Maori “great conservationists”? Why this unscientific nonsense?

Maori “great conservationists”?  Why is this distorting nonsense being peddled? Maori, after all, blithely burnt whole forests and wiped out numbers of species. Who profits from this constantly trumpeted,  quite wrong claim?

For example: “Within a couple of hundred years of settling in NZ, Maori had wiped out more than forty native species, including every one of the nine species of moa.

<a href=”https://teara.govt.nz/en/human-effects-on-the-environment“>https://teara.govt.nz/en/human-effects-on-the-environment</a>

Isolated for millions of years, New Zealand’s plants and animals were very vulnerable to the impact of humans. When the ancestors of Māori arrived around 1250–1300 AD, bringing rats and dogs, they started a wave of extinctions that continues today.

<a href=”https://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/“>https://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/</a>

Maori also had a significant impact on the archipelago’s fauna: nearly forty species of birds, a bat, three to five species of frogs and numerous lizard taxa became extinct during the pre-European Maori era. Factors leading to the extinction of these species were direct hunting, predation by or competition with introduced dogs and rats, human disturbance of nesting sites, and habitat destruction (mainly through burning).

<a href=”https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1866.pdf“>https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/1866.pdf</a>

Summary: Polynesian settlement of New Zealand (c. 1000 yr B.P.) led directly to the extinction or reduction of much of the vertebrate fauna, destruction of half of the lowland and montane forests, and widespread soil erosion.

<a href=”http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct“>http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct</a>

For millions of years, nine species of large, flightless birds known as moas (Dinornithiformes) thrived in New Zealand. Then, about 600 years ago, they abruptly went extinct. Their die-off coincided with the arrival of the first humans on the islands in the late 13th century….he is not surprised that the Polynesian settlers killed off the moas; any other group of humans would have done the same, he suspects. “We like to think of indigenous people as living in harmony with nature,” he says. “But this is rarely the case. ”

All the PR about New Zealand being an attractive destination for scientists needs closer scrutiny. So does the now highly questionable priority being laid upon todays’ scientists by only too compliant management both in private and in government institutions intrusively over-seeing research areas to ensure that the interests of now wealthy iwi come first.

It is not a feather in our cap that scientists now cannot today be left to do what they are most fitted for, undertaking pure research, thoroughly and methodically, without  a continuing, unrealistic pressure to at the same time swiftly find business or iwi funding to enable them to continue.

The politicisation of all our institutions  these recent decades has meant that New Zealand scientists are now hamstrung by the ideology of what was basically the New Zealand Business Roundtable’s 1990s  theorising that both the science and arts should be regarded as commodities – together with the efforts of this well-funded organisation to remove tenure from university staff.

Because of this, as the University of Canterbury’s School of Physical & Chemical scientists’ highly respected Dr Andy Pratt has pointed out, economic outcomes, and the pressure to swiftly achieve politicised results has ensured that “quality issues go down the tubes”. In an important,  previously published article, Dr Pratt points out that “an obsession with the cost of everything and the value of nothing vandalises society and undermines its values… Governments want to know what science’s discovery of the week will be, while in order to get funding, scientists must claim that they are going to cure cancer, or build a supercomputer.”

Added to this attack on pure science comes the virtual blackmailing now of our institutions where research funding depends upon local wealthy Maori corporations’ approval of such research – even when these neo-tribal organisations have absolutely no expertise in the areas into which they have intruded.

Would overseas scientists willingly come here, if they knew the political and economic hoops they today have to jump through in this country – to have a chance of retaining their jobs? There’s increasing doubt about this.

Charles Eason, the chief executive of Nelson’s Cawthron Institute, touted as  the country’s largest independent science organization, quite openly states that “The Cawthron aims to support the country’s economy through science while preserving the natural environment — in which New Zealand’s powerful indigenous Maori traditions  are deeply rooted. “Our Maori culture plays through our psyche,” Eason says. “Maori culture is very strong in terms of environmental protection.”

Assertions here need to be questioned.

  • Why has this highly politicised sea-change of the aim “to support the country’s economy “now become the stated responsibility of science – i.e. in real terms, of scientists?
  • Why is the factually wrong and scientifically unsupported claim that “Maori culture is very strong in terms of environmental protection” being peddled? Is it basically an excuse for the pressure now being placed by opportunistic iwi on what should be strongly independent organisations committed to genuine research? Have they in fact capitulated to priotising iwi interests?

Great scientists, as Andy Pratt reminds us, are kept young by an almost childlike curiosity about the world. What, however, is the inevitable result, when management makes this impossible by insisting on quick results, geared to serve business or moneyed interests?

His faith that the pendulum will have to swing back may be heartening – but not to the growing number of highly qualified scientists carrying the additional  burden of student loans, undertaken to enable them to achieve the highest possible qualifications  – but now having to drive taxis  – as the doors of learning and sharing are closed to them.

