Bryan Leyland was correct

Interviewed by Rawdon Christie on TV1, Bryan Leyland, top consulting hydo-engineer pointed out that climate is always changing and that computer modellers were not long range forecasters. Neither do they program in the dynamics of tides, cycles or other natural phenomena that influence climate and always have done so, long before Man ever set foot here. Yet TV1 "pulled" the interview the next day from the internet, responding to the orchestrated campaign of vehement protests from scientists receiving lucrative grants to study the Emperors-Clothes non-problem we call climate change and global warming.

That was a sad shame. For a tiny while there was a tad of balance on TV1, because daily the public are assailed with the propaganda of the IPCC and its puppets, all singing from the same alarmist songbook and all receiving funding for it from the public purse. Seldom are we allowed to hear from experts in their field if their opinions differ from the government line, which is to legislate towards policies that return maximum taxation opportunities.

Lest they get buried in suppression, let us review some of the points Bryan raised in his four minutes of air time. Bryan first claimed that everything is based on computer models and that they are programmed to show warming. Well, even the IPCC has admitted to that, and also the fact that any warming of the globe has not been happening for 17 years. NIWA has been hauled before the NZ courts for alleged figure-fiddling and the BoM government metservice in Australia has been forced to answer charges earlier this year from other government scientists that there has indeed been a systematic false manipulation of historic station data across Australia to show warming trends plus a cover-up, when there has in fact been demonstrable and widespread cooling.

Next, Bryan claimed that the models predicted warming when it hasn't happened. There is in fact no evidence that seas are rising more than the natural fluctuation of 1mm per year or that oceans are warming, along with ice melt. Antarctic scientists measure ice levels in summer, when edges recede – but the polar scientists are locked up indoors all winter and do not venture out when it is -80C. It is also pitch dark during each polar winter. And despite the scaremongers claiming otherwise, there is simply no visible or measurable evidence of any beaches in Australia or NZ going quietly under the waves.

It should be realised that no one knows what the temperature of the globe is supposed to be, and temperature means will differ for each place. Nor are we to know what the height of the sea should be, nor the amount of CO2 that is supposed to constitute the air, bearing in mind that it was 7000ppm during the last ice age and 5000-10,000ppm is considered safe for humans. Yet the climatologists insist sealevels are rising, due to CO2 emissions and that 400ppm is a dangerous level, regardless that we exhale 40,000ppm with every breath and 1000ppm of CO2 is pumped into plant glasshouses and we eat the proceeds..

Climatologists are claiming a mechanism that does not exist in physics; that a body of water in an enclosed container can expand due to above-surface heating. Just hold a blowtorch over a filled bath. The surface will warm, yes, but water is a poor conductor, and the warming will stay on or near the surface. The only thing that can warm the sea is heat from below. We know of volcanic activity from underwater thermal vents, particularly under West Antarctica, but they are a long physical distance away from vehicle emissions.

Bryan described the climate modellers as a relatively small group. This is true. Even the IPCC are not composed of scientists, but policy analysts and reviewers for the UN. There are thousands of scientists not receiving direct grants who are sceptical of the one billion dollars spent globally every day on global warming issues, one million in NZ alone.

Like climate change, global warming is a misnomer. The globe warms every day, receiving radiation from the sun. This ebbs and flows over a 100,000 year cycle. At the moment, the temperature is static, heralding the next cooling phase over the next few decades. That is a problem far more serious than global warming, because warming enhances food production. Cooling means less agricultural yield, and droughts affecting the world's already-poor.

It seems that if one challenges the scientific establishment one is called a conspiracy theorist. But if a large group sets out to deceive, like the cancer industry does to protect pharmaceutical profits, or the tobacco industry did for many years suppressing harmful effects of smoking, that is not some conspiracy. It is only considered conspiracy if those in charge are threatened.

There is a lot of money changing hands around the idea that the climate is changing, reaching tipping point, collapsing the planet and ending life. There needs to be public debate that is fair and free with equal air time given to both sides. If earth scientists have nothing to fear because they have solid evidence of the globe changing for the worse then they have no reason to suppress counter voices. The very vehemence of their opposition to the airing of a debate with a sceptic should sound alarm bells.

What are they in need of protecting? What would they lose if the public started to question their claims, that the Alpine Fault is going to blow anytime soon, seas are rising and will soon turn all our seaside towns into shallow lakes, carbon dioxide will suffocate the world and oil supply is approaching the last few barrels?

It was Mark Twain who famously said the angriest people he'd ever met were those who knew they were wrong. Methinks alarmists protest too much when challenged.

Ken Ring