KEY POINTS:
Here are earlier emails on the subject:
Dan
I believe that whatever New Zealand does in terms of climate change will have no impact on the climate whatsoever as the emissions we produce are so tiny compared to the rest of the world. CO2 makes up a tiny amount of the earth's atmosphere and global CO2 emissions are just a small part of that. Having rate/tax payers pay for procedures and implementations to combat climate change is only going to wreck the economy and does virtually nothing to the climate. Perhaps Bollard gets it his way after all as house prices will drop because of this. However, having said all that I do believe it is important that we clean up our act globally. We (the human race) are destroying the earth on many fronts including air pollution, deforestation and grossly overfishing our oceans.
I read a reasonable amount of information on both sides of the argument regarding whether humans are causing global warming. I am not a scientist, I just use common sense and logic and there is always two sides to a story. I have personally come to the conclusion that humans have a negligible impact on the changing climate and whatever we do is not going to change that. The only thing we will change is the economy. The climate change computer prediction models cannot be relied upon as they do not take all the variables into account. In fact we do not even know about all the variables that interact with each other, let alone how they interact. We can't even predict the weather accurately for a few days, so how arrogant to think that we can predict the global climate for the next 50 or 100 years! During the last century the scientists have been swapping consensus a number of times between cooling and warming of the earth, so what does that tell you?
Sam
Aren't we all getting sick of people be granted money for research and at the end of the term making up some report so that they can get another grant?. There is no and never has been any hard evidence of man-made climate change. How can a report say in one paragraph increase storm water for increased rainfall and prepare for drought?. These are the same scientist that said in the 1980's we were headed for an Ice Age blaming Florocarbons, now it's burning fossil fuels and putting carbon dioxide into the air. Where did this carbon dioxide come from, fossil fuels that was plants that took the CO2 out of the air (it's a cycle). If they are so concerned that it is getting to warm release some florocarbons.
Not only does solid scientific fact dispell Global Climate change but mathmatical statis does as well. If you monitored 10 cities for two things (rainfall and tempature), the first year you would get 240 record months, the second year would yeild 180 record months, after 100 years you should still get 7 or 8 record months, monitor 1000 cities world wide and you should get 785 record months which is about what we get. On average world wide the air temperature and rain fall between 2001 and 2006 are with in 0.02 per cent of 1901 and 1906. Grapes grew in Finland (Vineland) when the Vikings lived there. Australian bush burned freely for years at a time pouring millions of tons of C02 into the air. It is a natural cycle and every notable scientist says so, lesser known scientists say different. No climate change makes dull reading so don't expect the media to report what people like David Bellamy says, Lets hear what the assistant understudy to a professor at Istanbul Politech and 12 of his students discovered whilst measuring the growth patterns of Opium Poppies over the past 20 years. The icebergs off the coast of NZ were due to them not melting as quick (cooler seas). Try this at home fill a glass with ice and then fill with water until the water level reaches the rim with the ice above the rim, now let the ice melt, no water will spill, if the Artic totally melted the sea would not rise dramatically, if at all. By all means take care of the environment but keep the truth to the forefront.
Phil
The biggest problem with slowing down global warming is that the costs are immediate and personal while any gains are distant and spread around the community as a whole. The government's stance on not devolving carbon credits to individual producers like foresters is understandable since the community opposed charging individual polluters when the fart tax was over-turned, never-the-less there must be some personal incentives built into our conservation strategy in NZ of we hope to make a difference. The obvious one of rewarding people whose surplus electricity generation from wind and water turbines is put into the national grid has been duck shoved around for years. Typically the govt is scared of the reaction from our electricity corporations' overseas shareholders. Considering the games those energy combines have been playing (power cuts, blackouts and brown-outs) all of which are straight outta the Enron playbook for jacking up prices, the government has plenty of ammo to defend itself from any ConEd threats. If NZ fails to deliver on the Kyoto protocols in a really meaningful way we will have no defence whatsoever when 'green miles' are used as the new form of protectionism by European and American farmers. The economic implications of that are far greater than any short term storm in a teacup over energy companies being made to buy small packets of energy at retail from consumers.
