Kiwis not so dumb? Scaling back ETS already

Slightly less mad?

Following on from yesterday’s post on the New Zealand ETS that, according to PM John Key, is “working”, The Australian today reports that our neighbour across the ditch is actually scaling back its ETS in the face of economic pressures. Julia didn’t mention that, did she?

AS Julia Gillard urged Australia to follow the “gutsy Kiwi” lead on carbon pricing, Prime Minister John Key has declared New Zealand will be slowing its expansion of emissions trading and doesn’t want to “lead the world”.

Mr Key refused to offer advice to Australian politicians embroiled in the carbon tax debate and signed an agreement with the Australian Prime Minister for a joint working party on trans-Tasman carbon emissions trading.

But he warned that New Zealand would be delaying the inclusion of agricultural emissions in its system for at least four years and was unlikely to double the carbon price from 2013, as previously planned, because of pressure on consumers.

Earlier, Mr Key said in an interview with The Australian his government was reviewing the ETS he inherited from the former Labour government and there would be changes to the “quite expensive system”.

Mr Key said the New Zealand system, which prices carbon at $NZ12.50 ($9.55) a tonne and includes all gases and emitters, was costing consumers about $NZ150 a year but the price was due to double to $NZ25 a tonne from 2013 and include agriculture, which accounts for 50 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions.

Mr Key told The Australian the review would mean “the government is likely to move a bit more slowly because of the global financial crisis and other countries are moving more slowly”. (source)

So NZ is actually taking notice of the fact that the other major emitters are doing nothing, and responding appropriately. How refreshing. Just as the Kiwis sensibly don’t want to “lead the world”, neither should Australia.

New Zealand Climate Madness: PM John Key says "our ETS worked"

Key... to the asylum

Hmm. “Worked” in what sense, John? Added costs to every business in New Zealand? Check. Raised electricity prices for every Kiwi in the land? Double Check-a-rooney. Made everything that they buy in the shops more expensive? Triple Check-a-doodle-doo.

But what about the climate? Did it lower temperatures? Nope. Did it make any difference to “global action” on climate? Double Nope. Did anybody, except the twits in the Gillard government, take any notice whatsoever of the fact that New Zealand had stitched up its economy like a kipper? Nope, nope and thrice nope.

New Zealand emits just 0.11% of global emissions. I’m going to write it BIG so people can see it:



Even if that were reduced to zero, the planet wouldn’t give a sh*t.

What begets such total climate madness? Seriously, it’s completely, utterly, totally, mind-bogglingly beyond comprehension.

NZ: temperature records thrown under a bus


New Zealand’s National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has denied any responsibility for the “official” New Zealand temperature record (NZTR). This staggering admission comes as part of NIWA’s defence to a legal action for judicial review brought by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust. The action sought orders:

  1. to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR to be invalid;
  2. to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public; and
  3. to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.

Richard Treadgold explains [caveat: I cannot find the NIWA statement of defence online, so haven’t been able to verify the conclusions in the following report. I am trying to obtain a copy]:

Three weeks ago NIWA released their Statement of Defence in response to the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s Statement of Claim regarding an Application for a Judicial Review. You have to be a lawyer (which I’m not) to see the ramifications and it’s taking a while to work through it, but these are my first reactions and I can’t hold them back any longer.

Most of this will upset NIWA’s supporters. If you’re a NIWA supporter, go find a buddy to hug before reading on. This will rock your world.

Because NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR).

They’re not defending the temperature record or the mistakes in it, they’re virtually saying: “You’re right, the dataset could be shonky, so we’re washing our hands of it.” Which gives us no confidence in the “science” they might have applied to it. What the hell’s going on? I actually hope their lawyers know a cunning trick to get them out of this, and it’s not what it seems. Because it’s my NIWA too!

But it gets worse.

NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.

And that little bombshell just does my head in. For how can they pursue excellence without using the best techniques?

NIWA denies there is any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although they’re happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR). The famous “Seven-station series” (7SS) is completely unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes. Nobody else should rely on it.

Read the rest here.

Climate madness: New Zealand begins ETS

Wave your economy goodbye

Token Gesture Alert as the government of New Zealand, unable to think straight thanks to years of green environmental propaganda, brings in its emissions trading scheme. New Zealand emits about 0.1% of global CO2. So even if New Zealand reduced its emissions to zero overnight, AND it were demonstrated that the climate sensitivity is large enough to notice (which it hasn’t been), it would make not the slightest bit of difference to the climate. Not only that, but I hardly think that China and India are going to look at New Zealand, and, wracked with guilt and remorse by the plucky little country’s valiant efforts to save the planet, stop their coal fired economies in their tracks. Not on your life. China and India are far too busy building their prosperity and lifting their populations out of poverty. It’s only wealthy countries can afford the luxury of pointless environmental gestures like this.

