Letter to the Editor II

 

Salutations Mr Editor,

 

I wanted to respond to your editorial about the Auckland/Northland flooding, and while I have much empathy for the people so affected, I couldn’t include saying so because of the 150 word limit. The abridging of my last letter didn’t quite make the grade. Storms like those resulting in erosion are exactly how geology works and why our landscape is the form that it is today and of course changes will continue because despite net zero floods will always be with us. Anyway, I remember the editorial after an IPCC report saying you don’t have time sceptics… I’d call them realists but oty. Maybe your paper needs to be more investigative. I won’t give examples of weather-related instances, but there are plenty of scientists who are in the climate realist camp… they are people who have either retired or aren’t paid by government agencies. Donna Laframboise is a retired journalist… she has thoroughly investigated the IPCC, and confirms what many of us already knew. It’s a merry-go-round. The scientific gathering of data is mostly fair enough, the reports aren’t written by scientist but mostly people in the last year of their PHD, still tied to universities, so with no experience, have an alarmist agenda. The reports are verbose and we know they won’t be read in depth, so bureaucrats write precis of them for the politicians to read, but the precis have key points included that official UN bureaucrats want it be included (towards Agenda 30 for instance). And who are those UN bureaucrats? Government appointees who will obviously already have ingrained ideals. Can I add another thing… during the 80’s the Commonwealth Secretary General, Ramphal, said, ‘Nations will have to cede their sovereignty in the fight against climate change.’ Pretty laughable eh? Well most western nation have now ceded sovereignty to the UN in event of another pandemic! Among the climate realist experts worth checking out are Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Patrick Moore, Jim Steele, Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer and Tony Heller. There are many. Most of these people have been discredited by alarmists… but that’s the very reason to listen to them… but you need the will and an open mind.

Here is my letter for your consideration.

 

Auckland Flooding

 The yellow sunrises indicate there’s still dust in the atmosphere from the Tongan volcanic eruption, the biggest since Krakatoa. Your editorial (1.2.23) suggest the Auckland flooding was caused by climate change, but volcanic disturbances always cause weather disturbances. Gilbert White meticulously diarised how the 1783 Laki eruption altered the weather over the whole of the northern hemisphere, indirectly killing 6 million. According to the Civil Defence website, since 1967 there have been 131 flooding callouts throughout NZ, including 6 in the Northland/Auckland area between 1973 and 2007. There was a record deluge, but a record doesn’t mean climate change… China’s 1931 flood still stands as the world record when 4 million lost their lives. The ever increasing catchments of asphalt and roofs made Auckland’s event worse. Atmospheric rivers are nothing new, they’re simply a part of Earth’s natural rhythms… inconvenient, as they may be.

 

Letters to the Editor

For a few years now, I’ve been writing letters to the editor to the Otago Daily Times newspaper about climate change because in his editorial, the previous editor wrote that he would not print anything that opposes the IPCC’s narrative. So I began to ‘inform’ them. They never print any of them, so we have to ask why, and of course they have word number limitations and lots of other letters to consider… and it is their paper so they are entitled to print what they like. But is hiding information good journalism?

I’ve decided to post a few of my letters here, because I like to challenge those newspaper people… and the climate alarmists. But basically, here is where I’m coming from.

There’s no doubt that the climate changes, there are definite cycles and cycles within cycles that are obvious. There are also anomalies that happen that have an effect on weather. What I don’t believe is that carbon dioxide is in any way the control knob of climate. Here are two examples. Anyone with an interest in weather will have noticed there have been more floods in random areas over the past couple of years. No question. But it isn’t climate change. The undersea eruption in Tonga sent a huge volume of water into the stratosphere, increasing the water vapour up there by at least 10%... so that water has to return to the planet surface. The other, arguably more significant fact is that global warming has occurred since 1850. Simply put, the end of the Little Ice Age was 1850. So, if an ice age is going to end, it has to be with warming, so warming should be expected… and people prefer to live where it is warm, so why are they saying it is bad.

For a few years now, I’ve been writing letters to the editor to the Otago Daily Times newspaper about climate change because in his editorial, the previous editor wrote that he would not print anything that opposes the IPCC’s narrative. So I began to ‘inform’ them. They never print any of them, so we have to ask why, and of course they have word number limitations and lots of other letters to consider… and it is their paper so they are entitled to print what they like. But is hiding information good journalism?

I’ve decided to post a few of my letters here, because I like to challenge those newspaper people… and the climate alarmists. But basically, here is where I’m coming from.

There’s no doubt that the climate changes, there are definite cycles and cycles within cycles that are obvious. There are also anomalies that happen that have an effect on weather. What I don’t believe is that carbon dioxide is in any way the control knob of climate. Here are two examples. Anyone with an interest in weather will have noticed there have been more floods in random areas over the past couple of years. No question. But it isn’t climate change. The undersea eruption in Tonga sent a huge volume of water into the stratosphere, increasing the water vapour up there by at least 10%... so that water has to return to the planet surface. The other, arguably more significant fact is that global warming has occurred since 1850. Simply put, the end of the Little Ice Age was 1850. So, if an ice age is going to end, it has to be with warming, so warming should be expected… and people prefer to live where it is warm, so why are they saying it is bad?

 Cover Letter

 

 

The original terms of reference of the IPCC were to quantify anthropogenic causes of global warming, but their role has morphed to climate change and policy to mitigate its onset. However nowhere in and of their reports does it mention crisis, catastrophe or armegeddon. We have governments, including the United Nations where politicians and bureaucrats are ‘telling’ scientist and universities what to say by funding anything to do with climate change… yet papers written against the climate narrative are never printed, which is the bread and butter of scientists. Likewise, the media reflects the same narrative.

 

Anyway, to support my submission, here is the graph, which is self-explanatory, and to help you with your arithmetic 420 parts per million carbon dioxide equates to 0.042 percent of the atmosphere, making it a trace gas. Methane is 1900 part per billion equating to 0.00019 percent of the atmosphere. Versus the sun, its and Earth’s orbits, ice, oceans and clouds? As for extreme weather events, even the IPCC says they are not increasing exponentially.

 

                                                          Submission

There’s no question that our planet has warmed since 1850, how else would an ice age end? (Little Ice Age 1330-1850). Therefore, it’s fair to say that any warming is mostly due to natural variability… but what about carbon dioxide? Ninety five percent of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and less than four percent is due to burning fossil fuels, so if CO2 is causing warming, how do we know which CO2 is causing it? It’s unlikely that plants spit out the CO2 from fossil fuels, and when we plant trees to mitigate climate change, how do we know which CO2 they are converting to carbon?

Simply put, the sun, orbits, water (solid, liquid and gas), and their natural cycles are the drivers of climate, not a piddling amount of CO2. Anyway, our planet has always been a hostile, dangerous place.