IDENTITY POLITICS EMBEDDED IN NZ CLIMATE ADAPTION ACTION PLAN -HE POU A RANGI

He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission provides the Three Party Coalition advice, monitoring and reporting that supports Aotearoa New Zealand's transition to a climate-resilient, low emissions future. He Pou a Rangi was established under the Climate Response Act 2002.

He Pou a Rangi describe their purpose:- Our purpose as the Climate Change Commission is ongoing. As a country, our approach to climate change is planned out until 2050 and beyond. Now and in the future, we will provide the government with independent advice on how Aotearoa New Zealand can address the effects of climate change. That means thinking in central and local government, the private sector and amongst whānau- partnering with Iwi/Māori

He Pou a Rangi document that ‘We need to understand the impacts of our advice on Iwi/Māori, partner with Iwi/Māori in developing our advice, and incorporate te ao Māori into our approach. This means working in partnership with Iwi. We combine what we learn from Iwi/Māori and stakeholders with other research and data - from Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally. We analyze this using economic modelling, as well as other quantitative and qualitative methods. We will create different scenarios and investigate what is critical for getting us to our targets
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. The establishment of the IPCC was endorsed by UN General Assembly in 1988.
Should we even trust the IPCC, the Government or He Pou a Rangi?? “Personally I think not”. The IPCC is not a coalition of individuals, but an organization made up of countries i.e., its members are governments, not individuals. Participants in the IPCC plenary sessions simply represent member countries.

The IPCC presents projections and recommendations. Use top heavy alarmist content. He Pou a Rangi smells of Identity Politics and Iwi/Maori self interests.
The IPCC is not a scientific organization, but a political organization of the scientist type. They stifle those who do not agree with them”. Another remark that you may hear from time to time is that “the authors and contributors of the IPCC are corrupted by lobbies”.

The IPCC is not an Academic Scientific Organization. Its aim is not to investigate reasons for changes in the climate, but to see ‘human induced climate’

Some leading North American Climate Scientists and physicist of international stature criticisms of the IPCC AR5 Assessment Report are:- There is no substantive evidence to support IPCC’s claimed linkage between the warming of the climate and increasing CO2. That’s IPCC conclusions are not robust.

That IPCC Assessments convey an alarmist evaluations that influence climate anthropogenic CO2 emissions, that do not reflect scientific knowledge, that include distortions for political purposes ..

The models do not reflect reality * Can be fudge with high climate sensitivity *They are little or of no value in explaining the past let alone forecasting the future *The handling of uncertainties (Claiming something is 95% certain) is unscientific *There’s a failing to assess climate sensitivity from observational estimates which suggest much lower figure than those used in IPCC models * A failure to examine natural reliability. The role of clouds and water vapor are not accurately understood *The contribution of methane is not properly analyzed *

The effect of the sun is ineffectively dismissed * The Science Is Not Settled *IPCC Assessments are not exclusively the work of independent scientists, Some of the lead authors have strong green activist credentials.

There are many unknowns when it comes to climate change (uncertainties) Science is not settled. Climate science is dominated by politically correct state scientists. Make proposals that rely on renewable to reduce CO2 emission with high costs and the change of land use. * The general agreement is that IPCC Assessment are politically contrived.

IPCC fail to ensure any compliance- principle of requiring a ‘comprehensive, objective and transparent process’
Decarbonization attempts have been reported as ineffectual, expensive, sheer tokenism that will do nothing the save the planet.

Alain Gadian Senior research lecturer at the British National Centre for Atmospheric Science reports that- he has observed:- “The role of clouds in the climate system is largely unresolved in climate models, with the physical processes largely unrepresented *Water vapor is even more significant than greenhouse gas, found mainly in the lowest layer of the atmosphere and that’s its very difficult to quantify

Judith Curry Head of the Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech reported the answers to some questions that have arisen:-

QUESTION 1) To what extent does the IPCC AR6 Assessment Report reflect the range of views among climate scientists? RESPONSE: “ A large number of climate scientists disagree with the views portrayed by IPCC
QUESTION 2) Does the IPCC AR5 address the reliability of Climate Models? RESPONSE: “Figure 11.25 AR5 shows that climate models have significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 since 1990, a period during which CO2 increased from 335 to over 400 parts per million.”
QUESTION 3: Has IPCC AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record? RESPONSE: The failure of the IPCC to predict this stagnation in warming raises serious questions about whether Climate Models are over sensitive to greenhouse gases. The IPCC’s dismissal of the stagnation as being associated with unpredictable climate variability raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by unpredictable climate variability.”
QUESTION 4: Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focused on providing a justification for political commitment? RESPONSE: “The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. However, the ongoing scientific consensus seeking process has had the unintended consequence of oversimplifying both the problem and its solution and hyper-politicizing both, introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes.”

Judith Curry wrote on her blog “Kill the IPCC. After years and billions of dollars..IPCC has failed to document a link between human-CO2 emissions and warning of the earth’s climate…the IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.

Pierre Darriulat (Professor of astrophysics at the National University of Sciences in Hanoi) Was formerly Director of Research at CERN. He is a recognized Physicist. He is independent in the truest sense of the word. Point out that the :- The IPCC Assessment Reports as expressed in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) are far from robust, address only partly criticisms of previous reports; and give a distorted view of the full report itself”

The IPCC AR6 Assessment Report by He Pou a Rangi Climate Commission to advise, monitor the ‘NZ 3 Party Coalition Government includes the 'role of human influence and behavior'. IPCC AR6 Report states it gives its final warning on devastating climate change. 'The 8000-page IPCC AR6 details the devastating impacts of rising greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and outlines the risks and devastating'

The AR6 IPCC Report includes urgent warnings to decarbonize. They call it a survival guide for Humanity. However experts allege is more about adaptions for policy makers ( based strategies).

That there are limitations/implications.. Does not provide an understanding of what AR^ says about climate change.
The final limitation is that the relatedness of key words (e.g. confidence, high and warming) is sometimes ambiguous; even experts may disagree on how the words are linked to form a concept

There are allegation that the IPCC ARC Assessment Report has Research Limitations/Implications. Do not necessarily provide a full understanding of what the AR6 Report says about Climate Change. Points out that QDA Miner Software and Voyant tool do not include variables and examples where mitigation and adaption based strategies are discussed. Lacks important information. Limitations of key words (eg confidence, high and warming) is sometimes ambiguous even experts are disagreeing on how the words are linked to a form of concept

The summary for policymakers (SPM) summarizes the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) reports that intended to aid policymakers and is approved line by line by governments. Assessment may determine land use.

The IPCC Assessment Reports are important for government policy makers in UN Members and also Climate Zealot Activists. It has been reported the IPCC Reports are highly selective even ignoring Scientific evidence that opposes IPCC Authors- Reviewers.

The IPCC AR6 Assessment report is to aid policy makers. The assessment combines theory and assessment of policy

“The AR5/WG1 IPCC report, and particularly the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), conveys an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that does not properly reflect current scientific knowledge. There is a need to produce a scientific summary addressed to scientists and giving an objective picture of our knowledge and ignorance in climate science, with emphasis on the issues that are less well understood and what it implies to clarify them”

The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case”

LINKS
https://rumble.com/v6uiunj-identity-politics-embedded-in-nz-climate-adaption-action-plan-he-pou-a-rang.html
LINKS -https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/47596/html/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365202490_Critical_findings_of_the_sixth_assessment_report_AR6_of_working_Group_I_of_the_intergovernmental_panel_on_climate_change_IPCC_for_global_climate_change_policymaking_a_summary_for_policymakers_SPM_anal

WakeUpNZ
RESEARCHER: Cassie