So the only result will be higher prices for poor Kiwis. Everything will cost more: electricity, petrol, groceries, consumer goods – everything – since everything (virtually) requires energy for its production or transportation. As the ABC reports:

New Zealanders are bracing for higher electricity and fuel prices with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

From today New Zealanders will pay around three cents a litre more for fuel.

Electricity bills are set to increase by up to 5 per cent as companies pass on the costs of buying carbon credits to consumers.

Environment minister Dr Nick Smith says New Zealand had to act because its greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 25 per cent over the past 20 years. [So from absolutely tiny, to slightly less absolutely tiny]

“It’s actually about New Zealand starting the path, starting the change to a less carbon intensive economy,” he said. (source)

Good luck with that. Just watch your industries move offshore, and your economy decline for no purpose whatsoever.

Climate madness.

New Zealand's climate disaster

Climate disaster

I’m not talking about some disaster caused by climate change (because there haven’t been any), but an economic disaster caused by pointless efforts to “tackle climate change”. Not only is New Zealand’s ETS “beyond rescue”, but it also has a liability of up to $5bn under the Kyoto protocol for failing to meet emissions targets. Now $5bn is a truckload of money, which could have been far better spent on health, education, employment, infrastructure etc – in fact, anything rather than trying to change the planet’s climate:

The authors of The Carbon Challenge – Victoria University researcher and economist Geoff Bertram and climate-change analyst and researcher Simon Terry – also describe the Government’s current ETS as “technically obsolete” and “beyond rescue” as a sustainable framework for tackling climate change.

They say the scheme will not make any inroads into cutting New Zealand’s gross emissions levels.

On top of that, the ETS was so unfair in the way it distributed benefits to high emitters with political influence, while placing a regressive quasi-tax burden on households, that there was a risk it could undermine the public’s willingness to support a stronger regime in the future. [So I guess the news isn’t all bad.]

The authors say the bulk of the financial liabilities of several billion dollars arising from New Zealand exceeding its Kyoto Protocol target will fall on future taxpayers, making it a “massive intergenerational transfer of liability”.

The ETS completely fails as a mechanism to make today’s polluters meet today’s emissions bill.”

The book says there is complacency in New Zealand that credits for storing carbon in forestry crops will save the country from having to seriously address reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

But this year’s Budget had broken with the past by flagging the real cost of New Zealand’s 22 per cent overshoot of its Kyoto target. Depending on the price of carbon, it said the Kyoto liability could be as much as $5.7 billion.

That Budget reference officially scotched the myth that the Government did not face any financial effects under the protocol because it could rely on offsetting credits from plantation forests.

“The credits must be paid back when the trees are harvested in the 2020s.” The authors say using these credits to pay the Kyoto bill is like putting it “on the plastic” for the next generation to pay.

And Australia is heading straight down the same path.

Read it here. (h/t Andrew Bolt)

Claims that New Zealand temperature record fudged

Warming exaggerated?

Surface temperature records are highly susceptible to adjustment. There are all kinds of valid reasons why the “raw” thermometer data may need adjustment, such as the relocation of a station, or urbanisation, but it’s curious, isn’t it, that in many of the data sets the corrections almost always increase any warming trend. This is highly suspect, given that urban warming, for example, is more likely to artificially increase temperatures, requiring a downward adjustment.

An article in Quadrant Online claims that whilst New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been plugging a 20th century temperature rise of 0.92˚C, the raw data shows nothing of the sort. ACM reported on this back in November of last year (see here) and here are the graphs of adjusted vs. raw data:

Raw temperature data

After adjustments

Barry Brill, chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, takes up the story:

The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible.

The NSS [NIWA Seven Station series] is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

For nearly 15 years, the 20th-century warming trend of 0.92°C derived from the NSS has been at the centre of NIWA official advice to all tiers of New Zealand Government – Central, Regional and Local. It informs the NIWA climate model. It is used in sworn expert testimony in Environment Court hearings. Its dramatic graph graces the front page of NIWA’s printed brochures and its website.

Internationally, the NSS 0.92°C trend is a foundation stone for the Australia-New Zealand Chapter in the IPCC’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. In 1994, it was submitted to HadleyCRUT, so as to influence the vast expanses of the South Pacific in the calculation of globally-averaged temperatures.

