Dear NZ Herald – why are you publishing a climate denier without telling your readers they are a climate denier


In his must read blog today, Trotter highlights the manner in which big oil and big industry push the climate denial message to stop the citizens of the world from demanding real change from our politicians…

The Fossil Fuel Industry-inspired “Big Lies” that anthropogenic global warming is either a scientific “hoax” or a “left-wing plot” to bring down the capitalist system. Earth’s climate is always changing, they argue. Long before human-beings made their appearance, the planet was, by turns, boiling hot and freezing cold. If, and the word “if” is emphasised, the planet is going through another warming period, then 1) it’s not our fault; and 2) there’s nothing we can do about it except adapt the best way we can. After all, with just a tiny fraction of the technology they now possess, human-beings made it through the Ice Age!

…what Chris misses is not just those with vested interests distorting the truth about climate change, but the mainstream corporate media who allow so much of that propaganda to go unchallenged.

Look at todays NZ Herald, they have a Dr Geoff Duffy vomiting the most inanely dense science garbage to make it sound like there is no science to suggest methane increases global warming and attacks the governments attempt to include methane (the gas our cattle produce) into any climate change legislation.

Look at how the NZ Herald describes Dr Geoff Duffy…

TDB Recommends

Dr Geoff Duffy is a professor emeritus of chemical engineering at the University of Auckland.

…sound pretty robust right? Well, do some digging and lo and behold, Dr Geoff Duffy is a climate denial scientist who blogs for the NZ climate denial blog, Climate Realists,  and who funds this climate denial blog? why surprise, surprise the fucking sheep and beef farmers from the East Coast…

We are sheep and beef farmers farming off the East Coast of the North Island of NZ.

We believe in the necessity of farming sustainably and making wise use of finite resources.

We believe in protecting the environment.

But…..     we also believe all decisions should be based on scientific fact, not mere conjecture.

When the Kyoto agreement was signed we believed what we heard, and were global warming believers. But with the announcement of the ‘fart tax’ our suspicions were roused.

Since then we have done extensive research on both sides of the argument.

We have to conclude that if any global warming is being caused by man, the net effect is very small, and will not have any harmful effect on the planet.

So we formed the Climate Realists’ Network. New members are welcome.

…so let’s get this completely fucking straight – the NZ Herald publishes a climate denial scientist who is arguing against including methane in climate change legislation but don’t tell you that he is a climate denial scientist who writes on a blog that is funded by the very industry that methane gas inclusion would hurt the most.

I mean, even for the fucking NZ Herald this is deceitful  beyond belief.

Climate change poses an existential threat to our species and corporate media allowing climate deniers to speak without telling readers they are climate deniers is a deception too far.


  1. Are these the twats that assert that animal (cows, sheep) generated methane is different to mineral gas methane?

    So many lies and liars it’s hard to keep up with them.

    If there’s one industry that is dependent on stable climate it’s farming and agriculture.

    How do you recognise a kiwi farmer?
    Bullet holes in the foot and nose cut off.

      • Dunno why you’re deriding E-clectic, Mack. He makes a valid point. Deniers point at anything but carbon (plus other sundry greenhouse gases).

        It really does remind me of the tobacco industry: lung cancer? Caused by the sun, chemicals, cat hair… anything but, god forbid, their product.

        I’m surprised you’re still going down this route.

        • What I find interesting, is that the climate deniers state that the scientist have no evidence to say climate change is manmade. In the same breath the climate deniers rant and rave that this is just natural phenomena, yet can’t provide an ounce of evidence to prove this so, Frank.

        • Mack is an intransigent denier – last time I looked he doesn’t accept the Greenhouse Effect or that there has been any warming of note since the 1800s.
          That’s just so 1997.

          • I hope he never steps out onto the surface of Venus then E-Clectic, without adequate shielding. The runaway greenhouse effect on that planet is something wicked. I’m told… (Though who knows, maybe it’s all a conspiracy to portray Venus as a hellish cauldron of acid clouds, CO2, and horizontal lightening – whereas it’s actually closer to the Bahamas on a summery day. Maybe Al Gore holidays there, along with NASA admin and scientists.)

