomas because CO2 is not going to kill us.

My new 50 tube solar water heater that I chose to buy because it made economic sense is the way forward. No stupid govt subsidy either as that just increases the price by the amount of the subsidy.

We will gradually change in the future because it will make sense to, not because some rich trougher tells us we should so he can clip the ticket.


>>>>Reserve judgement all you want....<<<<

Thanks, I will.

OECD rank 22 kiwi

AGW is a complete fraud. Good to see the truth being exposed.

John Ansell

Ian, you're a hero. Ditto Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer and Joanne Nova and all the others who have done so much to explain this hoax in language that people like me can almost understand.

Give the lot of you a Nobel Prize I say. (Fat chance.)

Bohemond of Taranto

"Physics is still physics. The global changes we are experiening haven't gone into reverse because of emails being leaked."

Except it turns out that those "global changes" were *fabricated.* Get it?


Which e-mail did this quote come from

"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

[REPLY from Ian Wishart:

It's not actually contained in the email archive, but in the document archive in a document marked Greenpeace. Full content of email follows (i have erased personal phone nos):

Received: from [] (
by with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 13izk7-0000fg-00
for; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: from [] (
by with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 13izk4-001GlN-00
for; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: (from root@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id PAA07053 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by via smap (V1.3)
id sma006373; Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:45:28 +0200
Received: from ( [])
by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28271
for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:44 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Received: from by with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.8)
id T466PKG6; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:40 +0100
From: "paul horsman"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Status: O

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,


Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
Tel: +44 171 xxxxxxxxx
Fax: +44 171 xxxxxxxx
Mob: +44 xxxxxxxxxxx


CRU now seems to claim the release of data and emails confuses the public. As if, without a higher degree in science, a peron canot tell fact fron fiction. If the weatherman is wrong 50% of the time about tomorrow, what are the odds anyone can predict even the average temperature in 100 years? I will contiue to follow this good news.


I already figured the peer review process was corrupt when I read about the handling of Benny Peiser's rebuttal to Oreskes's shoddy 'consensus study' in Science. Worst was the email exchange that ended with the Editor rejecting his paper on the grounds that his claims were available on the internet anyway so it wasnt' necessary to publish.

The comments to this entry are closed.