Have you noticed how big and local government are after our cars and blame us for the environmental crimes that big corporations are guilty of?
Petty bureaucrats, government officials and “global stakeholders” serving the green agenda are quite happy to fly to the UN COP meetings every year. It’s okay for them to do that because it’s only our cars and lifestyles that are affecting the planet, never theirs. Listening to their rhetoric about “saving the planet,” I fully expect the climate hypocrites to impede our domestic travel and stop the average Joe from flying.
I’ve been keeping a bit of an eye on their shenanigans since the cancelled COP conference that was going to take place in Santiago, Chile in 2019.
The Santiago conference changed its venue to Spain because of massive protests and rioting by Chileans caused by the failed green energy policies of their president, a UN and WEF shill. The people had enough of delays and electricity outages from switching to an inferior source of power, and then when the prices went up, they hit the roof.
It turns out that the green measures and climate conferences are UNnecessary because the UN have admitted a mistake in the models, which has halved their global warming predictions! This latest revelation should not just change a venue, it should cause a radical rethink of climate change altogether.
But what have we heard from the media? Crickets. The media is too invested in the doomsday scenario and they’re going to look like fools when the public know they’ve been spreading misinformation. They will not back down or apologise for their hubris.
COP27, there is no longer a climate emergency
At the latest conference, COP27 held in Egypt in November 2022, the UN admitted they got it wrong with their scary climate models. Their climate predictions have halved.
Barry Brill speaks with Sean Plunket about it.
Barry Brill on the biggest surprise from COP27
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=537335711215332
Transcript
Sean Plunket:
Here is the big story, the massive story that you won’t get anywhere else in New Zealand. And I want to quote from a piece we’ve now got published in our opinion section that we’ve thankfully republished with the kind permission of the New Zealand Center for Political Research, Muriel Newman’s outfit.
And it’s a piece by Barry Brill. Barry Brill is a former Minister of Energy for New Zealand, former National MP, former Director of Petrocorp, and Chair of the Gas Council Power New Zealand, the BSA and Z. He is currently the chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. And he’s published a piece that highlights and looks at a New York Times column which contains the shocking revelation that United Nations modeling and predictions for global warming this century have halved. That’s right, halved.
Just a few years ago, climate predictions, and I’m quoting from the article here for this century looked quite apocalyptic, with most scientists warning that continuing business as usual would bring the world four or even five degrees Celsius of warming. A change disruptive enough to call forth not only predictions of food crises and heat stress, state conflict and economic strife, but from some corners, warnings of civilizational collapse, and even a sort of human endgame. Very scary. Five degrees Celsius celsius this century of climate change increase. Guess what that is now 2.5 degrees.
This is from the United Nations itself. 2.5 degrees. A report from the UN climate from UN climate change released on 26 of October. Okay, so about a month ago, it says the world is on track for around two and a half degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century. This is a major change, people.
And don’t forget, it’s still just a computer bloody model. But the five degrees Celsius has gone to 2.5 degrees. And I don’t think because you’re doing more recycling or I’m not driving the Rangy as much, they just got the figures wrong. And here to talk about what that should mean is Barry Brill, the author of this piece that we’ve published. Barry, welcome to the program. Nice to have you with us.
Barry Brill:
Good morning.
Sean Plunket:
All right, Barry, this is such a huge story, isn’t it?
Barry Brill:
I think it’s the biggest climate change story of the last decade in hearing constant references to five degrees and catastrophe and climate emergency, climate crisis, and even existential threat to the future of humanity. Now, with a stroke, all of that disappears and the four to five degree scenario is suddenly dead and replaced with the United Nations official prediction which it contained in its 132 page book that it prepared for Cop 27, the International Climate Convention, which is just being held in Egypt.
And the official papers prepared for that have section for 2100 on a business as usual basis to 2.5.
When I say a business as usual basis, that 2.5 assumes that we will do no more policies from now on.
So although there are existing climate policies. We are told they haven’t been enough. But if there are no more climate policies, then the models say we will hit 2.5 by the year 2100. That’s a pretty modest figure, the two and a half degree. The Paris agreement in 2015 aimed to get us to two degrees.
Obviously, we’re almost there.
Sean Plunket:
Wow. So the crisis, the climate emergency is over, Barry.
Barry Brill:
Certainly the emergency is over. The attempt to continue to reduce emissions, I no doubt that will carry on, but at least we won’t be hearing these hair raising stories in that what we’re aiming to do and what we think is going to happen is only a half degree difference over a period of 80 years.
Sean Plunket:
Barry this is massive. Why aren’t I reading about this on Stuff and seeing it on TVNZ and Newshub? This is like the end of World War II.
Barry Brill:
It is. We should be declaring victory and dancing in the streets. It’s a strategy that’s been adopted by those who help to orchestrate the worldwide propaganda on the climate and the climate space. Those are usually newspapers by the New York Times. The New York Times and The Guardian and The Economist provide the guardrails which their talking points are almost always repeated by our television stations, the Herald and our other media. But there’s been dead silence on this topic.
Nobody’s attacked it, nobody said it’s not true, they just have said nothing at all.
Sean Plunket:
Well, and of course, it must be difficult for them, given that outfits like Stuff have publicly declared that climate, the science has decided on climate change and they will not publish dissenting views.
They’ve kind of backed themselves into a corner of not being able to report this very significant story.
Barry Brill:
Yes, there’s going to be a loss of face, particularly for people like Stuff, whose attitude would have been if that I had written them something, say it might be four and a half degrees, it will be only three degrees. It simply wouldn’t be published because it would be regarded as misinformation. Now the elites are taken out under them entirely by the United Nations itself, coming to this official publication predicting only 2.5 degrees.
