Gareth Morgan: The science is irrefutable

Nobody wants to hear it from the Greens. Perhaps they will listen to Gareth Morgan, one of New Zealand’s more successful economists. Gareth got fed up with all the noise surrounding global warming, so he decided to hire the best scientific guns he could find on both sides of the so-called debate. Sceptics vs Alarmists.

His conclusion?

Much of the science pointing to human caused global warming is irrefutable.

And New Zealand?

We’re an absolute joke, the home of double standards. New Zealand’s record on this is terrible. We’re a joke. If it’s anything like economics, you really need people to have their heads banged against the wall before they wake up and say; shivers, this is for real.

There is not much more to be said that we at frogblog haven’t already said a hundred times. It’s just nice to hear it from the finance sector, where we cop so much grief for supposedly being unscientific.

Gareth’s message got interlaced on TVNZ’s Sunday programme with some disturbing footage from Takuu, shot by kiwis Lyn Collie and Briar March. Watch both Parts I & II to see the whole story.

As I write this, I hear a Genesis Energy advert in the background, telling me that they are doing their part for climate change. Yeah Right. Along with Gerry Brownlee, they are working to tear apart all the meagre climate policy that the Greens twisted Labour’s arm to produce last term.

Gareth is about to publish a new book based on his research, Poles Apart. I think I’ll give it a read.

67 thoughts on “Gareth Morgan: The science is irrefutable

  1. Successful financier as in makes lots of money at other people’s expense and is a go to man in the finance media in order to keep people confused and ignorant about the workings of the global financial pyramid scheme that has stripped New Zealand society bear.

    Now he’s into the Global Warming scene, which is the next big on the horizon bubble shark game, or so it is hoped.

  2. Oh, dear even. You are the cynic! Not only are the rich out to get you, so are the Greens! As for the pyramidical nature of global finance -well, i will agree that exponential growth is the fantasy of the ignorant, and there is a lot of that about among our so called financial elite.

  3. even seems to have been dabbling in the science fiction work of Wishart and his rapture fantasy fan club.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, Gareth has always struck me as a sensible sort of chap, someone who thinks about what he says. He brings to the table considerable resources, contacts, and an intimate knowledge of the back room workings of the New Zealand money houses. I’m not sure that I would be happy with whatever economic solutions he might derive, but to have his clout behind a solution at all is enlivening.

    I look forward to his book and, perhaps, a glimpse at how he sees Aotearoa one generation from now.

  4. I have a lot of time for Gareth – he’s a generally sensible chap who adds a lot to our national debate. I’ll buy the book when it comes out.

  5. That report was seriously strange. It was a mess.

    Why isn’t Bougainville being swamped? Why aren’t other low lying islands being swamped? Could Takuu be sinking?

    The report avoided the obvious questions.

    And what were Gareths conclusions? In what context? It didn’t really say. I guess we have to buy the book, huh….

  6. Gareth Morgan was calling for an end our over investment in housing back in the 90’s (our foreign debt borrowings for mortgages doubled from 80 to 160 billion 2002-2007). Government did not listen – it should have.

    Whether poeple believe that we have caused global warming or not, the resources underpinning our economic system are finite and more efficient use of them is a rational policy course. As the resource price will rise, nations which adapt more quickly to that (use them more sparingly/efficiently) gain a competitive advantage (and we do want to increase or welath/incomes do we not?).

  7. It is not a surprise to see a dubious high profile financier having his praises sung here, the Green leadership was recently singing the praises of P.M. John Key after all, despite no actions that could be deemed as having any real effect against the currently engineered financial consolidation that is increasing the tempo of the rat race for most NZ’ers.

    When in fact in reality, they have instituted a Regressive Tax through the back door to top things off and help provide a buffer to those at the top end at the expense of those at the bottom, but hardly anyone is educated in how the money price system really works and very few possess any intiative to do it themselves.

    SO there is a regressive tax scheme in place, which while providing a buffer to the top is only going to magnify the systemic shortfalls in the nearish future, paving the way for New Zealand’s broken and robbed economic structure being intergrated into a regional currency.
    Gareth Morgan won’t be telling you this in his next ‘must read’ tomb of wisdom, which no doubt the Green’s will be praising along with their continuing acclaim for John Key in the foreseable future.

  8. The difference between Gareth and John Key is that Gareth prefers working with the facts, whereas the Goober is fucking around with our money squabbling about business make-blelieve.

  9. even, you call Morgan a “financier” – he is involved with a company called Infometrics (economic advice) – recently he has been involved in forming a Kiwi Saver investment fund (they invest the money saved by those who choose this investment fund to do so on their behalf).

