Wednesday, 30 November 2016


Global warming hysteria’s long goodbye
From American Thinker
The twenty-second session of the United Nation’s climate change conference ended a few days ago in Marrakech, Morocco, and the proclamation went forth that the conference “successfully demonstrated to the world that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is underway and the constructive spirit of multilateral cooperation on climate change continues.”
All “well and good,” but with the incoming skeptical Trump train, the trundling of the Marrakech Express is going to become a bit more problematic.
A new era for atmospheric science may be dawning, as the likelihood for voices with a broader perspective on climate forecasting may be encouraged to speak.
The practice of science in general, and climatology in particular, is about the freedom to creatively synthesize scientific knowledge with individual skills and perspective to comprehend and predict the Earth’s complex climate.  In this way, climate science can advance for the benefit of both people and the planet.
Regarding the practice and essence of this specialized field, bestselling author Matt Ridley, in his recent book The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (HarperCollins, 2015), gives ample challenge to the status quo imposed by controllers of supposedly unassailable climate outlooks.
In his book, Ridley frequently gives contemporary climate science as an example of top-down, inapt scientific practice rather than a bottom-up, more effective, emergent-friendly system.
To Ridley, the advancement of science is more from a “procession of fascinating mysteries to be challenged” rather than a collection of facts for students and the populace to accept from those with a received wisdom.  Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that Ridley includes his extended exposé of pompous anthropogenic climate change assertions in his chapter on the evolution of religion.
Ridley points to several “characteristic features of a mystical and therefore untrustworthy, theory.”  These anti-science characteristics include the fact that the theory is not refutable, appeals to authority, relies heavily on anecdote, makes a virtue of consensus, and takes the moral high ground.  Specifically, much of climate-change science is:
Not refutable.  Predictions of climate doom centuries from now cannot be validated until centuries from now.  Nice work if you can get it.
Appeals to authority.  The fact that dozens of scientific societies have endorsed human-induced climate disaster does not make it so.  In fact, elite officers of such societies who make the endorsements are not always typical of the wide-ranging viewpoints of society membership.  The American Meteorological Society is one case in point, where surveys of the members reveal substantial dissent among the society’s hoi polloi.
Relies heavily on anecdote.  When I was a kid, winters were much snowier than they are today.  So what?  Somewhere else on the globe, someone is recalling that his winters were much less snowy.  The data trends are what matter.  Unfortunately, the data coverage over the years has been relatively sparse and imprecise.  However, what the trends do show is a much smaller increase in global temperatures than anticipated by vaunted climate models.  Furthermore, minuscule fractions-of-a-degree increases in annual estimated global temperature are heralded as the “hottest” year on record.  Exemplary hyperbole.
Makes a virtue of consensus.  It bears repeating that no matter who or how many are absolutely convinced of a particular theory, “science is never settled.”  That truism must be redoubled for reliance on long-range prognostications.
Takes the moral high ground.  Sadly, so many religious people have taken up the cause of saving the planet from the possibility of everyone living in comfort with a mix of affordable energy largely realized via fossil fuels.  Unfortunately, religion and moral superiority seem to have inspired so many to vacuous activism, especially on this complex issue, which practically necessitates faith on the part of the vast majority of angry climate congregants.
So America must proceed with caution.  For now, with all the rough track along the route of climate science, it’s time for the U.S. to hop off the U.N.’s Marrakech express.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist with 40 years of experience in air-pollution meteorology and science education and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).

Peter's Comment
The world can be a confusing and misleading place in which to live and grow up. As children and young adults we visit the sea once or twice a year and we observe that the shoreline is still in the same place and the tide still rises and falls, as we understand it has always done. But then we heard, if we were born in the 1940's, that the weather patterns were changing and it was all due to atomic bombs. Earlier generations were told that everything from steam engines to flying machines and mining activities were changing the weather. Essential to these myths was the suggestion that the seasons were getting later and that man was the problem.

The myths were always spread by ordinary folks with little understanding of meteorology and even less understanding of climatology, until some researchers fastened onto the opportunity to gain research funding. Add a little political hype and suddenly the whole world population is alarmed at the prospect of the world becoming uninhabitable within a few short decades.