            As each year is warmer than the previous and as CO2 levels creep up, the protestations of deniers becomes more farcical than anything else. I’m reminded of King Canute at the seaside and the incoming tide…

            • Why does TDB never mention the Stratospheric Aerosol Injection program being run by Prof David Keith out of Harvard University? He’s spending billions on spraying to “cool down the planet”. On another note…did you know you can now pay to have rain? The opposite of this is, of course, no rain.

  2. The NZ Herald stands for deceit and manipulation.

    If anyone were to write an article presenting the actual science (that the concentration of atmospheric methane is increasing and that it has a warming potential more than 80 times that of carbon dioxide for time scales that matter), the NZ Herald would refuse to publish the article.

  3. Great post Martyn. It seems climate denial is alive and well at Auckland University, even after the departure of the late Associate Professor Chris de Freitas. Surely this is a further hit to their international standing as a university. Dr Duffy makes a serious misrepresentation of the facts when he says global temperatures are not rising even though CO2 has increased exponentially. This statement contradicts all known sources of data on this, including NASA. Dr Duffy is one of the famous 3% of scientists not in agreement on current climate science. Should such scientists, then, have only 3% of media coverage?

    • Climate deniers are unreal and un-believable as they live in the twilight zone.

      “We need to adapt” – they say!!!!!

      When their homes all go up in smoke will they learn to walk through a walll of fire???

      And when the floods wash them out to sea will they learn to grow gills???


    • If he is wrong, then how much have global temperatures increased in the last 20 years? (Not including the latest El Nino pike?)

      de Freitas was hounded to his death by people like you. So you need to start answering questions, real soon.

        • Information on how much global temperatures have risen (and fallen) over the last several hundred million years is also available on the net. Anthropogenic Climate Change believers such as yourself assert that this time it’s “unprecedented”, despite providing zero evidence that this exact scenario hasn’t happened many times before (since geological time-scale records can’t possibly resolve 100 year changes, given the low resolution of the data). The facts are there is preciously little correlation of temperature and CO2, and when such correlation exists the CO2 rise tends to trail the temperature rise (i.e. increases in temperature give increases in CO2).

          • Pick the timescale to suit your argument.
            Geological timescales are all very well but anthropogenic timescales have more utility if we’re interested in survival of our species.

            What is your explanation for the temperature rise since the 1800s?

      • Andy, haven’t we heard the same bullshit arguments used again co2 emissions? Now you and other stooges for the agribusiness sector are parroting the old myths again?

        When will you learn, mate?? What will get through your thick skull that industrialisation has led to devastatingly environmental problems, chief among them anthropogenic climate change.

        • Andy, how dumb do you think we are? Or how dumb are you?
          You asked:
          “If he is wrong, then how much have global temperatures increased in the last 20 years? (Not including the latest El Nino pike?)”
          Funnily enough, 1998 (20 years ago) WAS the last El Nino peak (not pike, for heaven’s sake..)
          And since you start from the last one, this latest El Nino peak should indeed be counted.
          Spoils your poorly-put case, doesn’t it?

    • Even better news, we will finally have much better public transport, light rail and cheaper alternatives to petrol driven vehicles. But it’s all good Andy, stay living in the past, National have always been strong at that.

      • Bert, I live in the rural South Island. Does the government have plans for a light rail network for me? Or is it only for future looking people in cities?

        Keep living in the past, National are good at that.

        Yes good old National eh?

        Do you have a computer made of wood and hemp?

    • Petrol going up as planned and as explained by Rosa Koire Agenda 21/30 Exposed. Next thing cars will be banned because of emissions … but no one ever mentions Stanley Meyer killed because he showed his car could run on water. Why aren’t we demanding Stan’s engine put into all cars?