And then in getting there, according to Wallace Wells, the person who wrote the lengthy ‘mea culpa’ article in the New York Times, the changes have been that the UN has dropped its highest scenario, known as 8.5, or representative concentration pathway 8.5. And not only that, but they’ve dropped their second scenario of seven as well, now focusing on a pathway which is only 3.4.
These numbers are measures of the amount of warming expected in the year 2100. So the amount previously we had a range which was headed at the top by this extreme case of 8.5, and we now have a likely case, and that is less than half of that at 3.4. But it’s a concern that 8.5, which has been regarded with great suspicion by most objective scientists since it was first introduced over ten years ago, that 8.5 has never seemed plausible as something that could ever happen and now taken off the table entirely.
That causes a significant problem for the New Zealand government in particular because probably to an extent more than any other Ministry for the Environment and NIWA have used 8.5 centimetres for most of their calculations.
Sean Plunket:
So the problem we’ve got, Barry, is that all sorts of groups, mainstream media included, are so invested in the catastrophe of climate change that they are now stuck with if you lie in a situation of cognitive dissonance as they do not know how to stop, well, essentially lying about these consequences.
But I would have thought, Barry, this requires therefore a fundamental rethink of our carbon zero goals of planting out our arable farmland into pinus radiata. This requires going back almost to the drawing board on climate change policies because we’re there, we’ve arrived and we don’t need to keep kicking hell out of our agricultural sector or beating ourselves figuratively over our backs with birch sticks.
Barry Brill:
Yes, quite. I think Milton Keynes is often given credit for the quote that says, “when the facts change, I change my mind.” What do you do? And I would like to put that question to Minister Shaw, the facts have changed, should you change your mind? Whereas up till now he’s been very sound on the whole topic.
Sean Plunket:
Barry, look, some people are going to come back at you and say you are a shill for the oil industry. Tell us about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition who funds it, just so we can head that one off at the pass.
Barry Brill:
Well, it’s really a small collection of mainly scientists.
We have engineers and some other professionals who are part of it as well. And it is a sort of minor think tank. We keep up to date on all the changes that are occurring in climate, but we fund ourselves, we don’t raise funds from the public. We have never seen a dollar from the oil industry or from the renewable energy industry for that matter either. So there isn’t any funding issue arising.
We have been concerned and have argued for some years that 8.5 was a ridiculous scenario. And we have also argued that the climate sensitivity figure has been too high. Our media over the years runs the same story of shock, horror every day. It never advances to say, well, now, how much climate change do we expect and how much damage will that do? And what is the science on feedbacks? And all the other things would have improved the public education a little on the areas of dispute that are in dispute everywhere. Between the alarmists on the one hand, the lukewarmers, I probably put myself in that category who believe the theory but believe that it’s quite a trivial impact.
And then there are others who don’t believe the theory and or believe that it’s so small that it’s overtaken completely by other activities. Now we don’t have that debate and it must come as a huge shock to our climate change establishment when the predictions that are made from the one source of facts, they cut it in half and say it’s only half as bad.
Sean Plunket:
And of course there’s a possibility it could go down even further.
Barry Brill:
Yes, I think there’s a good possibility that it will go down to two. And I won’t go into the detail of that because it’s a bit technical. But the fact is the difference between the two degree target and the 2.5 which is now predicted, is pretty small because we act as if we have very accurate predictions or very accurate measurements, let alone predictions in ah decades into the future. But in fact, there’s a big error bars around all these figures. So if you say two points …
Sean Plunket:
Well, I would say if we have made the massive and painful changes to our economy, to our agricultural sector, to our lives as a result of predictions of climate change, when those predictions drastically change like this, we must revisit those decisions. There just seems to me it would be crazy not to.
Barry Brill:
Yes. And I also wonder if the plans that have assessed the risks to people who live close to the coast and they may have to migrate their houses away from the coast, if that is progressed and those people resist, then we’re going to find ourselves in court with them with a string of experts pointing out that this 8.5 is gone. It’s no longer adopted anywhere. And James or the government trying to say it doesn’t matter that 8.5 is gone, it doesn’t matter that the …
Sean Plunket:
Well, it does, because how can they win that case? I hear you, Barry. Barry, thank you very much indeed for your time this morning and thank you very much for writing that piece. And I’ll be honest, until I read it, I just didn’t know what I think is the biggest news story of the year. I thank you for your time. That is Barry Brill, former Minister of Energy, former National MP and chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
So you heard it here. And do you recognize how significant this is? The United Nations, which kind of sets the pace on doom and gloom predictions for our planet, has halved its expectation of global warming in the next, what, 78 years. Halved!
So essentially the planet is not, not that it ever was burning. Climate change is no longer what some, like Greta would have said, the end of the planet. Not that it ever was. But the science and the figures themselves tell us there is no emergency and there is no crisis. And the stuff we are doing right now that damages people’s lives and livelihoods is unnecessary. It is just woke virtue signaling.
And our mainstream media should be telling you this, but they won’t because they drank the Kool Aid of climate change until it was coming out their ears. And they’re now stuck in a position where they are probably too full of themselves to admit that. And I’m not saying they were wrong. The facts have changed. The science has changed. Science is never settled. The United Nations has halved in the last last month. A month ago, the United Nations halved its prediction for climate change around the globe. We should be having a party.
Related post:
Protests caused by failed energy policies at Santiago, the 2019 UN venue
Economic development organizations and activist nongovernmental organizations have foisted “agroecology” on the poorest nations — an organic-style agriculture. They promote the virtues of peasant farming.”
What’s the problem with Waste-to-Energy plants? These plants are much touted by the UNEP (UN Environment programme.) The trouble is, waste incinerator systems produce toxic ash and other residues. Strict controls are required to prevent its negative impacts on human health and environment.
Red Sky in the morning 