Mark
The new fad seems to be "global warming" based on very questionable science. We are now being told not to buy goods that have been flown to their export location due to all the environmental damage. I am amazed how quickly many are being duped into believing all that a politician, Al Gore, portrayed on a politically motivated advertisement of himself! They have always said that politicians are the least believed, but Al seems to have the media right behind him. Maybe as he uses more electricity than many people to run his house they might re-think their adulation. I have heard that one volcanic eruption, like Mt St Helens, puts more into the atmosphere than all of mankind has ever done over the whole of man's existence! Is there any truth in this as I am sure we will have many more eruptions. I also heard that the dust from the eruptions actually had a 'cleansing' effect on the atmospheric particles around the globe. So I don't think we have to worry, be environmentally aware so not to pollute, but I believe the earth follows cycles, and right now some scientists say the sun is emitting more heat which is a cyclonic effect. So let us be wise but not stupid, some people are suggesting we close everything down and plant trees, and probably live in them too!!
Ian
So you call yourself a climate change skeptic? http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
And to the Herald, seeing as you continue to roll out the climate change deniers whenever a climate change story arises, can we now expect to hear from the National Front for comment on immigration policy and 9/11 conspiracy theorists after the next terrorist attack? Just because you give an opposing view doesn't make you balanced.
Ra
It would be good for the Herald to investigate the founders of this organisation, the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", as their views definitely go against the grain of international scientific theory- in fact one could argue that it supports the same views propagated by large corporations with "fossil fuel" interests.
Rob
Any system in equilibrium will alter and attempt to find another equilibrium when one or more of the constituents changes in quantity. New Zealand has an opportunity to get ahead here. whoever develops systems that cope with warming and are sustainable will have market advantage. New Zealand has a lot to loose even if u do not believe the evidence other countries do. The UK is very progressive in its thinking and now encourages people not to fly, buy products with low carbon miles and use low power lightbulbs. New Zealands she'll be right attitude will not do it any favours. As they used to say in the cubs be prepared!!! Do the nay sayers want to risk being wrong?
Mark
I cannot believe the comments that have been written so far! People open your eyes the facts are out there. Climate change is real, we are the leading cause and we are doing next to nothing about it. Those people that slate climate change as being natural, produce no hard facts to counter what is happening beyond stating that it has happened in the past. Yes, the climate has warmed in the past, on a geological time scale not in 10s of years.
John
If one remembers the 70s, we had wild weather and off-season flooding for a number of years. The only difference today, is that these cyclic weather patterns are being over-intellectualized by people with nothing better to do with their PhDs. I will be happy if we get through this latest Iran and currency crisis, the world is heading towards another 193's depression, the US economy is deflating, ACC are spending millions on over-stating the obvious, and Labour has decided they can win the next election by manipulating the election spending laws.
Gerald
If CO2 traps heat going out, then why doesn't it trap it on its way in? Climate change is real because that is exactly what it does. "It changes" and our taxes pay people to tell us that, What a waste of O2 and CO2. There is a guy in Hamilton who predicted that the weather over Easter weekend would be warm and sunny and so why not just pay him and get rid of NIWA and the met. Service? The glaring thing that keeps coming out of these climate reports is that we are going to pay to fix it. If governments can budget billions of dollars to pay for this research then they can now use it to fix it cause the research is done. Everyone should now count how many floods occur each year for the next ten years in NZ to see if we do get an increase. Somehow I don't think so.
Tommy
Yay, yet another hype about global warming. How are we to believe it when each week there's something else that "global warming" has caused? In my eyes global warming is a big joke. Global warming this, global warming that. What we need to recognize is there were hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes and many other natural disasters way before humans even set foot on earth. Who shall we blame for all those Disasters back 100,000,000 years ago? I know how about the dinosaurs and their farting! Why not invest money on protecting ourselves and studies on how to predict the disasters?
Harry D
It will be interesting as to the consequences felt by residents in the North Shore suburb of Orewa. After hearing last night a "flood warning" was been noted on some properties LIM reports. Hopefully, the public will understand the council is just being way too precautious, and has made a bit of an overkill.
East Coast Bays is a huge area, but you don't see the other suburbs being targeted by the council, which global warming is just as likely to hit.
Am
What a load of old bollocks this report is! It is another tax scheme most are being suckered into by this communist government. I am still trying to work out how carbon monoxide, (which is heavier than air) gets up into our atmosphere. If we were really so concerned about our environment we would make our focus of attention on the ocean and creating more coastal fish reserves. Hmmmm but lets, see thats not going to happen because fish don't pay taxes! I for one, have bigger things to worry about than an extra inch of sea water in a hundred years.
Pete Simpson
Even if NZ ceased to exist, the world's emissions would continue to soar. There is no point NZ trying to take the moral high ground and in the process penalising our exporting companies by increasing the cost of energy, thus decreasing our productivity and depressing our economic growth. We will be better prepared to face the impact of any climate change by maintaining a strong competitive economy, while ensuring that we match what the rest of the world is doing in regard to addressing emissions. Our politicians need to take a long-term view, not just emitting empty rhetoric to bolster their chances in the next election!
NeillR
Why did the "climate scientists" choose 1950 as their starting reference? Could it have something to do with the warm period during the 30s and 40s?
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html This site shows temperature records in the US from 1896-1996 and there are fluctuations during the period that would allow someone to distort the figures if they had an ulterior motive. The motive - more funding for their "science". It's a cosy duopoly; a government that seeks to tax the populace to fund our "obligations" and a complicit science community that relies on that funding for research. Both groups have a vested interest in scaring us into paying more.
Mike
Obviously not considering even the Green party has nothing to offer except an effort to criminalise good parents. Everyone, in particular the USA, needs to take fundamental and drastic action to reduce the risk of climate change. It's our human responsibility to consider the future of this planet and not let it die for the petty sake of short-term material greed.
It's not a problem of technology, lifestyle, or money. We have the wealth and expertise but its unfortunately concentrated in the tiny hands of huge corporate interests that do not want change. Our lifestyled don't need to change dramatically, we just need to change fuels. Get on it folks. Go solar, demand electric vehicles (they work and you can get them now!), make your home energy efficient, recycle, walk when you can.
Elizabeth Burgess
It's unclear to me what the government are doing to combat or even manage climate change, let alone if they are doing enough. Public transport costs have risen so much so that it is cheaper to drive to work and pay for parking, and certainly less aggravation considering how inept Auckland's public transport is. Everyday as I wait for my bus on the corner of New North Road and Sandringham Road, 200 cars with only one occupant pass me within 15 minutes. That's disgusting by any standard. The choices an individual makes can only go so far. Real government solutions need to be made and should include investing in public transport, cycle lanes that make cyclists feel safe and reducing the amount of cars that are imported to New Zealand. Funnily enough pressure will eventually come from the rightwing rather than our "leftist feminist" government when insurance companies refuse to cover the damages wrought from climate change, and businesses' feeling threatened start to protest.
A. Hooper
For the most part, I believe climate change is happening, and that it's mostly us causing it - however I've not ruled out it might be cyclical and totally outside our control. Some bureaucrats are definitely rubbing their hands with glee at the new taxes they are looking forward to, which unfortunately is going to make many willing to believe the climate sceptics. However, I think we should observe the 'precautionary principle', and do our best to avoid contributing to the effect. And there is an enormous amount to be gained from moving towards a 'greener' economy, such as energy and money saving, and licensing technology we develop here to deal with the problem to other countries. Please don't be taken in by the hysteria about tearing down industrial society and losing its benefits. As always, there are extremists on both sides of the debate.
Les Spicer
Why this sudden panic? Global warming has been around for some time now, if it has not we would still be in the iceage, Canute?
Damian Richardson
Something is telling me that something is very wrong with these comments so far. If the necessary research is done, or if in fact you are qualified, you should consider presenting your case to the IPCC against the massive amount of findings that 2500 intellectuals from around the world have come up with so far. Unless you have come up with hard evidence, I'd imagine your interview with the panel to begin with pleasantries - the first few findings of your case made redundant by solid facts (again, unless you have undeniable evidence) before they politely close down the interview and show you the door. I would not personally put myself in that position unless I wanted to feel smaller than I was when I was born.