*

© Amy Brooke, Convenor, The 100 Days.  See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through my  BOOK Page at www.amybrooke.co.nz, or at Amazon’s Kindle.

The bully boys and girls have gone too far

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/07/the-bully-boys-and-girls-have-gone-too-far/

We all know that among human beings, in every ethnic grouping, individuals vary enormously. And I’ll always recall with gratitude the kindness of a Wellington Muslim café owner, Abdel, who, learning that we had just come from farewelling my mother, brought my sister and me a cup of coffee with an almond biscuit – and would take no payment.

Any well-justified concern at the aggressive worldwide march of Islam needs to take into account that most people share basic aims, wanting peace for their families and the best for their children. We have this in common with New Zealanders of all backgrounds – including family-minded Muslims who now regard themselves as New Zealanders and have happily become part of our communities.

However, the threat to this country from radicalised Islam targeting, propagandising, recruiting, even virtually blackmailing its own people is very real. So New Zealanders have a right to know what steps the government is taking to safeguard this country – and to limit the intake from those from Islamic background.

We should now be well aware, given what is happening right throughout Europe, and even in our closest neighbour, Australia, that when the numbers are sufficiently large, assimilation is replaced by virtual enclaves, or ghettoised settlements. Women and young girls continue to be sexually mutilated and basically enslaved by their male relatives, forced or brainwashed to wearing anachronistic, burdensome clothing,  while Islam’s deep antagonism to Christianity and the West should make us very wary of our government’s apparent naivety – if not incompetence  – in the face of its strident minority demands.

We all now well know the pattern happening world-wide. Radicalised activists from other cultures, sheltering within ethnic groups, begin to challenge majority rule – and to demand the damaging separatism which has occurred under the manipulative, ideological demands for multiculturalism.

So-called diversity, the superior merits of which we are constantly assailed with, is simply a weasel word wielded like a bludgeon to propagandise and intimidate New Zealanders beginning to ask well-overdue questions about what is happening to this country.

It is time for our politicians put their hands up to answer them. Our political parties’ responsibility is given to them by New Zealanders – to represent us, in accordance with our wishes – not to constantly over-ride them. But it is the latter which has now become entrenched.

Join our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – www.100days.co.nz

 © Amy Brooke

It’s all happening in Paris. But global warming?

Global warming? Really? If this is still a fact, why do the global warming believers keep refusing to debate it?

Well over a decade ago, when producing my magazine The Best Underground Press – Critical Review in some concern that in this country there was (and is) so very little in the way of investigative analysis into important issues of the day, my attention was drawn to the debate beginning to centre around the possible issue of AGW. The latter, as we know, is the
anthropogenic global warming theory that human beings are responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age.

One fact that interested me, when reviewing both sides of the debate, was that even then, a consensus of about 25,000 scientists, in what was written up at the time as the Seattle Agreement, disassociated themselves from the AGW theorising, arguing that the temporary temperature rise was entirely natural, and could well be assigned to other causes – as, for example, noted increases in solar activity (now declining) and apparently paralleling the rise. They argued that computer analysis, relying on input from researchers, was simply not capable of factoring in enough varied complex data; and that CO2 is not only a very minor atmospheric gas, but that it is actually beneficial to life on earth, vital to plant growth.

At the subsequent annual Summersounds Symposium, which I ran for a decade and half to provide for genuine debate on similar important issues, keynote speakers included highly reputable scientists with impeccable backgrounds in this area, such as New Zealand geologist and paleoclimatologist, Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, with a Ph.D. in Geology from Utrecht University.

Dr van der Lingen’s brilliant letter to MP Nick Smith, then Minister for the Environment, went unanswered. http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/node/158  This sort of response now from our government ministers is only too common. Shouldn’t we wonder why? And is it acceptable?

Other very interesting contributions from highly regarded scientists raised a number of questions. See: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_search&searchword=lingen

What was puzzling is that Gerrit and other scientists equally well qualified, and held in considerable respect overseas, were given little or no opportunity to engage in the debate in the mainstream media in this country. Among those we were fortunate enough to have presenting highly relevant material – and apparently virtually blacklisted by the media (let alone quite disgracefully sidelined from what should have been vigorous debate in our universities) has been Auckland’s Dr Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland.   See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

Possibly the most important question of all is why, rather than indulging in genuine debate – the only realistic way of getting to the truth of any issue – the facts presented by those concerned at what was happening were met from the very beginning with astonishing degrees of intolerance, and even venom. Why the childish name-calling as “deniers” those scientists who simply want a genuine debate? And what has happened to our universities?

Wellington’s Victoria University’s refusal to tolerate anyone on campus to debate the issues is fundamentally shocking – the antithesis of what a university should be. Moreover if one is sure of one’s facts, shouldn’t one be willing to have these tested in debate? An eminent IPCC reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray – has for some years now called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is fundamentally corrupt – due to his conclusion that significant parts of its work and scientific methods are unsound and that “ it resists all efforts to try to discuss all rectify these problems. ”

The reaction to a recent thoughtful editorial in the National Business Review shows to what extent an otherwise lively debate is obfuscated by some of those commenting. Check out the Editor’s Insight: Sceptics’ Guide to the Paris climate summit

What then of the actual debate? We have the evidence that some of the so-called proofs of global warming have been falsified – as, for exampl,e with the now infamous hockey stick graph which managed to do away with the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age!