The world that we once knew seems gone. The mountains, oceans, rivers and forests that we thought hadn’t changed in millions of years, are suddenly threatened. We thought we lived in a world that never changed. Each morning when we looked outside everything was the same as the day before, but the climate alarmists have convinced us that the end is nigh unless we change our ways.

The climate alarmists avoid the reality that temperature changes have ranged from no ice anywhere to ice covering almost the entire planet. They won’t tell you that the world is constantly recycling itself and that every piece of dry land was once under the sea, or that every piece of ocean floor was once dry land. Likewise, vegetation has come and gone too, along with deserts, mountain ranges and plains. The world is always changing, with or without man.
Continued below . . . 

The alarmists tell us about the infinitesimal changes in average temperatures since 1850, although they don’t call them infinitesimal, but they fail to tell us about the millions of years of temperature changes before 1850. Why? They want us to believe that the industrial revolution is to blame. They don’t want us to know that climate has always been changing and sometimes quite dramatically. They tell us that sea levels are rising and unless we change the way we live coastal cities and many small island nations will disappear. They don’t want you to know that sea levels have always changed and people who want to live safely should quite simply not live by the sea. The sea is dangerous.

Average world sea levels have risen 130 meters since the last ice age, but in the last 1,000 years the rate of rise has slowed considerably. Man cannot control the rise and fall of tide and sea by changing the composition of the atmosphere any more than he can control the level of the bath water by farting in the bath. Man cannot change the climate, but there is a huge industry where people make money from trying to convince us that we can change the climate.

The alarmists must know now that eventually they will lose their argument and their funding. They have already dropped the term global warming and substituted it with climate change. By doing that they can argue that industrialisation is creating storms that are more frequent and more violent. That is easy bait to swallow. We can all remember vividly the storm of last week, but we don’t remember a similar storm from two or three years ago. But the simple fact is that the world records for high temperature and wind speed were created early in the twentieth century. No new records have been created in the twenty-first century.

Man-made global warming/climate change is a hoax.

Tuesday, 15 November 2016


Sheltering homeless victims of New Zealand natural disasters

Since records began, more than a thousand people have lost their lives in natural disasters in New Zealand. But during the same time, tens of thousands have been made homeless by the forces of nature. Tragedy can strike anywhere anytime.

Floods, earthquakes, eruptions, landslides, tornados and cyclones are a fact of life in New Zealand. Between civil defence, police, the military and emergency service workers and volunteers, we have learned to cope well with most disasters – until we are struck by a greater catastrophe.

The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2011 were a case in point. Despite the best preparation, the emergency services were simply overwhelmed by the scale of the disaster. To illustrate the point, it must be remembered that a 7.0 shock on the Richter Scale is ten times stronger than a 6.0, but may do 50 or 100 times more damage. This week’s 7.5 Kaikoura quake was five times more powerful than an ordinary 7.0. To make matters worse, the Kaikoura shock was closer to the surface than most seismic events.

If Kaikoura had been centred under Wellington Harbour, the capital could have been destroyed and the death toll could have been tens of thousands.

Fortunately, Kaikoura is a sparsely settled area with 2,000 residents and 1,200 visitors on the night of the quake. Fortunately, it struck just after midnight when most people were in bed, the safest place in an earthquake. The wider districts of Kaikoura and Hurunui, also devastated, have about 6,000 residents. It is a low population density region, but nevertheless, the number of people now homeless will be in the thousands.

So, what to do with Kaikoura’s homeless victims of nature and the plight they never deserved? Right now, helicopters are flying essential supplies into the town and the most desperate victims are being helicoptered out. It will be a long drawn out operation, and those remaining will have no water, sewage, power, or food. Most will not have habitable homes. They will be shell-shocked; their lives ruined. But where will they be taken after rescue?

Following the 2011 earthquakes, my wife and I called on our neighbours in Ngatea and drew up a list of people willing to give temporary beds to earthquake victims. We arranged for free transport to be provided from Auckland airport and we sent our list to Civil Defence. Nothing happened. I visited Civil Defence in Auckland. Still nothing happened. On television, every day we saw footage of people sleeping in parks and cars. Thousands of them. The problem was that there was no-one to coordinate for us in Christchurch. We didn’t have an organisation and, on reflection, little chance of helping the victims.

New Zealand needs to be better prepared to provide temporary free beds for disaster victims with a national network. There will be more natural disasters in the future, and as the population grows, the potential for larger death tolls will grow too. If a main centre were to be struck by an 8.0 or 9.0 strength quake, a category 5 hurricane, a VEI7 volcanic eruption (like Taupo 2,000 years ago) or a 50-metre-high tsunami (the world record is over 500 metres), thousands could be killed and millions made homeless. New Zealand will always be at risk of a catastrophe far beyond the scope of anything experienced within living memory.

Disaster relief does not end with rescue. Victims need a place to go where they will have food and shelter, and understanding, where they can start to live again while they prepare for resettlement or a return home. A national network of volunteer bed providers and area coordinators is needed to provide the next step after victim rescue.

Therefore, I am proposing that a national organisation should be launched to meet these aims and I want to hear from like-minded Kiwis in all areas with one or more beds to spare. I also want to hear from people who can provide volunteer management and coordination skills. I particularly want to hear from people with experience in civil defence, the defence force, police, St John, fire service, citizen’s advice, Red Cross, homestay organisations, counselling, health and social workers.

Realistically, there may be little that a new organisation can do for the Kaikoura victims, but we must do what we can and at least prepare for the next big one by creating a nationwide network now.

If you can play a part in helping preserve life when tragedy strikes, please contact Peter Blakeborough at or call on 07-211-9876 or 021-115-0543.

Your help will be most welcome.



Social media is generating weird voting outcomes

The United States presidential election result of 2016 confirmed a trend already established by the British Brexit vote and the New Zealand flag referendum; that social media can have a major distorting effect on voter decisions. Elections have become contests to determine which side can tell the greatest porkies, who can create the most alarming warnings, the most outrageous conspiracy theories, or the most despicable accusations of criminal offending.
Will this be the new American flag?

Most people who share posts on Facebook, Twitter and other sites simply don’t check the authenticity of what they are sharing. If it sounds alright on the surface, or it suits their preconceived beliefs, most people will share with others and think nothing of it. Facebook and Twitter have been around for many years, but recently there has been an explosion in the number of smartphones and an explosion in the number of sites pumping out information, fake or fair.

Years ago, it was customary to quote something from a newspaper or radio station, and for authenticity to say, “Well, it was in the news. So, it must be right.” We trusted the news and mostly the news media was trustworthy. Not anymore. Today’s news media has descended into the greatest bun fight in history. Many once great newspapers have lost all credibility in their scramble to win advertising revenue and readership in a rapidly changing world.

Between newspapers (print and online), radio, television, magazines, fake news, satire and political sites, it is a race to the bottom and readers are being taken for suckers.
An alternative Trump slogan

In the middle of the bun fight are the pollsters, taking samples with varying degrees of scientific methodology, analyzing them and publishing the results. Some pollsters are politically biased while others try hard to be impartial and accurate to impress potential market research clients. Taken together and averaged out, the polls can portray a fairly accurate picture at the time when they are taken, but only then. Polls can indicate past trends, but they can never predict future trends. The future depends entirely on future events, many of which will be a complete surprise to most people. It is there that social media can change everything in a flash.

In the past polls taken at regular intervals showed either a steady situation or a slowly changing trend. But social media can change everything hour by hour, minute by minute. It’s effect can be massive and immediate. The political newspaper The Hill summed this up with, “The influence of social media in this presidential election is stronger than it has ever been.” The co-founder of SocialFlow, Frank Speiser has said, “This is the first true social media election.”

The involvement of social media was not just a case of people talking about who they would vote for and why. It became much crazier and wilder than that. People posted and shared things like, Hillary had people killed, and Donald raped a thirteen-year-old. Posts like those got millions of likes and shares. Some people believed everything they read and even a majority believed most of what they read. Gullible people were targeted by political activists, and fake or satire news sites wanting to make a buck from advertising, and getting people to share for free was key to their success.