    He has also built up some private wealth over the years – and has become involved in charity works – do you know of some “financier” role that I do not?

    The rest of your post is devoid of sufficient specific detail to enable it to be intelligible to anyone but yourself.

    The negative connection of secular Greens (the new urban liberals?) and some “financier” elite is usually the hallmark of some Christian nation (millennial advent) association and or white group racism.

  10. That article on sunday was total rubbish, just another atol sinking under its own weight back into the oceanic crust.
    I suggest frog, you read “air con” before Gareth’s book, it actually has real facts, and they don’t tell a pretty story for AGW.
    I almost believed in AGW, it is disgraceful how people like Al Gore lied through their teeth regarding scientific evidence.
    I am truly astonished at the level of deception and propaganda the AGW crowd have engaged in, AGW is so clearly a total load of garbage when you look at the facts.
    I think Sapient is right, most people on this earth are gullable idiots.

  11. Before frog goes into complete rapture for Gareth Morgan and his no doubt wisdom, he may like to read this.

    http://nbr.infometrics.co.nz/don-t-dilly-dally—vote-green_281.html

    In which he advocates voting for the Greens, not because of the environemt but to break the economic direction that both Labour and National are taking.

    However it includes gems like this

    But GM is not the reason I will vote Green. Where Labour’s an economics illiterate, the Greens of course are worse. They are simply anti- markets, anti- earned income, and anti- differentiation in wealth. It’s this sort of seriously different commitment we need from a government if New Zealand is going to transition with haste through this era of economic regress.

    He would rather have a destabelised economic structure so as to forge a new economc structure that is not explained, but I would have a guess is more in line with free market approach then centralised control.

    A Green-led government would bring on greater damage to New Zealand’s economy and lost opportunities for New Zealanders. Even the most lazy in financial markets would quickly realise the turn New Zealand had taken and the discipline of international capital outflows would whack voters out of their stupor.

    So a vote for Green is not for the policies expounded in the charter but to make voters wake up to the stupidity of the current economic model. The Greens economic policy being non existant.

    On the Continent Greens are virtually extinct now, having risen to substantial heights 10 years ago. Relegated to the political looney bin by Europeans, they are at their zenith in New Zealand right now and voters should seize that opportunity with both hands – to bring on the demise of socialist government as fast as possible. This makes far more sense than voting Labour to keep the Greens out (say on a single issue like GM), and oodles more sense than voting National before it’s had the necessary time in opposition to formulate a coherent policy mix that isn’t a socialist copy.

    His vote for Greens is not that he is endowed with love for the Green ideology, he treats them with contempt and as a protest vote to “bring about the demise of socialist governments as fast as possible”

    What is the phrase again? “Keep our friends close but your enemies even closer” or words to that effect. Is that is what the Greens are doing with Gareth Morgan?

  12. I figure if we can work with National on some things, we can work with Gareth on some too.

  13. Gerrit – that was seven years ago! I didn’t see Sunday and obviously haven’t read his book yet, but I suspect Gareth Morgan has moved on. As has Green policy, although (and Gareth might not have realises it then), he and we were both saying pretty much the same thing as each other about the housing market back then too.

    As for global warming, I say good on Gareth. Rather than join the “sceptics” or “alarmists” camp on the basis of belief or ideology, he decided to find out for himself what the science said. The real science, that is – not the claptrap that Shunda reads.

    Shunda, did you actually bother to read the documents published by the New York Times that frog linked too last week?

  14. Wow, Wishart really is the sensible one:

    What they [“wild greens”] really mean is that they want ordinary families and kids to become extinct, leaving space for the Green elite to run the planet and enjoy exclusive bird-watching excursions while feasting on the bones of six year olds who’d earlier been sold to Asian brothels.