Over the entire series, a total of 515 years were adjusted. Of these, no less than 467 years contributed to an upward-sloping trend line. So, by year, 90% of the NIWA corrections leaned in the same direction.The ratio of 9 out of 10 adjustments being ‘helpful to the hypothesis’ could surely not have occurred in the absence of bias.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. NIWA has already made up its mind on climate change, and clearly, the debate is over in their view:

Already decided the answer?

The link then takes you to a page which parrots the IPCC line. But whenever this kind of news breaks, one has to wonder why, if the evidence for “global warming” is so strong, and the science so settled, why the need to exaggerate?

Read it here.

NZ temperature data fudged, claims NZ climate group


Whole lotta fudge

Another CRU-style scandal may be brewing as it is revealed by the New Zealand’s Climate Science Coaltion that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) appears to have added “corrections” to raw temperature data, leading to increased warming:


Raw temperature data

Raw temperature data


After adjustments

After adjustments

Read more here, and the original PDF here.

NZ: Hottest October in 64 years… no, wait…

Blue is the colour…

Blue is the colour…

From our Weather Isn’t Climate Department: we can’t draw conclusions from one month, of course, but this global warming sure is sneaky.

It will come as little surprise to most New Zealanders that the country shivered through the coldest October in 64 years.

In its climate summary for the month, the Niwa said the average temperature nationwide was 10.6degC – 1.4degC below average.

Such a cold October has occurred only four times in the past 100 years, the last time in 1945.

It was only fractionally warmer than August, which recorded a warmer-than-normal average temperature of 10.4degC.

Niwa said October was shaped by a series of southerly fronts, all-time record low temperatures in many areas, and unseasonable late snowfalls.

The heaviest October snowfall since 1967 occurred in Hawke’s Bay and the central North Island on October 4 and 5 stranding hundreds of travellers, closing roads, and resulting in heavy lambing losses. (source)

And on the other side of the world, the US is shivering too:

NCDC has compiled the October temperatures and it ended up the 3rd coldest in 115 years. As we have shown it was cold over almost all the lower 48. Indeed only Florida came in above normal. There is no press release out yet but it should be interesting

October with a mean of 50.8F was behind only 1976 with 50.7F and 1925 with 49.4F.

Also the University of Alabama global temperature is out and it is down this month. Hadley came in late for September but it was down. The trends since 2002 continue down for both even as CO2 rise. (source)

H/t: Watts Up With That

Slaughter buffalo, eat your dog… all to save the planet

45 minutes at gas mark 7.

45 minutes at gas mark 7.

The lunatic fringe is in full voice at the moment, advocating all kinds of idiotic schemes to “save the planet from climate change”. Last week it was a pair of New Zealand “scientists” who had calculated that your pet dog has a larger carbon footprint than a Toyota Landcruiser. Their book is charmingly entitled “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living“, and was all unquestioningly reported by the global media, including our own Fairfax:

The couple from Wellington’s Victoria University measured the carbon emissions of popular pets, taking into consideration what and how much the animal eats and the land needed to create that food.

The shock verdict was that owners of large dogs are as much in the dog box on environmental sustainability as owners of the oft-criticised four-wheel drive.

“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable,” Brenda Vale said. (source)

Then today we read of another wackademic proposing that 150,000 feral buffalo be culled in order to reduce emissions:

Charles Darwin University’s Professor Stephen Garnett says an individual buffalo emits the equivalent of about a tonne of carbon dioxide each year.

He says feral animals release around 4 per cent of the Northern Territory’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Garnett says outstation communities should be paid to cull feral buffaloes to fight climate change.

“There’s many places where you can’t run a buffalo ranching operation,” he said.

“There’s potential for reducing those numbers as a greenhouse gas mitigation measure.

Each adult buffalo produces the equivalent of about a tonne of carbon dioxide each year and they live quite a long time. So that is a reasonable amount of carbon dioxide they are producing.” (source)

Where will this all end? Clearly the 6 billion humans belching and farting 24/7 must have a pretty big carbon footprint as well. When are we going to start culling them? We’ll leave the last word to Robert Vale:

Robert Vale told New Scientist magazine that we need to consider pet sharing: think the theatre cat or the temple dog.

And if you must have your own you should enjoy it for both its companionship and its flesh.

He recommends hens, which partly compensate for their eco-footprint by providing eggs, as well as pigs, or even rabbits, “provided you eat them”.

Fido and chips all round, then…

%d bloggers like this: