KEY POINTS:
Clair Haringa
Garth George is absolutely correct in his talk on global warming. We see today mens hearts certainly failing them for what is happening around them in creation. Scientists want us to believe all this hype about global warming because they do not care for the things of God and will not acknowledge that He is the creator. They know nothing of the unseen hand that has created this earth and in the beginning God did create this earth and He did make it in 6 days and rested on the 7th. God is in control of everything and he has said in his word that things will continue until he comes to end this world of death and sin and reign forever more. We have been given this world to look after and we will all be answerable for it. The Bible will one day be a witness against all of us.
Cynthia
I think climate change is a load of rot basically. There have always been climatic upheavals since the year dot but things always settled down in the end. The hierarchy are just using climate change to get more money out of us, the long suffering taxpayer and will things change? Never! Climate change is a huge con and I for one will not be sucked into all the scaremongering done by a lot of so-called scientists.
Marc
It is a campaign designed by the socialist left to take the publics mind of the real issues and the damage that they are doing to the lives of ordinary people, and the rorts they are carrying out on the public. It is just another campaign by the UN and their sops who lap up every word they say like our illustrious leader. Get hold of a copy of the The Great Global Warming Swindle Documentary shown in the UK about two weeks ago to see what it is really about.
Ben Ross
Garth George has relevant points, it is true our forecasters can't get the 3 day forecast right (Re: Easter)let alone 40 years from now. Our climate is so complex and our data collecting so narrow spatially and temporally that what we know is the tip of the Ice Berg. In saying that,building your house on a sand dune or floodbank by a river and you are asking for trouble full stop from the climate. For those bleating on about the Pacific Island Nations and human made Global Warming, I highly recommend that you do Geography and Geology at either University of Auckland or Otago and gain and insight to what is going on before listening to AL Gore and the IPCC. Example; The fact that most island nations facing a worse crisis from them geologically sinking, not 'climatic' drowning! Another fact: yes sea level is rising 1.8mm a year, but NZ is undergoing tectonic uplift of 3.6mm average a year, so in real terms sea levels are falling. And one more, CO2,makes up 0.16 per cent of the atmosphere, water vapour makes up 1 per cent and is also a greenhouse gas yet under studied and we release that gas well. So in all read between the lines.
Mike
Can Garth please explain why the ice shelves in the Antarctic are breaking up and ice bergs floating towards NZ? Is it because the earth's temperature is getting colder or warmer? Obviously he doesn't have grandchildren as if he did wouldn't any normal person worry about the kind of planet our future generations will be living in? Oh that's right Garth is obviously not the answer but the actual problem to the solution as he will keep driving his V8 Ford Falcon (and pollute the atmosphere) and take as many flights overseas as possible just for good measure so that he can do his bit to add to the air pollution problems!! Good on you Garth.
Scott Joseph, MD
I'd kind of like to know the mathematical models used and the variables that were excluded. Given that the same scientists were screaming about Earth's resources being extinguished at the Club of Rome meeting, and that when I was a kid a new ice age was predicted, I'm not so sure. To be told that "scientists agree" does not move me. I have a doctorate---I want the experimental paradigm.
Mark Harrison
It is insanity to believe any of the sensationalist claims about so-called "Global Warming". Who's to say islands aren't sinking due to tectonic activity? Who's to say that the water table doesn't control global temperature and not the other way around? Who's to say the sun isn't causing it all? After all there is global warming on Mars and it has no Martians, cars or industry! There is no scientific consensus, the evidence is shaky, the IPCC is politically bent and the media likes to sensationalise. People, gain perspective.
Kim
Anyone who comes wading into a debate like this should probably try doing a little research before they go spouting their opinions. Climate change is an incredibly complex issue, and before you go sermonizing about how it is a mega conspiracy, go have a read of the IPCC reports and check the facts for yourself. Never before has the scientific community had such a large and thoroughly agreed with consensus over something as they have with this issue. Before you go believing the so called "sceptical scientists" have a look at their qualifications (are they actually a proper scientist?) and check to see if their paper was peer reviewed. The people who are being sensationalist about this issue are not the scientists, but the media and politicians who still try and present two sides of the argument as if the scientific community was still split over the issue. I can assure you it is not, any proper scientist who has done research will tell you that climate change is a reality, and that it is taking place because of human GHG emissions. If you think otherwise, in a few years time you will start to look very foolish.
Dolly
Climate change may be occurring, but the contribution of human beings is miniscule compared to the fact that the climate is always changing! Trust man to believe that he is the cause of everything, good or bad, that happens on Earth. Yes people in low lying areas may have to move their homes, but cutting down the use of your car or reducing the number of cattle releasing methane gas is not going to make any difference to that! If we are concerned about emissions, it should be because of the stupidity of fouling our air and water, not because of some hysteria about climate change. Adapt or perish.
Graham Milne
Balanced reporting should contain many more views like Mr George's, so the public are kept up with all sides of the story. Unfortunately the media is never balanced, is always sensationalist, and good news is not news.
Joanne
Without wanting to sound alarmist about the whole situation, I do feel that many of those who deny the existence of global warming are simply afraid. It is far more convenient for the Garth Georges of the world to retain the comfortable, self-indulgent lifestyles that they have always enjoyed, rather than acknowledge an over-whelming body of evidence which clearly points to the drastic changes beginning to affect our planet. To accept that the climate clock is ticking not only requires one to alter the habits of a lifetime, but to acknowledge a far scarier truth - that the future of the world may well be in jeopardy. No, it is not "all doom and gloom", but we have to act now and that starts by getting real about climate change.
Kiwi Teetee
Global warming is here. There is no debate about that. As to whether we are causing it, now that is a debate. However, we should now be focusing on how to cope with its effects. The Stern report gave an economic impact, we now need to be thinking about the human impact.
Sam Finnemore
I see that Garth George has decided to write about global warming again in the wake of the IPCC report. However, I can remember another of his columns from November 2nd last year, also on climate change. Much of the same spirit is still there: Mr George will keep on driving his 4-litre Falcon, burning wood in winter, and telling future generations 'I told you so'.However, the latest column relies on 'expert' academic deniers of climate change. These academics are not the ivory-tower pointy-heads Mr George hates, because here they happen to agree with him. But in November, Mr George had a different ally: he knew climate change was a non-issue because 'every time I see a rainbow I have it confirmed for me. It tells me that God is keeping the promise he made to Noah after the world-drowning flood thousands of years ago recorded in Genesis.' Wow! Credibility plus! And this same man now compares climate change science to flat-earth beliefs? I don't know why Mr George bothered changing to modern 'evidence' for his latest column. Clearly his lifestyle is not going to change, and he'll stick with an uncritical belief in anything that doesn't challenge his own selfish behaviour.
Mark Vrankovich
Garth is right. I watched that Al Gore film when in came out, there were so many contradictions and hyped scare tactics in his presentation that it convinced me the whole thing was a hoax. And sure enough it turned out a lot of Gore's "data" was twisted to meet his own views. The problem with these Chicken Little types is that they put people off the issue entirely. I think the saying "It's too good to be true" works in the inverse, what they are saying will happen is too bad to be true. More calm facts are what is needed, with less true-believer zealotry.
Mark
I agree with Stan who posted earlier, Im going to get ready to buy up all the coastal land, just back from the current coastline....I also agree with Garth George, its total rubbish that humans are having an impact on the world, or at least an impact that we can do anything about, there are too many variables involved and nothing we can do will change what is set in motion now.
Vickel Narayan
A rule of thumb "for every action there is equal and opposite reaction". We know for certain that the CO2 levels have gone up considerably, no one would deny this. We all have our own views about what effects this may have. Remember the rule, and think about the climate change more practically. We will pay for the raising CO2 level but how? Raising sea levels maybe, another ice age who knows. We can argue about the facts and the data collected over years and also argue about what we predict or we can take action now and cut down on the CO2 emissions, to make "the reaction" a bit bearable!