To reverse the most basic and fundamental concept of GW is to suggest that temperature will suddenly move away from the increase in gasses in our greenhouse. If temperatures do continue to correlate with CO2, as they have for 650,000 years, then the most mild of consequences on New Zealands environment (we are apparently in a manageable position if we actually do the preparations) would not, in my mind, solve the issue for New Zealand considering the likely economic impacts internationally if basic resources no longer support overseas countries. To understand the implications of GW is to understand that we are in the initial phase. This is a world issue on a large spectrum that involves New Zealand in the era of globalisation.
RW
Uh-oh - I see the disinformationist "deniers" are at it already. Busy trying to discredit solid science. They consist almost entirely of disingenuous backers like Exxon Mobil, End-of-World-Imminent-anyway types, wastrel politicos whose power base would be eroded if facts had to be faced,... and their various hangers-on, of whom Lenin's "useful idiots" phrase springs to mind. As for the old saw along the lines of "we can't predict the weather a week out, so why should we believe climate predictions for longer..." stuff: this repeats what is already an ancient fallacy, and shows that the average person doesn't know a damn thing about the subject. Just because we all experience weather and climate, it doesn't follow that the average person understands any of it. My personal experiences tell me after 50+ years of interest in these subjects tells me that the average individual knows next to nothing about any aspect of meteorology.
This quote pretty much summarises what is wrong with this "thinking" and how general public ignorance of the matter is exploited: "It's well known that in chaotic systems errors in initial conditions grow rapidly... but then they saturate meaning that you are randomly placed on the climate attractor and your trajectories define what your climate is. Your ability to define the attractor (ie climate) is not dependent on where your trajectory starts. This is the very reason why we can predict the diurnal and seasonal cycles (and why Melbourne's usually hotter than the South Pole) despite not being able to predict the weather beyond 2 weeks. Confusing the initial value prediction problem with defining the attractor either shows ignorance by the climate audit crew or a desire to mislead. This is simply the "hey you can't predict the weather so how can you predict the climate" nonsense wrapped in scientific terms."
Mark Crossley
Two questions to start: 1/ Who is currently making more money than ever before from maintaining the staus quo? 2/ Exactly who is making enormous fortunes from trying to change our world to a cleaner place? Another two questions: 1/ Will the world be a better place if we become more energy efficient and cleaner, and then it turns out the weight of scientific evidence was wrong and warming is not happening? 2/ How much trouble will the world be in if we do nothing and global warming really does happen as predicted? Will our kids appreciate our blindness?
Mark
A science paper presented in 2000 by Ed Mercurio suggests that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are a major forcing agent on weather and climate on multiple time scales ranging from weekly through glacial-interglacial. Known effects of GCRs are used to explain phenomena and observations in the fields of meteorology, climatology, paleoclimatology and paleoecology. This is science saying that in all probability it is the Sun that is causing the termperature changes and this would appear to be part of a natural cycle that is measureable and predictable. Astronomers also report that the other planets in our Solar System have been heating up recently. The Sun is after all, the biggest heater around so I would imagine it has to play a role in Global Warming as well. Kind of makes a lot of "Global Warming experts redundant if this is the case. Though they probably won't admit it till they made their fortune from consultation fee and the Governments get to create a new tax on their citizens and businesses.
Paul Nash
No. People should continue to fork out 2.25 million for a bach on a quarter acre beachfront section.
Adam
I'm sure all the Herald readers dismissing this report are experienced academics and have proven 'global warming' is just a myth. No doubt they have published in peer reviewed international journals, and they have a credible science behind them. Or are they just lazy and ill read, unable to accept the science that shows that man made emissions are a major contributor to global warming? Are they the same readers who would have dismissed the need for London's clean air act, rubbished the fact that CFCs in their cheap Brut deodorant were contributing to the Ozone layer depletion over the Southern Hemisphere? Do they think Auckland's traffic problems has nothing to do with their car?
The scientific community is united on this issue, a massive body of evidence from published scientific literature (not just an Al Gore movie) shows that global warming due to human activity IS taking place. Sadly the press gives the 'deniers' an enormous amount of column inches. Their denial is just that - it has no research to back it up and is not peer reviewed or published. Their denial frequently funded by lobby groups from within the energy or motor sector. Change does not come easily to New Zealanders - especially when it seems pushed from outside and affecting our lifestyle. In this case we will be well advised to act upon the evidence before us, as our economic and social future depends on both a sustainable global climate and economy.
Gavin Porter
Mankind has the ability to change Mother Nature - yeah right. To get some balance and understanding of the global warming issue, Google "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and watch the 75 minute video. If we don't get some balance in the argument then we all lose, through paying higher taxes and/or higher prices for goods and services (including inefficient electricity like wind/solar/wave).
Bill
The Cold War has ended, the imminent threat of the "Yellow Peril" never eventuated, Bird Flu has taken a back seat, SARS is rarely heard of - but wait, now we have another major calamity to worry about. Going to Google and putting in "the myth of Global Warming" yields some interesting results. Long live Augie Auer and others of his ilk.
Glen Watkins
Call me cynical but I can't help but feel that these 30-year predictions are designed to take our minds
off a more imminent crisis - dwindling oil stocks.
Chaye
The IPCC report is nothing but a political football. Many of the scientists involved are complaining about the way the report is not publishing the facts correctly. This includes NZ scientist Dr Vincent Gray who had a lot to do with the report. Human caused global warming has never being scientifically proved and whilst so many people are making money from the 'Global Warming Industry' don't expect the doom and gloom to get any better.
Paul
Will coastal areas be hit by climate change? I don't know but the prevailing scientific opinion is that it will.
John Sandford
The media in all its forms have a huge responsibility to report the true unbiased scientific facts. The largest volume of information being reported is not scientific factual information. "Global Warming" has been mooted for the last sixty years without the visible evidence to support the warnings. We now see the change in language to "Climate Change". Rather sanctimonious of those who want to be unchallenged when the evidence is either Hot or Cold. The unfortunate in fact irresponsible motive of those who are promoting The Green House Effect see the dollars that can be made from the panic driven gullible consumer. A case in point are the backers of the recent huge promotion of the Al Gore circus.
The media have a huge responsibility to research the information for scientific proof of the facts before presenting spurious information as proven factual scientific data. Remember the result of the 2000 computer virus/bug/collapse well here is another similar load of misinformation which can and will have serious negative repercussions on this nation and in fact the economies of the world if the truth is with held much longer.
Those who vigorously support Global Warming/Climate Change are dishonest, self seeking agenda promoting, individuals who need serious counselling of a psychological nature. Unfortunately they have elevated themselves to positions of credibility by preying on the minds of the emotionally genuine caring people in society. Their emotive rhetoric should be rejected outright by the majority of thinking, New Zealanders. To hell with the social engineering this nation is being indoctrinated with.
Jeremy
Why does everyone always go on about the negative effects of global warming? Why dont they say we will have to get used to warmer temperatures, balmy evenings, warmer sea, and having to put up with a lot more palm trees? So a few batches will get swamped. So what. We can build more. Bring it on - it's way too cold in NZ anyway.
Kiwi Teetee
The focus of discussion should now focus on what we are going to do about the impacts rather than what is causing it.
Peter Wilson
As usual, the IPCC report is a politically motivated scare story, claiming to be the consensus of multitudes of scientists, when in fact many of those they proclaim as their researchers do not support their conclusions. Even if all their unlikely projections are correct, there is no straight line of reasoning between a slight expected increase in temperature, and the idea that we should forgo the benefits of industrial society, and consign millions in the developing world to a future of poverty - because that is what drastic cuts to CO2 emissions means! Adaption is a far more intelligent response to any future climate shift than hopelessly attempting to hold back the tide like King Canute. An affluent world will have little difficulty adapting to whatever nature throws at us, and that is what we should be aiming for, and end to poverty through economic growth.
Kris
So we have more doom and gloom from the Prophets of Bad Science. Global climates have changed many times over the preceding millenia. With less than 200 years of convenience sampling of temperatures we now have global warming? Give me something more conclusive please other than a research report based on flawed science. Oh wait, is that the sound of the 'correct' coming to burn me at the stake for heresy?
Tony
The weather forecasters couldn't even get the forecasts accurate a week out from our Easter holidays. Why on Earth should we believe them when they claim that sea levels will rise by between 19cm and 59cm by the end of this century?