At one time the candidate with the most money to spend on a campaign was almost assured of victory on election night, because the money was usually a direct indication of popular support. Not anymore. Social media has stolen the thunder from the almighty dollar. Money was evil, but now the race to out-lie an opponent is strangely seen as legitimate. During the campaign Clinton raised $1,068 million from supporters while Trump raised only $512 million, proof that money didn’t buy the election. Social media won the election with a bombardment posts, tweets, and satirical and fake news, interspersed with the latest outrageous conspiracy theories.  Both sides’ supporters were at it. But Trump’s people went the extra mile. They were prepared to play dirtier than Clinton’s supporters. For example, Trump was accused of groping women, but Clinton was accused of murdering people, and all the while gullible and sometimes twisted people, liked and shared without caring to look for the truth.
Hillary Clinton: the most experienced candidate in a generation
was beaten by a clown and social media nonsense

Social media must be held responsible for the rise in anti-establishment fervor that is gripping the world. The fervor is driven by conspiracy theories about politicians, big business, and theories like One World Government, the Illuminati, the Rothschilds, staged moon landings and on and on. Most of these have been disproved time and again, but people still fall for them again and again. Donald Trump pressed all the right conspiracy and rigged election buttons right up to polling day, appealing to the Rust Belt unemployed and the generally less educated. Typically, the people spreading the social media nonsense have learned to like and share, but not how to authenticate or assess what they read.

The Brexit campaign seemed in the bag for those wanting to stay in the European Union. The polls were indicating that a slight majority wanted to stay. But alarming and false trash on social media meant that nothing was set in concrete. It was constantly changing and on the day the remain vote crashed. The polls were not wrong. The game simply changed at the wrong moment for those wanting to remain in the EU.

The New Zealand flag referendum was a similar example. Numerous polls put the British/New Zealand flag ahead of the proposed new flag by varying margins. Others put the two options neck and neck. But all that was irrelevant because the social media debate with it lies, distortions and false history, was in charge of the campaign. The campaign failed and the New Zealand flag still has another country’s flag in one corner. Social media!

And so, to return to the US presidential election, President-elect Trump used social media like never before in a no-holds barred way. Clinton was always his main target before she got the nod. He seemed to know that Sanders would be too far left for the American people. With Sanders as the Democrat nominee, Trump would have wiped the floor with him. It would have been a full return to McCarthyism. Sanders has some great ideas. He could have made a great prime minister in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, but never would he have had a chance of becoming President in one of the world’s most extreme right democracies. It came down to Clinton and Trump.
Trump had already prepared his run by assassinating the character of President Obama with claims that, “He created ISIS,” and “His birth certificate is a forgery.” That just made it so much easier for him to successfully attack Obama’s heir apparent. There was the email scandals Mark I and Mark II carefully timed for fatal effect. The cries of, “Crooked Hillary” brought American politics to an all-time low. It was a scurrilous attack on one of America’s greatest leaders of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Clinton was the most experienced and best qualified presidential candidate in a generation. She was up against a non-establishment novice it seemed. And the anti-establishment people wanted the country run like a business and a non-politician was the best person for the job – like they would want their brain surgery performed by a brick-layer. But on some of them, the brick-layer would be hard pressed to find a brain.

Meanwhile, Clinton was nearing the end of a long and distinguished career, first in law, as First Lady, and then as a senator and as Secretary of State. It was a grueling campaign for a 69-year-old suffering from pneumonia. But the polls showed Clinton leading, although the gap closed in the final days, she was still ahead by several points. Again, the polls portrayed what was probably an accurate picture at the time, and indeed in the end she scored slightly more popular votes than Trump.

Although many people claimed, on social media, that one candidate was as bad as the other, that cry can be heard in any election. It’s as old as the hills and totally worthless. It comes mostly from people with little understanding of politics.

In the 2016 United States Presidential election, there was one outstandingly good candidate and one other that was a huge embarrassment to a large part of the world. That candidate was a vulgar, big-headed lout with an ego larger than the Statue of Liberty and a tax return as elusive as the Loch Ness monster. He didn’t deserve to win, and he didn’t win the popular vote. Clinton beat him by 600,000 votes. Trump had to rely on the slave state inspired Electoral College to steal the election from the majority.

America needs to take a serious look at the wisdom of retaining the electoral college. If there is one thing that could trigger another civil war in the USA it is that spanner in the works known as the electoral college. Its whole purpose is to defeat democracy, by giving a handful of voters in a handful of states a chance to overrule the majority.

Meanwhile, it has been rumored that during the Obama-Trump private meeting at the White House, that when Mr Trump heard the words ‘Mr President-elect,’ he looked over his shoulder in puzzlement to see if there was someone else in the room. From Log Cabin to White House was a famous biography of Abe Lincoln, the greatest Republican President. The best title for Trump’s biography would be From Clown to President.