climate change, GNS Science, Ministry of the Environment, NIWA, Victoria University

Disturbing climate bias at Vic


These should be standard issue for VUW climate scientists. 

On Friday I lobbed a grenade into a public Climate Change panel discussion at Vic.

The panel consisted of 11 academics and policy people from the university, the Ministry of the Environment, NIWA and GNS Science.

And what a tight and self-satisfied little group they were. All warmmongers to the core, with not a single inconvenient sceptic to spoil the illusion of settled science. 

What a remarkable brainwashing operation our university is running in the name of education.

When I looked at the young students arrayed adoringly in front of the panel, I couldn’t help but feel rather sick at the state-sponsored indoctrination programme I’m helping to fund.

There were one or two attempts from the floor to break the self-affirming circle, but I thought I’d cut to the chase. After introducing myself as a Climate Scientology heretic, I asked the panel:

“What would happen to any enquiring student on your [Climate Change] course who dared to voice inconvenient questions about reports of fraud in the Nobel-winning 2007 IPCC report?

“Or about the 100 million Africans who are dying because of the doubling of food prices caused by the conversion of crops from food to biofuel?

“Or about how the previous speaker [I think Jonathan Boston] poured scorn on oil companies profiting from fossil fuels, but did not provide balance by referring to all the academics who profit by promoting global warming?”

Needless to say, there followed much fumbling and grumbling and scoffing and diverting. 

And equally needless to say, I’m still waiting for my answer.

Outside the lecture theatre were the students’ glossy posters of their climate projects. All dutifully parroting the IPCC worldview.

Not one of them suggested these undergrads had been exposed to any sceptical viewpoint whatsoever.

Talking to these students about the presence of alternative scientific opinions was like debating democracy with a tour guide from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

I suggested to two students that the only fair thing to do, in view of the accusations of fraud being levelled at the holy UN body, was to urgently convene an international court hearing presided over by a panel of judges acceptable to both sides.

Boy, were these guys hostile to any hint of an impartial assessment of the evidence!

“But judges are biased!” said one. (What, and the IPCC isn’t??)

Maybe he’d heard about the British judge who found nine errors is Gore’s movie and refused to allow it to be screened in schools until those errors were fixed.

But I suspect he just didn’t want some annoyingly rational beak pouring cold water on his beloved religion.

Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed how one-sided this seat of so-called learning is.

I can now quite understand how similar institutions like the University of East Anglia can become corrupted by their own unbalanced vision of the truth.


5 thoughts on “Disturbing climate bias at Vic

  1. Wow! Did you attend a different panel than I did? Your question was patronising, and when you produce a body of scientific evidence against AGW as compelling as the body of evidence in support of it, I will gladly switch my opinion. Until then, your grenades are more like wet bus tickets.

    Did you think it was a balanced discussion, did you?

    You may find me patronising, but I was a lot more specific than you’re being here. I doubt whether you’d change your opinion if Hell froze over – you’d say it was still more evidence of global warming.

    You and all those people at Vic believe in AGW because you want to believe in it. Whether it’s actually happening is not of the slightest interest to you.

    There’s nothing quite so pointless as talking to people with fingers in their ears, as I now realise after Friday.

  2. I’m fairly certain most people would rather -not- believe that the world is overheating. It’s certainly a lot easier just to continue wasting the world’s resources. Climate change is depressing.

    Also, you haven’t provided your readers with any proof that climate change doesn’t exist (or, if it doesn’t, why we shouldn’t be more careful of our environment anyway).

    There’s plenty of evidence that climate change exists, grah. For billions of years the climate has never stopped changing.

    (That’s why climate change is such a handy new name – so much better than global warming, since even Phil Jones now admits that the globe stopped warming about fifteen years ago.)

    What we’re still waiting for solid evidence of is catastrophic man-made climate change – the kind worth diverting trillions of dollars from health, education, crimefighting and other budgets to fix.

    We’re also waiting for evidence that if we did divert those trillions it would actually fix the problem.

    Perhaps you could point me to that evidence? Every time I ask a climate scientist for it, they just get huffy and point me to a huge tome (always a sign of deception) containing a bunch of IPCC computer models that have repeatedly proved unreliable, and whose creators have been well and truly discredited.

    I then point them to actual data meticulously accumulated from satellites by the likes of Lord Monckton and they get huffy again – making rude remarks about his eyes and posh voice, but never actually rebutting the data.

    You say no one wants to believe the world is overheating. Well, the polar bears seem quite happy about it, flourishing like never before for the simple reason that they’re warm-blooded.

    We Wellingtonians would be delighted if it were true, as would the good folk of places like Invercargill – but sadly I haven’t noticed any respite from the cold in recent decades.

    But more to the point, there are many cunning people with a vested interest in wanting billions of other people to believe the world is overheating, even if they don’t believe it themselves.

    Where do I start?: Al ‘The Eco-Billionaire’ Gore; the UN bureaucrats; all members of Socialist International who hijacked the climate debate to realise their dream of world government; climate scientists who get millions in grants for climate-connected research; businesses who stand to make billions from emissions trading; politicians who get votes from being seen to ‘care for the planet’…

    Your last comment suggests you’re falling into the common trap of confusing the very worthy objective of cleaning up pollution (and yes we should do that, within reason) with the economically catastrophic expense of trying to change the climate by the odd degree.

    In short, we should be more careful of our environment, but we should not respond hysterically to the latest in a long line of unproven theories from a United Nations largely made up of corrupt dictatorships that, among its many other exaggerations, also said 150,000 Americans would be dead from swine flu by now.

    When you’ve been round the block a few times, you start to recognise a pattern of exaggeration and scaremongering, from global cooling in the 70s to the Y2K bug, bird flu, swine flu and now global warming.

    These End is Nigh scenarios are designed to sell papers and achieve political agendas. But what they all have in common is that they’re invariably based on a foundation of solid bullshit.

    For us to believe this latest scare, we need real evidence based on something more reliable than models and the predictions of lobby groups like WWF and corrupted scientists like Jones, Mann and Hansen.

  3. “Or about the 100 million Africans who are dying because of the doubling of food prices caused by the conversion of crops from food to biofuel?”
    The worlds oil reserves are running out. That’s a fact that any geologist worth their salt (har har) can confirm, they only disagree on exactly how much is left. The current economy needs an alternative to fossil fuels and biofuel is one possibility.
    But you know all this already. My question for you is: how is this remotely relevant to the climate change debate?

    Are you saying that biofuels are not better for the environment than petroleum-based fuel?

    And are you saying that we should convert to biofuels, even though they consume vast acreages of crops that would otherwise be used for food, thereby driving up food prices and causing mass-starvation?

    Also, haha, yes, academics totally do profit by promoting global warming awareness by making the world not a shithole for their children.

    I look around New Zealand and I see a country that, while maybe not 100% Pure, is probably less of a shithole (as you so elegantly put it) than any other country on Earth, and, being largely deserted, shows no signs of becoming one any millennium soon.

    Yet our government has decided that we’ll be the first country on Earth to ruin our economy with an Emissions Trading Scheme.

    But they’re also doing one thing right: looking for more oil (and not in the cornfields).

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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