Lord Monckton In New Zealand For Month Of April 2013

This is the latest newsletter from the Climate Realists, Neil and Esther Henderson.
Greetings Climate Realists,

Lord Monckton

It’s with great pleasure I can finally announce the news you’ve all been waiting for:
Christopher Monckton will be visiting New Zealand for the entire month of April 2013.
Due to the Australian organisers finding no shortage of places to host him, his tour over there has been extended so we have opted to follow on in April.
Our website www.climaterealists.org.nz has all the latest up-to-date information regarding dates and venues.
We are currently in the process of booking venues and organising meetings up and down the country so will be updating the site frequently.
We continue to welcome  financial contributions- his tickets are paid for, we have much advertising yet to arrange. (Payment details at the end of this newsletter).
In the meantime, there’s plenty of reading below to keep everyone amused.
happy reading,
Carbon Sense
Click here for the latest Carbon Sense newsletter- once again, an excellent read.
It contains a link well worth watching:
A very good analysis of carbon taxes  and emissions trading schemes and what the effects really are.
Outside the Beltway Group- NZ Greens, specious claims, and Parliament.
-an entertaining letter to Kennedy Graham of the Green party.
Antarctic Sea Ice:
Hi Neil & Esther,
…..National Public Radio (NPR) published an article on its website last month claiming, “Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global warming. … There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of ice.”

NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012…….


Rob, also Bart and Jay 

see also:
NZCSC Press release:
see also:
“What if all the ice melts?- myths and realities”
…..The IPCC 2001 report states “Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C… In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years.” [31] The IPCC is the United Nations’ scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica’s ice. …..

The Arctic Sea Ice is only 0.1% of the world’s ice. This link contains a very interesting graph of the World Ice Inventory.


I have revised my various web pages on weather and climate matters and invite you to check the following site which give access to all my web sites.




John Maunder

Global warming to kill fruit flies – and this is a bad thing?

Many species of fruit fly lack the ability to adapt effectively to predicted increases in global temperatures and may face extinction in the near future, according to new research………

From Pastural Farming Climate Research:
regarding the current ETS review:

…..Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright told the Committee that changes to the ETS will make “taxpayers subsidise the cost of pollution indefinitely” and she described this as “a very poor way” of subsidising jobs?

I don’t know what she is a doctor of but it can’t be economics or science. If it was science she would know that carbon is not a pollutant and therefore emitters of it are not polluters. People who use the term polluter and pollution in regard to carbon emissions do so out of ignorance or malice. I’m not sure which applies to her…….

Tide is turning on Climate Change
Dear Neil & Esther,
Keep up the good work
David W
……When a group of so-called “skeptics” expressed an opinion, a Huffington Post blog argued they were scared of science, saying, “the folks who deny scientific facts deserve to be laughed at and scorned.” A New York Times blog took a more measured tone, saying that the skeptics “appear to flunk climate economics.” Earth Times described their opinion as “a call to play with fire.”And who was this pack of jackals who fear science and deserve such scorn? They were members of the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, the World Federation of Sciences, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and distinguished universities around the world…….

Now- when do you think this was written?

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age…………

In praise of hydrocarbons

Matt Ridley offers some rare appreciation for fossil fuels:

“… being of average wealth means having machines driven by electricity and petrol to do things for you. The average British family consumes about as much energy in a day as if it had 500 Bradley Wigginses on stationary bicycles in the back room, pedalling flat out for eight-hour shifts. The replacement of muscle power, burning carbohydrates, with fossil power, burning hydrocarbons, has been one of the great liberators of history.

[For those who are interested, here’s my calculation that led to the 500 Bradley Wigginses number:the average Briton used about 5,000 watts (joules per second) — see here

the average person on an exercise bicycle puts out about 50 watts. Bradley Wiggins can probably do twice that = 100 watts

Let’s (implausibly) assume that he can do that for 8 hours without a break. So the average Briton needs about 50 BWs. (5000/100)

But even a BW needs 16 hours of rest between shifts so he actually needs 150 BWs. And there are 3-4 people in an average family so 3.5 x 150 = a little over 500 BWs.

