by Dr David Kear (former Director-General, NZ DSIR; United Nations consultant; & South Pacific geoscientist)

I remember Dr Kear as Director of the NZ Geological Survey when I was at University in the early 1960’s – hence my interest in his article now.

INTRODUCTION

“Climate Change” has become an important international topic – one might almost say religion. It began life as “Global Warming”. So very many people, including politicians and “news people”, appear to have been overwhelmed by it, and have led others to believe, and follow the doctrine. It has sponsored a good deal of international co-operation, which can only have been good.

However, the cost of “Combating Carbon” has been extremely high, and the debt and economic consequences are being passed on to present citizens, and, worse still, to future generations, including all our grandchildren. This booklet 180KB pdf – attempts to raise, in citizens’ minds, questions regarding the enormous sums of money and effort being wasted on this topic.

 

Apologies but I have not edited the text below – just pasted from the pdf –

• Is it soundly based?
• Will it “do good” or “do bad” for ordinary citizens?
• Do those promoting it deserve our attention?

The same way smoking may also affect your viagra prescription sexual health. In my opinion, women still do not have to swallow topical erection oil as you do with cheapest generic viagra . Diseases, nutritional status, trauma, surgical procedures, or medications can affect erectile function by altering the process that causes Ed. online viagra mastercard Each viagra canadian pharmacy situation has its own downline.
This booklet suggests that Global-Warming-alias-Climate-Change, as proposed by “Global Warmers” makes no sense. You, as the reader, must judge that for yourself – not to help the writer of this booklet, but to help you and your family.

• Do you think after reading all this that the proponents are absolutely reliable?
• Should you add your voice to those against it, or at least talk to your
• councillors and members of parliament and see how they feel?

THE ANCIENT ACCEPTABLE VIEW

Our Earth’s climate is highly variable, and records show clearly that it always has
been so. Animals and plants have had no option but to accept what comes, and to
adapt life in ways that suit best. Evolution gave some help by introducing “the
Survival of the Fittest”

Humans found early that their discussion and understanding were helped by a belief
in some extraneous source being the cause of recorded changes of climate – perhaps
with divine power. This booklet uses “Mother Nature” in that role to avoid wordy
explanations.

Humans discovered that they could ameliorate climatic effects with buildings,
clothing and the rest, and even create “microclimates” through windbreaks, forest
clearing, artificial lakes, fossil fuel burning, and the rest. However, no-one originally
thought seriously that man could change the basic influences to our climate – our Sun,
our Earth’s rotation, the total quantity of our Planet’s water, and the rest. Mother
Nature is able to change all such things (and has been doing so for some
3,000,000,000 years), but we are not.

THE NEW BELIEF – THE NEW PROBLEM

Introduction

That ancient and acceptable view was amended in the minds of some people whom I
call the “Global Warmers”. I’ve heard nothing convincing about their so-called
“Science”; but what they publish convinces me that it’s close to nonsense. The most
convincing evidence against it comes mostly from the Global Warmers themselves.
In this booklet, the beliefs of “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” have initial
capital letters. That contrasts with natural warming, or natural changing of climate –
indicated by lower case initial letters. The idea of a human cause is much less than
300 years old.

My interest in our changing climate and sea level

During fieldwork for a PhD thesis c I found a coastal exposure of soft sandstone at
Ohuka Creek, south of Port Waikato. There were Pliocene fossils of marine shellfish
below an extensive horizontal bedding plane. Above that plane were more fossils, but
of cool-loving a plants. A finger could show the exact location of the abrupt change to
the cooler climate at the onset of the first of the world-wide Pleistocene glaciations
[Ice Ages]. Ice formed widely at the ultimate expense of sea water, so sea level fell.
At Ohuka, sea bed had become land. Such changes are rarely seen in a continuous
sequence, so I recorded it in a 1957 scientific paper b . That resulted in my joining an
informal world-wide Group researching changing sea levels.

Most interest then was about the rate of sea level rise as the Earth warmed following
the “Little Ice Age”. That cool period, from about 1500 to 1700 AD, halted wine-
making in England and taro cropping in New Zealand. Our Group determined the
rate of sea level rise in many different World regions, from widely-available readings
of tide gauges (less variable than those of thermometers). The average for us all was
125 mm/century (“125” here). Hence it would take 8 centuries for sea level to rise
1m – no serious threat to us.