  15. A posting from another websight that i’ve just seen that explains the general jist:

    ‘climate change’ is worse than ‘the war on terror’ tag, what the clueless hordes are advocating is a tax on the carbon cycle to stop Global Warming.
    Yes, new scientist would have run that petition after the editor was fired for not going along with the agenda. Google it if you want to find his name, it’ll be in all the links i have but can’t be bothered finding it, do it yourself if you think i’m making it up.
    As to your second question, it is well known to informed people for example that All Gore, the king GLobal Warming pimp himslef comes from an old time oil family. Media, oil companies etc are all interlocked, you are right there but they are all owned eventually by the private banking cartel the prints for profit and owns the majority of the world’s money supply.
    Ultimately, to understand why they have targetted Carbon, it is a way to increase the work load on populations, due to the fundamental nature of the carbon cycle, to the point of survival for the majority while enabling a never ending illusion of debt cycles related to the way credit works to function without bringing down the system. The private money system requires this change to function now because it has basically acquired the entire planet’s resources yet needs an outlet to continously grow into or it will collapse, as is going on at the moment inthe hoped for transition of the global money power into a Green carbon credits type economy.
    The culprit is really the concept of Democracy, for it shouldn’t be the onus on those who understand what’s going on to explain to the masses thier folly all the time.
    The solution to the whole mess is GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME (which will be self-regulating once set up), and then we can end this fraud of Democracy as the ‘basis’ of a free and prosperous society.

  16. toad

    Gerrit – that was seven years ago

    Are you saying he hs changed his tune on the Greens economic plocy or has he changed his tune on AGW.

    I did not say he had changed his tune on AGW, jus that his economic policy is in direct contrast with the Greens.

    He hated socialism to the core then, wonder if he does now?

    No I think he is doing an Al Gore, there is money to be made in carbon trading so lets publish a book, (film to follow?) and get on the money making band wagon.

    He is New Zealands Al Gore in the making.

    Strange bedfellow for the Greens.

  17. “..I think Sapient is right, most people on this earth are gullable idiots..”

    a wishart-fan..?..are you shunda..?

    that’d be a qed to yr ‘gullable(sic) idiots’

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  18. “The real science, that is – not the claptrap that Shunda reads.”

    Go read the book, you will find Ian only makes reference to “real science”
    I would say read it and weep if it wasn’t such a damned serious issue.
    You can conveniently reject Wishart because of his religious beliefs if you like, but you are only fooling yourself. The REAL proof would appear to be absolutely rock solid against AGW.

  19. “a wishart-fan..?..are you shunda..?”

    Yeah, I am actually, You chaps hate him cause he’s a “fundie” yet that in no way changes the facts he has discovered. I guess the truth hurts to much.
    We need a sustainable revolution, definately, we don’t need to destroy our economy over some psuedo carbon problem.

  20. “Someone who uses the ‘cooling since 1998′ line cannot be that serious.”

    Continue believing the lie then.

  21. Yeah, I am actually, You chaps hate him cause he’s a “fundie” yet that in no way changes the facts he has discovered. I guess the truth hurts to much.

    I don’t think anyone ‘hates’ him because he’s a ‘fundie’*, it’s just his perpective on evolution is a little out of sync with…the odd scientist, by the sounds, which diminshes his general credibility. It shouldn’t necessarily matter re: global warming, but in any case the reviews don’t look that great. I would have a little trouble believing a non-scientist could become an expert on biology and a multitude of climate subjects also. I don’t even know why he bothered to do this, there are plenty of other books with his perspective out there.

    *isn’t every religious person a fundie, really? ‘Faith’ and all that.

    Continue believing the lie then.

    It’s warm today so there.

  22. Shunda barunda said: You can conveniently reject Wishart because of his religious beliefs if you like, but you are only fooling yourself.

    It’s got nothing to do with Wishart’s religious beliefs Shunda. It is because he is talking SH!T. Although it may be because of his religious beliefs that he is deliberately talking sh!t because the evidence is inconvenient to those beliefs.

    Gareth Renowden did a great job of pointing out some of the more ridiculous, extravagant and plain wrong assertions in Wishart’s book here at Hot Topic yesterday.

  23. Great link toad and an interesting comment from the guy who used to do illustrations for Wishart too. All this just demonstrates once again that Wishart is the real loony in the room. I really can’t believe even the AGW deniers like Shunda would site him as a source in support of their stance on the science, he so discredits himself and their argument.

    In the thread I posted a link to above, Shunda was making similar claims about Wishart’s Divinity Code, which is his response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion and which Shunda also claimed was just the scientific facts on the matter proving Dawkins wrong in his “poorly written” book, though I doubt he ever read it. I asked for some examples of Wishart’s wisdom, but Shunda doesn’t seem to want to provide any. I wonder why.

    Wishart and Hager should get a room together….

    You may not like Hager’s politics, but to lump him in with Wishart is just not credible.

  24. BP – I have to agree with you that the report was a mess. It looked to me like they originally had a much different take on Gareth – all week they were advertising the thing like Gareth was going to solve global warming – like a big lead up and selling of his book. Then they got cold feet, cross cut to the Takuu footage and just kept some of the terse Morgan quotes as a teaser for before the book is released.

    My bet is that we’ll see the full report when the book is ready. This was to wet our appetite I reckon.

    Regardless, it will be very interesting to see Gareth’s “fix” for AGW, now that he accept that the science is irrefutable.

    It is just this sort of debate that his marketing gurus will be monitoring to see how we will all react. Then they know how to pitch the book.

  25. Looking at his website – it looks like Gareth spent plenty of time working with the sceptics – all of the famous sceptics have commented: Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Bob Carter, Lord Monkton of Benchley and Vincent Gray. I’d say there’s plenty of interesting stuff in the book even for those of sceptical disposition.

  26. You may not like Hager’s politics, but to lump him in with Wishart is just not credible.

    Personally, I think they’re remarkably similar in that you already know the conclusion they are going to reach before they open their mouths.

    That’s the problem with ideologues. The only people who will ever listen to them are sitting in the same echo chamber.

    Morgan, on the other hand, really does have a chance of talking to everyman.

  27. Personally, I think they’re remarkably similar in that you already know the conclusion they are going to reach before they open their mouths.

    Wishart’s views are relatively well known due to the fact that he’s very active through his website and seemingly writing a book about feminazi marxists every year or so. As far as I know, Hager produces something about something once every 5 years about something or other and that’s it – we hear nary a peep otherwise. A lefty, but not quite as easy to pre-judge as say, the posters at The Standard.

  28. I’m guessing because one of them actually has to work for a living, as opposed to living off a trust fund….

  29. I’m guessing because one of them actually has to work for a living, as opposed to living off a trust fund…

    DO tell?!

  30. There are a lot of champagne socialists in Wellington. Things are seldom what they seem…..

    Outside the beltway, Google is your friend…..

  31. Does anyone here know Gareth Morgan’s views on ‘steady-state economics’ as espoused by the likes of Herman Daly?

  32. Slow down everyone – from the randomhouse publishing website

    “Although Morgan and McCrystal have reached a conclusion, they admit it’s by no means an open and shut case. Two things they are clear about, after having put the book together, is that we’ve learned only just enough to know how little we know and the science on this whole thing is far from settled. There are compelling theories, but the evidence has been less than unequivocal, they say. Just how it all works is not fully understood because climate science is comparatively young and the tools used to try and make sense of climate in the making is younger still”

    Long link below (sorry)
    http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:qF-e1vn5t9gJ:www.randomhouse.co.nz/data/media/documents/press%2520releases/may_09/Poles_Apart_PR.pdf+Gareth+morgan+global+warming&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

    So maybe still room for everyone to squabble. Personally I’d really like an options market on the climate debate – then everyone could put money where their mouth is and at the same time fund actual activies that mitigate negative environmental impacts and promote productive economic growth.

  33. I have it from an insider that the book may be launched on May 19. I’ll let you know if I find out more.

    WWHS – I appreciate the publisher’s spin, but I quoted the words right out of Gareth’s mouth. I didn’t make them up! As for a market on climate change – great fun but I wouldn’t do my science that way. Science isn’t a democracy, even though they talk about ‘consensus’.

  34. “Speaking of Wishart, Shunda, you seem to have dropped out of our conversation regarding science, religion, Whisart and Dawkins. Would love to hear more.”

    No just postponed it, I was having a similar conversation on “the dim post” and I have been busy at work.

  35. “Although it may be because of his religious beliefs that he is deliberately talking sh!t because the evidence is inconvenient to those beliefs.”

    Toadie, Toadie, now you really sound a little silly, AGW would fit the fundamentalist christian world view a million times better than what Wishart is saying, I guess some people care about the truth after all.

  36. “Morgan, on the other hand, really does have a chance of talking to everyman.”

    And Morgan probably stands to make a sh#t load of money with any carbon trading scheme.
    And you guys thought John Key was crooked!

  37. “Gareth Renowden did a great job of pointing out some of the more ridiculous, extravagant and plain wrong assertions in Wishart’s book”

    Aaah, no he didn’t, he just responded with the same rhetoric that Wishart debunked!! like
    “The north west passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007″

    That is a bald faced LIE!!!!

  38. That is a bald faced LIE!!!!

    Those of us without beards are a little offended by your choice of phrases, Shunda!
    Those of us with a brain are amused by your choice of reading material ;-)

  39. “The north west passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007″

    That is a bald faced LIE!!!!

    Wishart claims, for instance, that Amundsen “took a ship through it” in 1903. In fact It took Amundsen three years- he didn’t reach Alaska ’til 1906. He also refers to a Canadian vessel, the St Roch, which took 28 months to get through in 1940. Not what you’d call “sailing through”…

    In the last few years, sailors have been taking yachts through…

    You can judge who’s doing the misdirection here – Wishart, or the source of my reference, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Report published last month (link at Hot Topic).

  40. “You can judge who’s doing the misdirection here – Wishart, or the source of my reference”

    Ummm, Wishart is not saying there has been no global warming, he is saying the amount of sea ice melt has been grossly overestimated and spun to sell a particular point of view. His point remains even if it took 5 years for some old sailing ship to plod through at 3 knots!!

  41. “In 5 years at 3 knots it would have travelled about 130,000 nautical miles.”

    Go straight to the top of the class!! as soon as you explain how it did 3 knots through pack ice in the winter.

  42. “Those of us with a brain are amused by your choice of reading material”

    Sorry, I didn’t realise Wishart was off limits, do you have any “greeny friendly” AGW skeptics you could recommend?

  43. …he is saying the amount of sea ice melt has been grossly overestimated…

    Basically, he tries to put whatever spin he can to make it look as though nothing important’s going on. He picks and chooses, misprepresents and ignores.

    You seem to want to believe him. Your loss. The reality-based community won’t mind.

  44. “Basically, he tries to put whatever spin he can to make it look as though nothing important’s going on.”
    Oh something important is going on all right, its called mass hysteria.
    So what exactly caused the mini ice age? and what exactly ended it? and don’t say the industrial revolution cause the dates don’t fit.
    Oh, and what happens when thousands of square km of tundra thaw out after a mini ice age?

  45. It’s a little hard to believe that these blogs are still battling over climate change.

    The geological record speaks loudly that we should all prepare to survive very significant changes.

    It doesn’t matter one jot whether we believe it to be anthropogenic or not.

    And once the poles flip again we will have something more to worry about.

    I like Gareth Morgan, he is a real thinker, and I await the book with interest.

  46. “The geological record speaks loudly that we should all prepare to survive very significant changes.”

    Exactly, a commitment to true sustainability simply because it is the right thing to do, not because of some new age religion where carbon dioxide is the devil.

  47. All i can find about Hager having a trust fund is some comments by an anonymous commenter and blogger…

  48. Evendently James has never encountered that crazy concept we call the scientific method. Positivism and such. One cannot blame him though, the feminists have invaded, launching a crusade against positivism.

  49. God gave man dominion over the earth and it’s beasts. Females made out of a mans rib. What i want to know is who owns hell as eternal torture is immoral. If God is almighty why can’t he clean the place up?

  50. “If God is almighty why can’t he clean the place up?”

    The real question is, if people are intelligent beings why can’t WE clean the place up?

  51. Shunda barunda have you considered the possibility that these ships travelling through the NW passage didn’t travel 130,000 miles? so were not averaging 5 knots? That the speeds they travelled at are best explained by them being ice-bound most of the time?

    James, Wishart has “destroyed” Renowden??

    You can’t be serious.

  52. “That the speeds they travelled at are best explained by them being ice-bound most of the time?”

    Yes, thats correct. No one is suggesting there has been no warming or melting.
    Did you realise that Arctic sea ice is now at the long term average measured since the 70’s?

  53. If human caused global warming is caused by humans wouldn’t it be logical to do something about the population instead of playing around with carbon taxes and carbon credits. But then again trying to do something about the population would be political suicide to try so why bother. China did something about their population and now they are opening a new coal fired electric generating plant a week according to Al Gore. Then again Al Gore has not always been overly truthful when it comes to matters related to the climate. Now I think China is the number one carbon emitter, they took that rather prestigious title away from the US not so long ago. I’ll accept global warming is here but I don’t think the ways the planet is talking about to reverse it will have much effect.

  54. Gareth Morgan’s views are covered in an article in the latest Listener, like me he sees a gap between the reduction in emissions that the IPCC claims are required, and what’s possible.

  55. James, Wishart has “destroyed” Renowden??

    You can’t be serious.”

    Andrew…you can’t be serious about saying I can’t be serious…;-)

  56. paranoid peter Says: If human caused global warming is caused by humans wouldn’t it be logical to do something about the population instead of playing around with carbon taxes and carbon credits

    Well said. Population regulation has to be addressed as the primary cornerstone of sustainability.

    Without the self control and wisdom to limit population growth we are destined to always outgrow our resources or excessively pollute our environment.

  57. Well I dont agree with it. Some times the science creats confusion for itself. Human science can never be perfect.

Comments are closed.