Of course, this assumes that the BWs in your back room need no standard of life of their own, otherwise they would need BWs in their back rooms and so ad infinitum. Such is the gigantic effect of inorganic energy on our lives.]

Fossil fuels not only replaced drudgery, but liberated the land. Instead of using the landscape to produce our energy – hay, timber, water and bread for labourers – we now get it mostly from underground rocks. As a result, today’s people live off about one quarter as much land as before the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels have done more than any other innovations to spare the rainforest.

Fertiliser, made with natural gas, roughly doubles the global average yield of farming, which roughly halves its acreage, which spares millions of square kilometres for rainforest, golf courses or parks in the shape of huge human bodies. The only reason we can spare 50 acres for a park in the shape of a woman is that the land is not needed by peasants to grow subsistence crops as it was in the Middle Ages.”


Herald wrong in so many ways
-From Climate Conversation group:
A response to the Herald’s report about the NIWA court case.
NZ Justice shows courts are useless in a science debate
Judge Geoffrey Venning threw out claims by the NZ Climate Science Education Trust that the Crown Research Institute known as NIWA breached its statutory duties, were mistaken in fact, failed to consider mandatory considerations and acted unreasonably in publishing its work.
NIWA will be entitled to costs, which are yet to be set, as a result of the case, Justice Venning’s judgment says.
Why did the sceptics lose? According to the news report, it was not because NIWA provided good answers, or found the missing data, but because the sceptics didn’t have “authority” to question it.
Some evidence in the case was ruled inadmissible, including that of Terry Dunleavy, a former journalist who is a founding member of the trust and secretary of the associated NZ Climate Science Coalition.
Justice Venning says Dunleavy “has no applicable qualifications” and “his interest in the area does not sufficiently qualify him as an expert”.
He also questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose “general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science”.
Perhaps the judgement is quite different from what the NZ Business Review reported, but unless it is, the outcome had nothing to do with science, but everything to do with a logical fallacy.

What’s unnerving about this is that if “authority” is determined not by behavior, logic or quality of reasoning, but simply by government decree, then the court becomes a de facto arm of the government — because only people who are funded by the government (all “climate scientists” are funded by government) can give evidence that the court recognizes. Who can criticize and hold government or statutory authorities to proper standards? Not the citizens, for they are not “qualified”.

Don R
Encouragement to write letters to editors:
A few folk (not attaching themselves to CRs or the CSC) should write to the NZH saying that the summer arctic ice melt was almost entirely due to climatic conditions and not, as Greenpeace would have it, induced by humans.
We are NOT countering this loony left wing bog science enough – if at all.
Talking amongst ourselves is only part of the equation.
…………….However, ‘talking amongst ourselves’ does not get the message to those who need it most – the doubters of reality.        
I suggest more of  us need to hit the press with the ‘realist’ message.  The AGW=CC story is all one way – anti so-called sceptics.  Eg, most letters to the editor, articles like Rudman’s today, and ‘Element’.  
I note the ‘new’ NZH says it will be ‘fair and balanced’.  So if they don’t publish ‘realist’ letters (none of mine!), they need to be reminded of their proclamation.  Often.
We need to send regular ‘realist’ input.  Not a blitz…but at least a trickle. 
I commend the thought.
Letter to the Herald:
Dear Editor
I note Niwa’s David Wratt complains that he wasted too much time countering claims about Niwa’s NZ temperature records,  yet  found the time to write a full page article in the NZH!   
There’s so much questionable material in the article – no ‘balance’ whatsoever – that it would take another full page to discuss  it.
I suggest that people who are seriously interested in the subject, check the internet.   It is awash with relevant information..
Yours sincerely
John C
More grist to the mill- NASA Scientists dispute Climate Change
I haven’t verified any of the content but love the style~!