So what has been behind the unprecedented propaganda drive which has resulted in so many – especially (but by no means only) of the less experienced and more potentially gullible younger generation convinced by what has become a quasi-religious creed – that the planet is threatened by a relatively minor and now past temperature rise? Thousands have converged on Paris convinced that we are faced with a potential doomsday scenario.

What is actually true? And should we be more worried that we are being faced with a global hoax on an unprecedented scale? If so, who benefits? Check out these “facts” with which the mainstream media continue to obligingly deluge us.

    . Thanks to the rise in CO2 emissions, we are faced with a rise in global temperatures never before seen in history·

    . The overall temperature rise of the past 200 years has been wholly unprecedented, and the C02 emitted since the start of the industrial revolution must still be a major factor

    . Two recent studies have shown that “97 per cent of all climate scientists” still believe in man-made global warming. How can this evidence be denied?

    . Melting polar ice is threatening a disastrous rise in sea-levels (not to mention those vanishing polar bears)

    . Global sea levels are still rising – so worryingly, that little island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Maldives may soon have vanished beneath the waves

    . Terrible hurricanes and cyclones like Katrina and Erica give clear proof of how global warming is bringing us more deadly storms.

    . It’s still better to rely on “renewable energy” than fossil fuels

 Are these “facts” correct? And if not, who benefits by persistently pushing them?

On the Daily Telegraph website, Christopher Booker presents and examines these constant claims. His analysis puts that of our mainstream media editorial writers to shame – or it should. There is little excuse for the once- over-lightly, lazy material with which the New Zealand public is being inundated. His analysis shouldn’t be missed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12025836/Paris-climate-conference-10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-worry-about-man-made-global-warming.html

The AGW theorising is described on pretty accurately on http://www.conservapedia.com/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory, pointing out that it was and is “highly favoured by liberals, as it provides justification for carbon taxes and the Kyoto Protocol. It targets human beings for being responsible for most of the slight warming trend seen since the Little Ice Age. This theory began to be highly attractive to those seeing its possibilities as a multi-million-(billion) dollar earner for those dreaming up the concept of trading carbon credits, and for governments to take advantage of a promising source of increased taxation, in the form of carbon taxes, other emissions trading controls and for an an opportunity for the creeping State to intrude even further into our lives.

The AGW theory in fact has been seized upon as the only acceptable explanation for the 1.5 degrees F of warming of the air near the earth’s surface recorded since 1850. The idea that human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, can significantly warm the earth’s atmosphere is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. “However, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore also said global warming is most likely a “natural phenomenon,” because there is no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that alarmism is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. It has also now created what has become a kind mass hysteria, propagated with the near religious fervour that brooks no contradiction… as well as very much enriching prominent individuals and institutions trumpeting it.

But what if it is wrong? And what of the hypocrisy involved in turning a blind eye to the very real pollution poisoning the air in developing countries, and accommodating their continuing to do so – while damaging the economies of the West by imposing punitive taxation, attacking productive industries and best farming practices? The ultimate futility of all must be in raising taxes across a country such as ours, with a struggling economy, to buy carbon credits, which do nothing whatever to reduce any real pollution – regardless of its origins.

Bryan Leyland is a power industry consultant and New Zealand Climate Science Coalition energy adviser. In a 2012 Dominion Post article http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/6220264/Global-warming-a-modern-day-myth he challenged the computer modelling, and the disinformation, whether accidental or deliberately misleading – saying he leaned towards the latter.

Today he argues, “Any scientist worth his salt* would realise that the objective is to stop dangerous man-made global warming that, it is claimed, is caused by carbon dioxide emissions. But if he read the latest IPCC technical reports he would note that the IPCC admit that the world has not warmed for the last 12 years or so, that there is huge uncertainty about the “climate forcing factor” that drives the climate models to predict dangerous warming and he would realise that all the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming. This proves that they are worthless for predicting future temperatures.

If he* did a little bit more research, he would note that many competent scientists are predicting the return of a Little Ice Age. They would also note that, unlike the global warmers, their research is based on past climate cycles – rather than speculations fed into computer programs. They would therefore assign that much more credibility.

They would then be driven to the inevitable conclusion that a dangerous man-made global warming is most definitely not happening, and that more than $2 trillion has been squandered on wind and solar power and suchlike for no reason at all.”

If so, our government has a great deal to answer for. But then, we are increasingly finding that our government has indeed a great deal to answer for…in this and other important areas.  And all this costs us a great deal – in more ways than one…

                                                             *******

©Amy Brooke, Convenor – www.100days.co.nz – and author of The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand…what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians…