KEY POINTS:
Peter
For your sake Garth, and the sake of countless millions I hope your predictions are correct. It's always better to err on the side of caution.
John
How can Garth George say that those who believe in climate change believe that the earth is flat? Climate change, like the roundness of the earth, is a proven scientific fact. If anyone believes the earth is flat, it is the morons who reject science because it is inconvenient to their selfish lifestyles. Shame on you, Garth George.
V
Garth George embodies the twin attributes of those on his side of this debate: 1) Resentfulness towards science, because of being to stupid to even begin to understand it, and 2) Greediness, to the extent that he's against anything that might cost him money, even if the welfare of half the world's population is at stake. And let's not forget: he's a Christian, so doesn't even really care what happens to this world. What a poisonous old fool! I will celebrate his retirement.
Kent
The last refuge for someone without a valid argument is to attack ones opponent personally. This is exactly what Brian has done. He has belittled Garths beliefs, belittled a book that is the number one best seller of all time and the number one seller every year.Obviously Brian does not have much of a claim to rebuke Garth. Such is the witless refuge of the ignorant.
Lindi
These predictions are capitalist rubbish. Governments just want more taxes out of us.
Roger Kippenberger
The media's cherry-picking sensationalist approach and the politicisation of "climate change" is the real problem. When reported by balanced scientific journals it's a boring issue - a temperature rise of 0.4 degrees in 20 years? [Scientific American April 07]. Who cares? One also might attempt to explain the increasing variance of long-term modeling of a nondeterministic system. But doubtful that's going to sell as many papers as pictures of melting glaciers, montages of disappearing islands and blambing every other extreme weather event on this new-found bogeyman - won't get Labour many votes either.
Dom D
What a lot of pessimists! Yes, there will be environmental challenges with higher sea levels and increased lowland flooding. But why don't we hear about the advantages of a warming interglacial period. For example, New Zealand can promote itself as the new Gold Coast, with mild winters and hot summers. The increased tourism can subsidize the infrastructural adjustments required by government and councils, plus the cost of more planting in the hill country to act as a sponge and minimize flooding. This is surely a joke. Dont people really understand the devastating effects major climate change will bring? It won't mean that we will be getting out the factor 50 and kicking back with cocktails. It's unbelievable - [no hang on, I've been in NZ for 5 years, and its not.] Get real people. If we dont change our lifestyles and consumption of resources now - extreme weather will mean huge flooding, coastal surges, landslides far more frequently. Vast parts of the world will be destroyed by famine and disease - food production will be halted in all but a few areas. The global economy will be unrecognisable. An inversion effect could take place where the world might freeze dramatically. The new Gold Coast? Oh please!
Dave Chowdhury
Many of the responses here are as moronic as Garth George's article and the emotive, value laden question the Herald subsequently posed. I can't wait for the inevitable Herald story "Readers rubbish climate change report." What absolute nonsense. Garth George will always attract a self-selected readership by writing provocatively and unscientifically with his "bloke down the pub" style (it's what he's paid to do), and here you all are frothing at the mouth with the standard anti-climate change rhetoric. Climate change skepticism is well and good, but let it be based on scientific research and reasoned debate - not simply an excuse to support head-in-the-sand attitudes of people who have clearly done no research into the issues.
Voytek Wieczorek
I have been following the global warming argument at the level of science (as opposed to politics or PR)and have a few comments to make. We appear to have a reasonable understanding of the climate change drivers. There are pitched scientific debates on the relative importance of the various climate drivers and the positive/negative feedbacks they may trigger off. Human CO2 emissions appear to be a minor player compared to "natural" CO2, water vapour, methane, solar activity etc. The Kyoto approach (curbing carbon emissions) can at best have an insignificant effect on any global warming, be it natural or made-made, but at a frightening $$$ cost. Would it not be better to save this money up to deal with any global crises which may come along, not just the hypothetic global warming?
Neil
It would be foolish to think that climate change is not happening, but it has yet to be proven that there is relationship between CO2 production and global warming. Given that the earth is an eliptical rotating planet circling around a highly volatile sun, is it not feasible that there will be climate change resulting and that all changes, whether they be hot or cold, come from there.Pure science would disagree with CO2 being a large contributor, in fact the opposite occurs; as climate warms up more CO2 is produced so is therefore a result not a cause!!
Sue
I'm surprised that the Herald would run this type of opinion piece. Glad to see thought that the editorial is much more sane and balanced in listening to credible scientific views. Garth George consistently runs anti- environmental lines, I'm surprised that the Herald runs this type of rant from someone clearly not qualified to comment on the issue. Wake up the climate is changing, we see more and more impacts from a changing climate every year. And as for clipping that editorial and looking back in 40 years? I'll be clipping it and looking at it in 10 years - because climate change predictions show things will be a lot worse in ten years than they are now.
Gill
Thanks Brian, I couldn't have said it better.
NeillR
Who is right and who is wrong? Who knows. The tone of the two articles does provide a clue. Garth attempted to use facts based on scientific research to justify his position, whereas Brian spent most of his article attacking Garth. I presume if you don't have a case, all you can do is attack your opponent.
James
I'm not sure how I stumbled across your column but stumble across it I did I am in Ventura, Ca, USA and I think I followed an article on the Beatles which led me here and I found myself investigating a place called New Zealand of which frightfully few yanks me included know about - but I must say to you whoever you are sir - I like what you have to say and how you say it. You are on target. Cheers from America!
Gerald
So the ipcc report says it is now 90 per cent sure that human induced CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming well I was 90 per cent sure I was going to win lotto last week but hey what are the odds. I'll reserve judgment until they are 100 per cent sure then maybe I'll buy another lotto ticket.
Linda Wright
By picking different periods of time you can 'prove' anything about climate change. But the only honest approach is to look at the history of the planet over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. The plain truth is that the Earth has gone through massive climate change through its history, and will continue to do so. Because the current conditions suit humans we have spread to inhabit most of the globe. It was not always like tis and will certainly not always be the like this. Carbon dioxide is food for plants. More carbon dioxide, more plant growth. The amount of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere by human activity is huge compared to 200 years ago. But it is still only a tiny, tiny amount compared with what was already there and an even smaller proportion when you look at other 'greenhouse' gasses such as water vapour. (90 per cent of greenhouse gasses are water vapour.) It is dishonest to suggest human activity is solely responsible for climate change. It is equally dishonest to suggest anything we do will make any difference at all to climate change. Of course we should use our resources wisely and economically. We should treat our plant with respect. But please, don't for one moment think we can change the climate. The sun will just laugh at you.
Bo Norrman
1 The scientific base for stating that there is an ongoing man made global warming due to increased green house emissions has been around at least 10 years, 2 The consequences of global and regional climate change are becoming better known as models and predictions evolve. 3 Decades of research by thousands of scientists is a far better base for understanding this process than the "information" given ignorant talk show hosts or people like Garth. 4 Business is beginning to understand that climate change is for real, read this real estate magazine thematic on global warming!
http://www.housekingonline.com/view-magazines.php
M Donald
I find it interesting that Mr George avoids talking about causes of the extreme weather events of the past few years; Hurricane Katrina, the tsunamis, extreme flooding, drought, heavy rainfall, etc. What, I wonder, would be his reasoning for that? Maybe he would say it's the fault of all those terrorists. The evidence is there but this "scientist" just wants to drive around in his 4L patting himself on the back for being right. NZ Herald, it is of great benefit that you print all kinds of views on issues such as this but maybe it's best to keep fools like this one out because his opinion is not only closed-minded but his comments are childish. And besides, what's wrong with reducing the Co2 emissions? Even if you believe global warming is all hype surely the planet is important enough to try and figure out a workable method of sustainability while there is enough attention on it. Regardless of who is right (which shouldn't really be the issue here, Garth) people like Mr George are doing more harm than good.
Luke
Garth George needs to get with the program. He seriously must be misguided if he believes that several billion people in this world do not contribute to global pollution. Who is it then Garth, the ants? Perhaps it's the gorillas, eating all that vegetation! It's people like him who are deluded, they're too busy probably driving their gas guzzling SUVS and throwing their empty beer cans in the rubbish and not the recycling bin while they smoke cigars and laugh at the so called 'PC brigade' while they drink their gin and tonics at the Northern Club. The evidence clearly outweighs the amount of skeptics, watch a bit of 'An Inconvenient Truth' if you're still not convinced. At the end of the day we need to do all we can to save this precious place we call home. It's people like Garth that need to get their heads out of the 1950s and join the rest of us who just want to preserve and protect this world for as long as possible.
Alan Wilkinson
We must decouple the known facts from the speculative predictions. We know that some greenhouse gases are at increased concentrations. We know that the temperature has risen slightly both before and after the greenhouse gases increased. What we don't know is what feedback and control mechanisms exist and how they will react in a very complex system. Models make predictions but are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. The argument that past history cannot be used to demonstrate the earth's response because mankind's emissions are a new factor equally negates the claim that the accuracy of our predictions can be validated by matching historic data.
Ray Bishop
Hmmm . . sounds like Y2K revisited!! That too was analysed by respected world experts, justified by technologists, advertised by big media, and dramatised on every TV channel, costing ordinary people unbudgeted millions, while international computer companies rolled in revenue!
So now we have the sequel 'Global Warming'! Seems like the smarter we get, the more gullible we are! And global alarmism lines some more coffers! I wish I knew where to queue!!
Linda George
Just browsing thru' Mr Rudman's piece. Sorry, who is angry, Mr Rudman or Mr George? How does Mr Rudman Know Mr George has a gas guzzling auto and wood-fired heater? Hey, maybe they're friends!!! Ha Ha, anyway, hopefully Mr George has explained the gospel to Mr Rudman so that they both have no excuse when they stand before the Lord. Global Warming? Unproved. Empty Tomb? Historical Fact. (Dan Brown et al not withstanding...) Did anyone else beside me hear the scientist on the news the other day blasting the computer models used for global scare tactics? Apparently they have never been proved to work in the real world. Now there's real science for you.
Guy B
Did you know that all of the world's soft drink manufacturers are behind the current Climate Change trend? That's right, they are all collaborating in a very shrewd and calculated strategy that has been going on for many, many years. And now, that plan is finally hitting pay dirt. Everyone knows that they sell bazillions of bottles and cans of fizzy drinks each year. Now here's the rub, that 'fizz' as you call it, is nothing other than dirty ol' Co2 gas. That's right, every time you open a cool refreshing soft drink, You are contributing to the climate change catastrophe. In the most masterful of marketing campaigns, these companies have pulled off the ultimate ambush and have engineered the global environment to increase the demand of their product. The warmer the day the thirstier you get, the thirstier you are the more fizzy drinks you buy. Brilliant! Tui, anyone?
John White
It is easy to see by the posted comments that this is mostly a post for the overindulgent generation that is passing this problem down to us. You screwed up this world. Now, instead of helping us fix your mess; you want to sit back and belly ache. Are you a scientist? Have you gotten out of your little hole in the wall, pathetic excuse of living to actually understand the world around you? No. I can tell by your post that you have no clue of the world around you. There are millions of people dying already due to the effects of global warming. Wonder why there is a war in Darfur? All their water has dried up and people are trying to get to water. There are Eskimos installing air conditioners in the arctic because they are dying from heat stroke. But for once in your life, don't take someone's word for it. Look it up. I if you can read this, do a search on these subjects. Find out the truth. Yes it is scary but, don't be ignorant like this Mr. Garth. By the way, the best thing about 2040 is that you, Mr. Garth and all your deceitful buddies will be dead. Then maybe we can finally do something about the problems your generation left for us.
Nobilangelo
If Garth George, who habitually seems to defend the Christian viewpoint, had read his Bible, he might not defend so vigorously carrying on using the sky as an open sewer, and asserting that that has no effect. In the prophecy of Isaiah, chapter 51 verse 6, he is given a simple command and dire information: 'Lift your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath: the heavens grow murky as smoke; the earth wears into tatters like a garment, and those who live on it die like maggots'. Or he might have seen that Revelation 11:18 direly predicts, 'Now is the time to destroy those who destroy the earth.' Or does his false god, that Falcon 4L, know better than the God he affects to serve? Also, if he had looked at the science he would have seen that all modelling predictions take the mid-line through the data, but that the actual readings are tracking along the top--heading for the worst. Only one habitable planet is available, Garth. Take best care of it. Look up, look down...
Paul Garratt
Congratulations on yet another piece of outstanding journalism from NZ's leading newspaper. It is indeed great journalism that can treat the readers with the same distain and contempt that you apply to the actual subject matter. It is sad that this bloated dinosaur of a columnist has no concern for future generations so long as he can plow his way to the RSA in his V8 gas guzzler. As he is no expert in the field surely this is simply irresponsible hack journalism that should be confined to FHM magazine or Ralph, at least they do not pretend to be a credible reporting publication. Seems simple to me that when faced with a potential global situation that you may not believe in surely it is in the best interests of the larger community to sacrifice a little of some unnecessary extravagance while the opinions are being deliberated. Maybe the asbestos industry could have been more proactive while the health risks were being thrashed out rather than pushing ahead declaring the pr opposed health risks unsupported. Or more attention to the labelled "nonsense" around the health risks of putting Mercury in children's fillings. I can imagine other articles he could do. "Smoking and the cancer myth", "Thalidomide, "what side effects", "Handicap Parking, is it necessary" "Building schools on toxic landfills, what's all the fuss"
Adrian
Yet again New Zealand is about to try to lead the world on an unprove theory, this time climate change. The climate change theory has been developed by academics , hasn't been tested for validity but has been cleverly sold to a group of struggling politicians as a diversion ploy to take the general public minds away from the real issues facing the country. Al Gore and Tony Blair are examples of this- two politicians on the way out and how far behind them are the Labour party and the Greens who are leading the charge on climate change. The real issue facing NZ is the pending infrastructure collapse of all the main cities not climate change. Billions of dollars are required to fix the current infrastrucure situation but the politicians are more focused on climate change as a distraction, doom and gloom story. Lets not forget that the climate change situation occurs over centuries not years so we do have some time to carefully consider the situation and not knee jerk to a must fix now. Lets be happy for once and not have all the normal gloom and doom stories Clark and Cullen and co love to spread.
Prof Bruce Dillion, PhD
Don't we all love a lively debate and if we can weed out the facts the truth lies somewhere in the middle, so how do we know who is telling the truth.First remove the known lies, the atmosphere is not layered by weight, so the out layer is not Hydrogen with a layer of Helium below it and heavy gases at ground level. A lie on the anti side. 1950 was a particularly cold year so don't use that as the compassion, most expert say that atmospheric nuclear test in the 1950's put dust layer into the upper atmosphere which cooled the earth. A lie on the pro side. Here is what you need to do and involve as many of your friends as possible. Buy a book of graph paper, go to official historic weather sites (not IPCC or Anti sites) and make a graph of weather around the world, pick say 3 cities in NZ, Australia, SE Asia, Central Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America and some Islands in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, find the average monthly temperature for each over a long period in say 10 year stages (1900, 1910, 1920 …. To 2000), if 10 of your friends do that for different years and different cities you will have a good idea of temperature change. Avoid bad examples - Hiroshima, London and Dresden had days of high temperature that should be removed from you calculation.
>> Next page of views on this