  4. Why do they have an obligation to identify their ideological leanings but not so for those who believe in climate change?
    I believe as much as the next person that the Herald is to journalism what McDonalds is to food, but you are being grossly hypocritical.

    • Not at all, Jay. If someone is partisan, we need to known that. How would you like an “impartial economic commentator” who turns out to have been a close advisor to a union, leftwing party, Socialist International, etc? You’d want to know and you should know. It’s a little thing called transparency.

      As for your comment about the Herald and McDonalds, yes, well, on that point it’s hard to disagree with you.

  5. And not one word about the actual amoral climate-criminals out there. Sure, chew off the hand that feeds your fat arse but not one word about the disastrous effect the foreign banking cartels have on our lives. Forcing our farmers into debt thus consequently forcing our farmers into over stocking and to over-use artificial fertilisers. And all that, aided and abetted by a cadre of all bought and paid for Kiwi-as politicians who make billions for their mates from grifting the income from those same farmers…
    I have to wonder… just how informed are you? You come across as a bit half cooked when the facts and stats are required to support your myopic opinions? Do you get out much? Serious question.

    • The actual climate criminals are people like you and me that consume products and services that use fossil fuels for manufacture and transport.

      We all need to be punished, very, very hard

      • No, not “punished” Andy (unless you’re into that sort of thing, hey, who am I to judge?).

        But we do need to change our ways, just as we phased out CFCs in the latter 20th century. Or DDT before that. Or thalidomide for pregnant women. Or asbestos. We either learn and correct our mistakes as a species, or suffer the consequences. That’s it. There ain’t no alternative, to borrow a phrase from neo-libs.

  6. Geoff Duffy isn’t a climate denier – he’s seen climate so he knows there is one.

    He’s also not a climate CHANGE denier – Because, as we all know the earth’s climate has been all over the place over geological time, even in relatively recent times, without the assistance of mankind.

    What’s he’s denying is that climate models are worth anything and so-called ‘climate scientists’ can make predictions based on their models. Because so far they’ve been dead wrong.

    Please don’t try to create a false dichotomy – there are many nuanced positions on climate change. It’s a highly complex topic that non-technical people likely cannot grasp.

    • “He’s also not a climate CHANGE denier – Because, as we all know the earth’s climate has been all over the place over geological time, even in relatively recent times, without the assistance of mankind.”

      Don’t be obtuse, Andrew. You know full well that its the SPEED OF (anthropogenic) CLIMATE CHANGE that is the critical problem, not climare change per se. As you pointed out yourself; GEOLOGICAL TIMES. We’ve achieved the same in a century.

      Are you paying attention?

    • Thanks for the comment Andrew

      Unfortunately climate change has become such a toxically political subject, it’s impossible to have a rational discussion about the science or the policy that leads from it.

      • Rubbish, it’s entirely possible.
        But don’t forget that the pseudoscientific arguments put forward by the fossil fuel and denier lobby are designed to head off meaningful policy discussion.
        As long as the deniers continue to push “the science isn’t settled”, CO2 is actually beneficial, the effects are minimal, it’s anything but carbon it becomes impossible to have a productive policy discussion – which it appears is what the vested interests want.

        When the denier lobby can come up with a coherent explanation for the already observed warming since the 1800s (other than a grab bag of theories with the only common element being “anything but carbon”) then we’ll start listening.

        • You will start listening? I very much doubt it.

          You will be screaming “denier” as the last lights go out and the last petrol station shuts up for business. The problem is that you will be shouting “denier” in an empty dark room where no one is listening

          • Andy change is needed.

            Restructuring how humans live and how we affect our surrounding has little to do with clinging onto the present raft of “economic” arguments.

            Did people live before 1800.

            • “Change is needed” said the man in a warm room sitting next to a computer

              I’m all for change. Fusion, Thorium, you name it.

              • Effective change means using much less energy and resources, shrinking our footprint on the planet and restoring not consuming.

                The free ride is over.

                More of the same won’t work.

              • That’s beautiful @Andy, exactly as demonstrated by studies of Cultural Cognition.
                When nuclear power is presented as a solution, climate change deniers are more likely to accept climate change as a serious problem.

  7. An often stated fact is that we have lost over ninety percent of our wetlands to farming and other sources. Thats a ninety percent reduction in methane from wetlands, maybe we need the odd bit of cow flatuance to redress the balance

  8. Message to moderator: your system seems to be favouring the climate change deniers. I answer one of them, my message disappears into your moderation system, and a few hours later the deniers have had more published, but I will probably have to wait until tomorrow (going by past experience) to even see my possibly outdated message even come up.
    What is wrong? Fix it, or you will always be a thousand miles behind The Standard.

    [In Vino, I’m unaware of any preference shown toward either side on this debate. Moderators and admin scan each message for abuse, trolling, defamatory content, and then simply publish. It depends on which of us is online at any given time, as I also search through “Spam” to see if any submitted posts have ended up in the wrong place. That’s more spam for viagra, lesbian pornsites, etc, that I really want to see. As well as running my household I try to spend time here on TDB. It’s not instantaneous, I admit, but on the plus side there’s a bit of trolling and ads for “sexy Ukrainian babes” that you’ll never have to see. – Scarletmod]

  9. I have said it many times before and I’ll say it again. Air temperatures can change dramatically and land surface temperatures can change dramatically (sometimes by tens of degrees Celsius in a 24 hour period).

    What matters when we are discussing overall trends relating to climate change is the increase in the temperature of the oceans, particularly the deep water on the oceans. Oceans cover over 70% of the Earth’s surface and have a huge thermal mass.

    The evidence is irrefutable. Despite large amounts of cold water entering the oceans from melting glaciers etc. the temperature (or hear content) of the oceans has been rising dramatically, and in 2017 the heat content was the highest ever recorded. That is abundantly clear from the top graph at this link.

    What is more, the heat content of the oceans has been rising at an alarming rate since mid-1990s.

    Of course climate change deniers, if they ever bothered to actually look at the evidence, would assert that the data used to generate the graphs was fabricated by ‘corrupt’ scientists. Or that the rise in heat content had nothing to do with carbon dioxide, despite the CO2 content of the atmosphere having risen by 45 ppm, from about 360 ppm to well over 405 ppm, over the period under consideration.

    In this uncertain world there are a few things we can be certain about. We can be certain that the CO2 content of the atmosphere will be higher in 2019 than in 2018 and that the heat content of the oceans will be higher in 2019 than in 2018. We can be certain that the consequences of overheating will be increasingly dire.

    We can be also certain that climate change deniers will continue to deny the reality of planetary overheating and will continue to present faux arguments, even as the consequences of planetary overheating do become ever more dire. And we can be certain that climate change deniers will cherry-pick data or observations, and attempt to misrepresent the science in order to to support their phony arguments.

      • So, who are you going to believe? Someone with vested interests who operates an obscure blog or the those who collect the data, do actual research into the topic and publish peer reviewed articles in journals?

        Have you ever heard of The Precautionary Principle, whereby if an action may lead to catastrophic consequences you avoid that action?

        Isn’t it interesting that the international money-lender system, combined with the corporatised mind-control system, has pushed the geochemical systems that made civilisation possible so far out of balance that they pose an existential threat not just to civilisation but to most life on Earth.

        Isn’t it interesting that governments act with no caution whatsoever when it comes to the factors t which support life long term, and just carry on serving the short-term interests of the international money-lender system?

        We now have less than a decade before the entire system collapses as a consequence of the energy depletion and environmental damage that result from overpopulation and overconsumption.

        And those that living through the energy decline phase and population collapse phase will have to endure the consequences of this:

  10. Mr Bradbury, when the Herald quotes you, do they disclose you as a Climate Alarmist?
    A greater scientific brain than either you or I made the statement, “Science is NOT consensus, when there is consensus it is NOT science”.
    Do you not believe that there is a body of erudite scientist well versed on the subject of GW/Climate Change, that hold an opinion that is contrary to yours, but it would seem you are not confident enough to debate them on an equal footing.
    Your opening cartoon applies to people of your ilk just as well. How many of Al Gore’s alarmist statements have proven to be false?

    • ‘Al Gore’s alarmist statements’

      alarmist statements???

      A decades ago Al Gore highlighted the overheating predicament but then went on to provide ‘solutions’ that would not work. They would not work because Al Gore’s solutions were designed to keep industrial civilisation going. Industrial civilisation is the problem.

      Interestingly, our species thrived for 200,000 years without agriculture or civilisation. Thrived in a world of abundance!

      Industrial civilisation comes to an end this century because it is predicated on desequestration of carbon and is predicated on wrecking the environment.

      Collapse is already underway but we cannot say whether complete collapse comes as early as 2030 or somewhat later.

  11. The Green movement seems to have painted itself into a bit of a corner.

    Lacking any clear understanding of the scientific and technical issues they have in the past railed against benign technologies that are environmentally beneficial.

    Genetic modification, as we all now know, if highly beneficial for humans and the planet. It allows us to grow more food in a smaller area, thus leaving more habitat for animals. We’ve nearly 30 years of experience with GMOs now and they’ve been proven to be perfectly safe. The Green movement is currently doing its best to block the introduction of ‘Golden Rice’ which is a GMO that provides improved nutrition for poor people in SE Asia. Great doing Greenpeace!

    Nuclear power.
    This is probably our only solution to the energy issue. To date nuclear power has proven to be the safest and cleanest means of producing electricity.

    Wind and solar power.
    Whilst they have niche applications they are unsuitable for supporting a base load on an electrical grid. Both Germany and Australia have found this to their cost. Germany is now building new coal fired power stations and has just approved the strip mining of a 17,000 year old forest because firstly they cancelled their nuclear program and secondly tried run their industry with wind power. What a joke! That’s ‘Grunen’ for you!

    The Greens need to walk back on these three policy failures if they’re ever going to be taken seriously by educated people.

    • The Greens have failed, but not for the reasons you have suggested.

      The Greens have failed because they have not put anything like the necessary resources into highlighting the critical issues of the times – society’s dependence on rapidly depleting fossil fuels, excessive pollution of the environment, the inherent instability of the financial system, overconsumption and overpopulation. Indeed, the Greens policy statements indicate they believe (or are pretending) that the global system is stable and has a future measured in decades.

      Maybe the Greens failure is because no one in the senior hierarchy actually understands the critical issues of the times. Or it maybe because they are simply scared to mention them. Or they are blocked by outside forces.

      Whatever the reason for the lack of information flow, the bulk of NZ populace remains ignorant about all the fundamental reasons why the economic system is unsustainable and why it is taking EVERYONE towards catastrophe.

      The extremely dangerous times we live in are the product of decades of failure by all political parties in NZ and their equivalents overseas. The level of danger rises by the day because none of the issues are being addressed appropriately.

      If you bother to examine the link below you will note that annual decline in atmospheric CO2 (due to northern hemisphere photosynthesis) has ended. Atmospheric CO2 will rise over coming months to a new record high in May 2019. And a similar rise to a new record high will occur over coming years, resulting ever greater disturbance of the geochemical systems that make life-as-we-know-it possible. This disturbance of geochemical systems will result in ever greater disruption of business-as-usual and result in ever-greater death tolls to humans and wildlife.

      If you have been following the disastrous trend in the Arctic you will know that waters there have been unusually warm and that most of the multi-year ice has melted. If you have been following the stability of glaciers around the world you will know they are melting at phenomenal rates. The implications are obvious, both in terms of availability of fresh water and sea level rise.

      If you have been following extreme weather and climate trends you will know there is danger of Dust Bowl conditions emerging in the US and Australia. Even as severe drought impact, torrential rain events and storms cause unprecedented damage in other locations.

      The inexorable annual rise in atmospheric CO2:

Comments are closed.