Sunday, May 1, 2022

Clive Bibby: The Science, the Scientist and the Sceptic

I don’t take kindly to being labelled a “climate change denier” simply because it isn’t true. On the other hand, l happily admit to being regarded as a “climate change sceptic” which is something else altogether.

Here are the reasons why l regard the case being made by the IPCC and other leading world authorities, trying to convince us mere mortals that we are doomed as a species and it is all our own fault, as being unproven- at least to my own satisfaction.

I believe we each have a responsibility to all mankind to seek out the truth before charging off supporting the implementation of draconian measures that could do more harm than good and more importantly, in the end be found to have been based on dodgy science.

Here goes.

1) In spite of the “so called” evidence promoted by members of the IPCC, which is predominantly based on models that occasionally contradict earlier research, there is a growing number of equally eminent scientists who dispute the findings of the majority and certainly oppose many of the mitigating measures being imposed upon the world’s long suffering and bemused population.

A number of these alternative researchers have had their careers destroyed simply because they offered a different point of view to the accepted mantra.

Similar collateral damage has occurred during the recent debate about the origin of the Covid Virus and the effectiveness of the vaccines. That sort of dictatorial indoctrination and control is totally beyond government’s brief to keep us safe.

2) My other main reason for being sceptical of the IPCC’s findings is that, for the most part, it either ignores or dismisses the climate history of the planet Earth.

In my humble opinion, there is ample historical evidence to suggest we are in fact experiencing nothing more than a warming period that is part of the planetary cycle of warming and cooling.

We know that we have been here before and not so long ago either and consequently, I believe the jury is still out on whether humans are guilty as charged.

For my money, the case for the prosecution doesn’t even pass the “pub test” and that we have more to lose by rushing to conclusions than by waiting until the evidence is equivalent to that required to convict ie. beyond reasonable doubt.

Which brings me on to the subject of my attachment article written by our own Dame Anne Salmond which ironically puts the case for rejecting some of the original recommendations promoted, at least in this country, as reliable mitigating methodology used to reduce the main cause of human induced climate change (greenhouse gas emissions) - blanket forest plantings.

In fact, Dame Anne goes to great pains to highlight another IPCC opinion that literally destroys the case for Carbon farming as it is being currently promoted by this government. Yet the MSM seem reluctant (no surprises there) to feature this apparent breaking of ranks with Government policy. I wonder why.

The article in question says that the current policy of using carbon farming, including blanket planting of exotic forests is a huge mistake and one that we should legislate against in order to save the endangered red meat industry from collapse.

The Climate Change Authority recommends that we return to a policy of peaceful co- existence between a mix of permanently retired native forests and carbon farmed,  marginal land exotic forests. None of these effective sinks for the sequestered carbon emissions should be able to impose on any grazable and arable land that has a higher national priority as a producer of exportable food in all its forms.

Being a climate change sceptic, l never thought that l would find myself in agreement with anything these boffins said but welcome the arrival of their contribution to our own national debate that is much more important to this country than anything else we might do in mitigation against climate change - even if we do find out it is our fault after all .


Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.


Ray S said...

I wonder if the IPPC talk to Putin and other despots and try to foist their demands for climate action on them.

Jigsaw said...

In a recent post a professor of climate science at MIT says that attributing climate change to co2 is equivalent to believing in magic.
The other thing is to examine all of the prediction made since the 1970's and just see how many have come true........
Now that covid fear is subsiding we have a return to the self flagellation that is the religions that is man made climate change.

Doug Longmire said...

Excellent article Clive.
You have summarised the situation extremely well. I can recall about 10 years ago I decided that it was about time for me to pay attention to the "global warming topic" and do some research into it to find out what was the truth behind all the headlines and green screamers.
Being a senior pharmacist, with twenty years working for Medsafe, I was accustomed to scientifically assessing all sorts of claims re medicines and fringe medical treatments etc. I used a similar analytical process to look at "global warmimg" and the apocalyptic claims being made. It is called the scientific approach.
What I rapidly found, and somewhat to my surprise, was that almost ALL of the IPCC computer model predictions did not occur. An example was the IPCC prediction in 2005 that by the year 2010, there would be 50 million "climate refugees" caused by flooding of massive seaside areas around the world, all caused by sea level rise due to global warming.
Well - 2010 arrived and ZERO climate refugees. The map that the IPCC had published, showing where all the massive flooding would occur, was taken down.
Also, all of the dire predictions made by everybody from Prince Charles to Attenborough, simply did not occur. It was all apocalyptic panic merchant behavior.
I also found authoritive graphs of global temperatures and CO2 levels going back millions of years, showing that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global temp. It is very clear that climate change is a natural constant process on planet Earth and that human CO2 emissions do not cause apocalyptic global warming.

Doug Longmire said...

