Climate Doomer Emeritus James Renwick has been found out. Rattled by one of his brighter students who chose not to buy the professor’s plant-food propaganda.
Renwick worked himself into a tizzy and raced into print to rebut the perfectly valid points raised in new Wellington City Councillor Sean Rush’s submission to parliament’s select committee considering the Zero-Future Carbon Bill.
In his hasty response to Rush, the good professor lost his critical thinking temporarily and revealed himself, sadly, as a propagandist first and professor, well, at best, a distant second, based on this effort.
Climbing in to Rush’s reproduction of the IPCC’s famous little graph depicting ‘predicted’ global temperature-rise and Rush’s perfectly reasonable pointing-out that that the claims were largely phooey, with real-world observations of actual temperature-rise falling at the minimum, or below, of the ‘predicted’ increase, the good professor substituted his own ‘updated’ graph showing the IPCC’s estimates actually falling mid-range of the ‘predictions’, implying that they were thus ‘reliable’:
Curiously, the good professor’s ‘updated’ scale ends about 2016, an El-Nino and very warm year, but hardly recent. National were still in power then, remember that? And so was Barack Obama and New Zealand held the World Cup in Rugby. Why then, did the good professor choose circa 2016 as the year for his ‘updated’ image? After all, there are more-recent versions readily available; like this one:
The latest versions of the same graph show exactly the same thing as Mr Rush pointed out: actual observations reveal a ‘warming’ at the minimum, or below, of all the good and great IPCC’s ‘predictions’.
The professor’s ‘rebuttal’ gets more interesting; amazingly so:
“he [Sean] overplays the coldness of the LIA [Little-Ice-Age] as it was a regional phenomenon and not global, like the current warming”.
This is a particularly dubious, and important, claim – stated as fact, and one we need to pay attention to.
Doomers invented and attempt to advance the convention that the LIA was ‘regional’ (applying only to the Northern Hemisphere, and Europe in particular) to deflect claims by skeptiks of global climate variability. Little-Ice-Age deniers pretend the era never existed and wish it away, because to try and sell their ‘warming’ message to the masses, they need to pretend the anomalous cold period was a regional, single, blip. It’s simply bad, nay, shoddy science to measure incremental averaged ‘global warming’ beginning from an unusually chilly era; that’s why, in warmer’s eyes, the concept of a ‘global’ LIA has to go.
Unfortunately for the professor, or worse, it’s actually embarrassing for him to make that statement, very embarrassing, because important studies of which the good professor is almost certainly aware, some by fellow Doomers: Gergis et al, 2016, published in the Journal of Climate, and others, show the LIA was not a Northern Hemisphere regional phenomenon. After analysing proxy records from Australian coral and tree-ring samples from New Zealand, the Pacific Islands and Indonesia the poor buggers had to swallow a dead rat, so to speak:
“Our results support the notion that a pronounced cool period consistent with the timing of the LIA extended well outside of the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes and into the tropical and subtropical regions of the Southern Hemisphere”.
Gergis, Et Al: Australasian temperature reconstructions spanning the last millennium
Oh, dear: the Little Ice Age was not regional, the LIA was global.
Still, that’s just Aussie scientists. Is there any actual evidence of the New Zealand climate specifically being consistently, anomalously, cold, synchronous with the Northern Hemisphere LIA? Something Professor Re-butter would have certain knowledge of? Well; yes.
There is more proof, much more, that Professor Renwick’s statement is false and that the LIA was a global, not a regional, phenomenon. It comes in study from 2014 entitled “The Little Ice Age climate of New Zealand reconstructed from Southern Alps cirque glaciers: a synoptic type approach” published in Climate Dynamics which states:
“land-based temperature and precipitation anomalies suggest both colder- and wetter-than-normal conditions were a pervasive component of the base climate state across New Zealand during the LIA, as were colder-than-normal Tasman Sea surface temperatures.”
So, there you have it. The good professor appears willing to compromise honesty for a preferred climate-catastrophe narrative; that’s what it seems, if indeed our professor was aware of the relatively recent publications. But, who cares about what I say, just a mortal right-wing-nut-job. Why not ask an expert – someone authoritative, a hallowed scientist perhaps, a ‘professor’ maybe? Like this guy, one of the authors of those words, the very “pervasive components” of the statement above, thank God that the likes of him exist:
Such a sterling bloke would never mislead you would he? Surely not – ignore the science just to support a climate-doom global-warming narrative? He would never, ever, pretend the LIA was just a NH ‘regional phenomenon’ when he knew, full well, all along, as he said it, that it was not, simply in an attempt to discredit someone with a countervailing point-of-view? He wouldn’t do that; would he?
Over to you…