100 Days before the end of the Kyoto Protocol, pressure group says Climate will be key to independence debate.
Dear fellow followers of the Climate debate,

As a result of finding out that the Kyoto commitments technically comes to an end on the 31st December, the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum have been investigating the likely consequences of this both in terms of what is likely to happen to the protocol and the wide implications when (as it seems) the protocol effectively ends operation on the 31st December.

We have written this up as a report. The main intention of this report has been to try to find the actual facts and having sorted the chaff from the wheat, ascertain what this might mean (with particular emphasis on Scotland).

The report has been produced to coincide with today which is 100 days to Kyoto Ends, and it is available on the website:


For obvious reasons, the report is biased toward Scotland and we can only really speak with authority about the Scottish context. We will welcome any comments on the report, criticism or suggestions for improvement.


Mike H
Read summary of main conclusions:
Dr John Christy submission to the Energy and Power Subcommittee US House of Reps
The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. ………. Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. ………. the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus.
The content of these climate reports is actually under the  control of a relatively small number of individuals – I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my House Testimony, these “experts” become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. But with the luxury of having the “last word” as “expert” authors of the reports, alternative views vanish.
Read full extract:
Read entire submission:
I’ve completed my second book on climate change, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.  It’s a color paperback, with funny sidebars, cartoons, and interesting quotes. The foreword was written by Harrison Schmitt, the last man to walk on the moon. See the cover below.
You can find it on my website www.climatism.net and on the Amazon site.  EBooks are also available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Apple.
All the best,
Steve Goreham
“Climatism is the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate.”
Speaking of a mad, mad world…. here’s the mad hatter himself……
Al Gore to do ‘dirty weather report’
‘Extreme weather is not fully caused by the natural cycles’
(THE HILL) — Al Gore hopes to show links between climate change and the effects of extreme weather worldwide with an online and social media-fueled event built around the idea of “dirty weather.”
Gore’s advocacy group, the Climate Reality Project, announced Sunday that its second multimedia “24 Hours of Reality” event will occur Nov. 14-15 and bear the title “The Dirty Weather Report.”
“We are in a new era where the … extreme weather that is occurring is not fully caused by the natural cycles of time and natural events, but by dirty energy, so it is really important to articulate that and name it more precisely,” said Maggie Fox, the CEO of the Climate Reality Project, in an interview Saturday.
Roger Helmer launches UKIP’s new energy policy at the national conference in Birmingham.


Laugh of the week:
Tv news tonight that the idiot airhead Lucy Lawless’s court case is waiting for the crown to award damages to Shell oil in the region of  $700,000, if this happens then do we have the right to accuse her and Greenpeace of funding big oil. LOL What a laugh that could be splashed all over the blogosphere.
Christopher Monckton’s 2013 visit
The dates are now confirmed: 1-27 April 2013
Many thanks to those of you who have donated towards expenses thus far.
For anyone else wishing to do so, the details are:
Bank Account: 03 1395 0057531 000
Account name: Climate Realists
Reference: ‘Monckton  2013’  and your name.
or a cheque made out to ‘Climate Realists’  may be sent to:
NR and EM Henderson,
2627 Whakarau Road
RD 2
Te Karaka 4092.
The itinerary for Christopher’s visit  will include:
Whangarei, Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Gisborne, Hawkes Bay, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, Wellington, Nelson, Blenheim, Christchurch, Timaru, Dunedin, Gore and Invercargill.
Many thanks for your contributions.

About Clare Swinney

Interested in what is genuinely going on, not in the disinformation promoted as "truth" by the corrupt mainstream media. Please keep an open mind and do your own research. M.Sc. (Hons) from Auckland University. If you came to this site via the 'Silly Beliefs' disinformation website, please read my response to their article at the link: https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/sillybeliefs-coms-lies-about-chemtrails-geo-engineering-exposed/
This entry was posted in Global Warming Hoax. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s