Also from a New Zealand perspective:-

Human CO2 emissions are only 3% of total global emissions. Natures contribution to the 400ppm is 97%. (or 388ppm). Mankind’s contribution is just 3% or 12ppm. The other 97% is natural.
New Zealand’s CO2 emissions only 0.17% of human emissions.
So New Zealand’s CO2 emissions are 3% x 0.17% of the total global CO2 emissions each year.
3% x 0.17% = 0.0051% !! This is 1 in 20,000.
So the other 99.9949% is generated by all other sources, NOT NZ !!!

Of course I will be labelled a "climate denier" for this heretical statement !!

Ian P said...

No CO2, we all die. Climate change cycles have always existed on earth. Problem is the 'experts' with 'undeniable' impending doom arguments along the lines of - 'It was 10 degrees yesterday, it's 20 degrees today, therefore it will be 60 degrees next Thursday afternoon'. Bow down and worship at the International Pentecostal
Climate Church, folks.

Doug Longmire said...

I have to chuckle - TV1 (NZ Pravda) loves to announce every storm or flooded river as proof of "climate change"
When the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha Ľapai volcano erupted in the Pacific recently, and the resulting tsunami swept the Pacific, it was naturally reported on TZ1 News. I could see the newsreader's slight smirk, and I was waiting for the announcement that the eruption was caused by "climate change"

Anonymous said...

Yes, Earth's climate has always gone through change.....But never as fast as at present. To say that CO2 levels have no impact on climate is a lie, it has been known for over a century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Anonymous said...

only humans could have such a bloated ego to think they are powerful enough to change the forces of nature :)

Ewan McGregor said...

Of course, climate has always been dynamic, but the pace was nothing like what is the case now. Permanent ice is melting around the world at a rate without precedent. We only need to look at our once wonderful glaciers, which were unique in temperate regions in that the extended from the high mountains to almost sea level. They are receding before our very eyes. Look at what the human race is doing to the planet. 50% of the natural forests of the world have been destroyed in the last two centuries, and fossil fuel, which has taken hundreds of millions of years to accumulate is being combusted into the atmosphere at a rate that will see it largely destroyed within a couple of centuries. Just maybe that has some effect on the planet’s precious atmosphere. (And I agree with Dame Anne; blanket planting of pines for carbon credits is absurd, but claiming that does not necessarily make her a climate change sceptic.) The very future of mankind is at stake here. We need to take it seriously.

Empathic said...

Although it has recovered slightly the depleted ozone layer continues to let a lot more solar energy into our atmosphere than has ever been the case in human history, including wavelengths potentially damaging to sea algae which through photosynthesis provide the largest carbon sink on the planet. Ozone depletion has occurred due to human-made chemical compounds that never existed previously whereas large increases in carbon have frequently occurred in geological history. Some estimates of the additional solar energy entering our atmosphere as a result of depleted ozone correlate well with recorded increases in global temperature. It seems sensible to redouble efforts to bring the ozone layer back to pre-existing levels which could be done without much disruption to civilization and human well-being. Yet the greenhouse gas theorists don't focus on repairing the ozone layer and they dismiss ozone depletion as a causal agent in global warming, indeed classing ozone as a greenhouse gas!

Aside from the question of whether the greenhouse gas explanation is the best one, the fact is that prediction of the future is difficult when it comes to complex natural systems that we don't understand fully. Homeostatic forces may arise such that increases to date won't necessarily continue. However, there are many good reasons for pumping less pollutant into the air we breathe.

Allan said...

Just to help Ewan get through the rest of his life without becoming suicidal.
First of all I will explain the melting of glaciers this way. Imagine a snow ball circumference of 5-mtrs. How long will it take to melt 25-mm from that 5-mtrs? Now we know that since the last ice age, ALL glaciers have been receding, so lets say 10-days to loose the first 25-mm from that snow ball, which of course means less area to melt as time goes by. Consequently by the time that snow ball is down to 1-mtr, it will be melting FIVE TIMES FASTER.
A couple of TV News headlines recently. First one : A record breaking heat-wave has hit Antarctica. The temperature rose 40-deg. Even at that level the temperature was still MINUS 10-deg-C. last time I looked ice did not melt until it gets to below 0-deg-C. A few days later, TV News headline : Auckland reached 27-deg-C in April. The hottest recorded since records began in 1966. Really? temperature readings only began in 1966. Now I appreciate you were either not born, or were too young to remember the 60's, but the truth was, the Summers lasted from November to April with drought being common from South Auckland North. After all, that was when the mini-skirt & bikinis became fashionable, because it was so warm. We wont even mention the dust bowel conditions in the Northern hemisphere in the 1920's.
So yes, political indoctrination by Globalist Agenda politicians have been remarkably successful in dumbing down the population, when science & FACTS tell the true story.

Harry H said...

You are dead right Allen and we must also remember that as the glaciers melt they expose more hot, black rocks which also cover the surface. The heat absorption and radiation of these must have an increasing effect on melting.
If anyone is convinced that global warming is human induced then start the conversation about reducing the world population. Half the people, half the co2. At the moment the population level is completely unsustainable going on into the future and it is only supported by fossil fuels so at some time we have to start making less people .
Don't get me wrong, I love people , but the evidence is building of an over population situation.
Cheers Harry H