Global Warming Dawns Subsequently, I attended many international science
conferences representing DSIR, NZ or Pacific Nations. I noted the words “Global
Warming” appearing increasingly in paper titles, and sensed a growing number of
adherents. Those latter arranged a first-ever “Conference on Global Warming” in
Vienna in 1985. Unlike most such meetings, where a communiqué summarising
achievements was released on the final day, the full results of this one were delayed
for over 2 years.

When they did appear (front page, NZ Herald, two days before Christmas 1987) a
World Declaration included “Overseas scientists have estimated that the seas around
New Zealand will rise by up to 1.4 m in the next 40 years”. That article concentrated
on the massive consequent problems, caused by our carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions,
but gave no adequate supporting science. That rate of rise was equivalent to 3,500
mm/century, 28 times faster than our 125. Hence we stupidly ignored it, thinking no-
one could possibly believe it. But the World did believe, and the Global Warming
mirage was born. Had 3,500 been true, sea level should have risen by almost 1 m by
today – it hasn’t, not even closely.

This showed unambiguously that those “Overseas Scientists” were not true scientists.
They ignored a most important basic rule of true science “Thou shall not publish
Science without first checking it. A check against local tide gauges would have
shown how wrong 1.4 m in 40 yrs was; they simply hadn’t bothered to check. That
was a First Grave Error.

Australian government scientists were concerned about the effects on Pacific Island
nations by any sea level rise of around 3,500 mm/century, and launched a project to
determine the correct figure at that time. They announced the result at the 1992
meeting of SOPAC – a geoscientific organisation of South Pacific nations. Their
figure was 122 mm/century, confirming the order of magnitude of our group’s 125
average value.

Fooling the World The Global Warmers persisted with their use of pseudo-science
and made further predictions. Understandably they too all proved wrong. At
conferences I began to hear, regardless of the science involved, when a speaker
wished to “rubbish” some scientific idea or research, he/she stated that conclusion
firmly, and followed it by “Just like Global Warming”. Clearly the Global Warmers
heard that too. They didn’t change their pseudo-science, but cleverly changed the
name to ‘Climate Change”. [One can disprove warming, but the words change of
climate can’t be proved wrong].

The United Nations became interested – major sea level rise could cause havoc in
low-lying areas or island groups. They established an Intergovernmental Panel for
Climate Change (IPCC) and invited nations to send delegates. Not surprisingly those
chosen were almost entirely Global Warmers, because they clearly knew something
about it. But to do them credit the Panel members acted a little more like true
scientists than those earlier.

They accepted that “1.4 m in 40 yrs” was wrong and re-evaluated it as “0.49 m by
2100”, [roundly a century ahead]. Thus they dropped 3,500 down to 500 mm/century
– to 14% of the original. The cause remained unchanged – our CO 2 emissions to the
atmosphere. In no other human activity would those involved retain a belief when the
most crucial item involved was found to be 86% wrong by themselves. That was a
Second Grave Error.

In spite of that, the World was taken in. Politicians were able to promise to save us
from the consequences, and the Media had an unending “Field Day”. It wasn’t that
people necessarily believed, but they lacked the courage to risk that it might come
true, and that they might have to bear the terrible consequences that had been so
forcibly promised.

The New Errors The new value of “0.49 m by 2100” became widely accepted. In
New Zealand, District Councils were instructed by Government Departments, like
Conservation and Environment, and by Regional Councils, that they must take full
account of the risk that “0.49” implied for a sea level rise by 2100. Councils had to
consider that in the same way as earthquake and volcanic risk. Yet that “0.49” value
doesn’t stand up to the most simple scientific scrutiny.

First, the rate is four times faster than the current sea level rise, as indicated by
regional, widely-available tide gauges; second, no reason was given for quadrupling
the value, and third, good science interprets “0.49” in this sense as being deliberately
different from 0.48 and 0.50. Thus that effectively claims that those who determined
that value know, for sure, where sea level will be a century ahead to ±5 mm. That
was, and is, patently absurd

These were the Third, Fourth & Fifth Grave Errors.

Further Damning Disclosures The United Nations appointed me personally to their
UNCSTD Committee which assists small countries with their ability regarding
Science and Technology Development. Three or so of us would go to a central city to
talk and discuss their options with delegates from regional countries. On one
occasion we met in Prague, to assist countries on both sides of the “Iron Curtain”.
While there, we were invited to visit the World’s only “Institute for Global
Warming”. It was founded and funded incredibly by the USA and Soviet Union
jointly, at the height of their “Cold War”, in an attempt to fund something “for the
good of Mankind”, rather than “for armaments”. Some of its staff could have
attended the 1985 Conference, and helped create the 1987 World Declaration.
I took the opportunity of asking to see copies of the documents that had been brought
to that 1985 Meeting in neutral Austria. Several attendees brought their estimates for
sea level rise due to Global Warming. The values, converted to mm/century, ranged
from 500 minimum to 3,500 maximum. There can be no doubt that, to ensure that
their 1987 World Declaration made the greatest impact, they published the maximum
value – contravening the most sacred rule of acceptable science Thou shall not publish
items for monetary, political, or personal gain that are not clear un-biased un-inflated
truths.

The fact that “up to” was used, might be allowed in non-scientific areas, but not in
Science. If World Media had distorted the message, the Warmers should immediately
have denied what was wrongly claimed, and ensured that the proper statement got
equal publicity. Using a maximum value for greatest effect was the Sixth (and
Worst) Grave Error.

OLD SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS ON CLIMATE IGNORED

19 th Century science posed a important question. Why is our Earth’s average
temperature significantly higher than that calculated from the then-recent
determinations of our Sun’s distance and its radiation? Knowing my interests in
climate, DSIR librarians found me a publication in German that answered that puzzle
early. It had Scandinavian author(s), if I remember correctly. Its answer was that the
CO 2 in our atmosphere acts like glass in a glasshouse. Both change the optical
physical nature of the Sun’s infra-red rays [that carry the warmth to us] such that they
may enter, but cannot then leave. So we are warmed by the heat trapped below our
CO 2 ; like the glasshouse below its glass.

I surmise that the Global Warmers, along with Al Gore, noted correctly that CO 2
keeps us warm, but thought wrongly that more would make us warmer. The analogy
with glass is important. Horticultural experiments long ago found that more (thicker)
glass does not cause more warming, so more CO 2 probably doesn’t either. The effect
is like that of polarising spectacles, where the change takes place as light begins
passing through the lenses. Thickness makes no difference. Polarisation is either
100%, or not at all.

A coincidence timed the Little Ice Age’s end with the Industrial Revolution’s start.
The Warmers blamed the undoubted warming on the latter – ignoring the glasshouse
evidence.

THE NEW CLIMATE REGIME

NIWA The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) retains
New Zealand climate records. It has a history of persuading successive governments
that Global Warming and Climate Change are both real. It often encouraged media
headlines like “We are Getting Warmer”, when any news item suggested any higher
temperature. Science progresses by new concepts and ideas being aired freely for
scientific scrutiny. That has sometimes taken centuries to be completed. Although I
don’t agree with some of NIWA’s views, it is proper that they should be aired for
discussion, as in this booklet.

One announcement (that surely originated from NIWA) was very important to me and
all citizens, and was a credit to NIWA itself. At the close of 2007, it stated that the
decade just finishing was the warmest since New Zealand records began. The
announcement added that, of those 10 years, 1998 was the warmest ever since records
began. I was grateful to NIWA, and concluded that 2007 was no warmer than 1998,
and probably cooler. I could assume therefore that warming at our 125 rate finished
in 1998. In the roundest of figures, the Little Ice Age lasted for some 200 years.

There would be no conflict with accepting that the following warming should
similarly last for some 200 years.

As always in Science one seeks confirmation whenever possible. I have seen many
items that lead to that same view of “no warming since 1998”. The best was a written
debate in the Imperial Engineer of autumn 2008. [That scientific journal is produced
for engineering graduates of Imperial College, London – arguably UK’s top
university in engineering.] The debate was on whether Humans were to blame for
current changes of climate. Prof Joanna Haigh blamed Humans, Lord Monckton
blamed Mother Nature. The only point on which they both agreed was that there had
been no warming since 1998. That confirmed NIWA’s statement perfectly, along
with several comparable pronouncements.

My conclusion is that warming since the Little Ice Age’s end is now almost certainly
finished. That was supported further by NIWA’s release at the end of 2012,
concerning the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Their report was that 2012 had been drier and
colder than 2011. Citizens also notice that warming seems to be over. Skiing seasons
are extended, winter fires are needed earlier, and some of us travelling overseas have
been asked by those from Queensland, even Hawaii, whether we in New Zealand feel
colder generally – as they do. I conclude that the New Zealand climate has not been
warming since 1998.

THE AFFECTS ON CITIZENS

Astronomical Cost of Major Measures to Combat a Non-Existent Threat:
Politicians and the Media have listened to the proponents of Global-Warming-
Climate-Change, but don’t seem to have made any critical assessment of it all.
Perhaps they were bemused by the Global Warmers constantly naming themselves
and associates as “Scientists”. As has been shown, those people disregarded the basic
rules of true Science. Their political and media audiences innocently believed the
statements – which contained grave errors.

Innocents in politics and the media were badly mis-led. They gladly supported
projects to combat the non-existent threat of Global-Warming-Climate-Change. The
projects were unnecessary because there was no threat; extremely costly in money
time and effort; full of praise where ridicule was deserved misleading about benefits
& options; and above all diversionary away from today’s real problems.

A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers,
government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon
credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that
we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being. In
truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything
encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and
expenses of the loudest proponents.

Perhaps the saddest part has been that the essential and innocent gas, carbon dioxide,
has been demonised and criminalised. It is essential in creating plant growth using
chlorophyll and photo-synthesis. It is thus essential for our very existence. Crops
grow better in a CO 2 -enriched and warmer atmosphere, when heated by an old-
fashioned vertical kerosene heater. It gives off “carbon emissions” that are valuable
to us all.

Costs and Dangers of Local Measures to combat the Non-Existent Threat:

Local authorities were compelled to adopt measures designed to combat the non-
existent threat. Typically, maps were drawn showing the coastline’s position now,
and in the year 2100 with intermediate zone(s), assuming that sea level would rise
0.49 m in the next 100 years. Onerous restrictions have been emplaced within the
zones that were thus defined.

Many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released
by the erosion of hills and mountains, continuously raised by Mother Nature. Their
coastline extends seawards steadily. Citizens in such regions have long noted (with
surveys and photos) that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with
many Councils’ imposed belief in “0.49” which demands landwards movement
(“inundation”).

Councils seem unable to accept their citizens’ constant and loud protests about all
this. They seem to feel that higher authorities insist that they must ignore such views.
It is not just (a) the absurdity of restrictions about where houses may be erected (only
inland of certain lines), etc.; or (b) the increasing costs to those building their first
home. At the other end of the scale there are enforced dangers; a requirement for
higher floor levels, leading to more steps, with unnecessary risks to elderly folk
falling, when using them.

The fact that sea level is no longer rising is a new extra factor for councils to ignore.
In the example of Ohope Beach, a Commission of enquiry, set up by Council, backed
the Council’s view of landwards inundation. That rejected all citizens’ factual
evidence of seawards net movement for periods ranging from 50 to 5,000 years.
Council also rejected the advice, supporting the Citizens, by one who was highly
qualified in engineering and science and had had long and successful experience in
coastal work.

Much worse, the Council’s own appointed consultants provided an additional report
based on every coastal survey for which a record was available. It showed a “retreat
of the sea” [seaward shoreline movement, or accretion] at the only three Ohope
sites, of 0.30-0.94 m/yr over 130 years that was still ongoing in 2008. Clearly
neither Council nor Commission had bothered to read that critical report, written
by highly regarded consultants, who had been appointed for this project by the
Council itself.

The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all
factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and
a massive bill for all, for nothing useful. When will citizens revolt effectively against
such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially
their elected employees? When will the perpetrators examine the basis of their
ideology, and realise that it’s based on unfounded unscientific beliefs, not on
confirmed, widely-available investigations by real scientists who abide by the moral
standards of their profession?

References  to  Kaawa-­‐Ohuka
a) Couper  RA  &  McQueen  DR  1954:   Pliocene  and  Pleistocene  plant  fossils  of  NZ
and  their  climatic  interpretation.   Trans  Roy  Soc  NZ  77(3):  398-­‐420
b) Kear  D  1957:  Statigraphy  of  the  Kaawa-­‐Ohuka  coastal  area,  West  Auckland.
NZ  J  Sci  Tech  B  38  (8):  826-­‐42
c) Kear  D  1963:  Geology  of  Te  Akau,  West  Auckland  &  regional  implications.  PhD
thesis,  London  University.  2  vols,  599  pp  (copies  at  libraries  of  GNS,  and  of
London,  Auckland  &  Waikato  Universities).
ISBN  978-­‐0-­‐473-­‐25154-­‐3
July  2013