Gerald
Garth George is right. Some people keep saying that the science is proven on CO2 causing global warming/climate change or whatever they will call it next but can they explain it in layman terms and actually show an example to prove beyond doubt that CO2 and i mean man induced CO2 causes global warming. The so called seas rising and inundating Pacific Islands like Tuvalu begs the question: is Tuvalu sinking instead? As for blaming the oil companies do you really think that they won't be making a profit out of all this, don't you worry they will have a bet each way because the cause and result of all this hysteria will be profits and power. We are being used as we have been since someone discovered the power of manipulation, as those who do HR courses know. Keep it up Garth but we know what the outcome will be?
Ray Storey
No-one's adequately explained to me these points: 1. If 70 per cent of the world's population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, why is there a 'man-made' hole in the ozone layer, above the Antarctic, in the Southern Hemisphere? 2. If the North Pole melts, won't this water simply replace the ice that the sea had been previously displaced with, therefore not raising the sea level a jot? Isn't only 2 per cent of the world's water in the form of ice anyway? 3. Movements in sea level, particularly in the Pacific are measured in millimetres. How's the effect of tectonic plate movement taken into account with these measurements?
Moheka Williams
Garth George won't have to worry if he is wrong, neither will his generation. Fact: The Arctic is melting, Fact: the Antarctic is melting. The evidence of this is not only scientific, it is visual. Oh yeah the pro-polluters and self-interested abusers of our only habitable planet in the solar system would say that the science cannot prove that global warming is happening. There is evidence that islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are being flooded by the rise in the sea. Yeah sure, there have been climate changes throughout this planets history, but over a few thousand years, not in the last 50 years, at this speed. Garth George and supporters of his view need to go to the delta in Bangaldesh, the Arctic or even Antarctica to get a reality check, or take a holiday in Niue or Kiribati. Get real you pro-polluters.
Arron
Surely if a large proportion of the polar ice cap is under sea level, and ice displaces more space than water, the melting ice caps should result in lower sea levels? (or at least a negligible difference). Are the scientists stupid or am I missing something here?
Philip
Again the astonishing leap that man made carbon emissions are the cause of climate change. Of course pro-climate change scientists have an agenda - funding their studies, and woe betide anyone who disagrees for they become heretic and sent forthwith to the lunatic fringe. Climate Change because of man made actions is about as credible as the eugenics movement and that was supported by amongst others Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Winston Churchill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Oh and as final though of no merit. Of course there is climate change- else we would still be living in an ice age along with the woolly mammoth.
Steve
Climate change has nothing to do with CO2 or man made emissions. Climates changed long before we arrived on the scene and will continue to change long after we are gone. The current debate lacks substance and is politically driven. All dissenters are labelled "deniers", sounds a bit Orwellian to me. We dont know how the climate will change -- 20 years ago we were told it was getting colder. The sky is not falling.
Karen
Is climate change happening? Yes, without doubt. Even without considering temperature records, we can look at things like plant growing areas and seasons, and hibernatory patterns of animals. Is climate change a result of human activity? I don't know. No-one knows for certain. Science is not about certainty - there are no 100 per cent certain guarantees. Probably, there is a combination of human and natural causes behind climate change, and how significant each is, is anyones guess. Now for the big question ... Will reducing CO2 emissions stop climate change? Again, I don't think anyone really knows. What most of the models show is that it will affect things but there will be a lag - this means that even if emission levels dropped significantly tomorrow, we would still find ourselves experiencing climate change for many years to come. I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions is a bad thing to do, but I also wouldn't expect to see overnight effects! The other side of the coin is to consider that, if climate change is going to happen, what are we going to do to manage the effects? We have a window of opportunity now to plan for this, but it's a window that will close soon.
Marcus
Even if climate change is not real should we not be taking a precautionary approach? Are we going to just wait around and see, and hope that in the event that it actually is occurring that an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff will be enough? It seems to me that there is enough evidence that climate change is a very real possibility and that if all we must do is evolve our technology and economy from an archaic industrial age, fossil fueled one to a 21st Century sustainable and renewable one then we will have only gained by doing so.
Dan
Debating whether or not climate change is directly attributable to CO2 emissions is falling for the media spin. This isn't the real issue - it's simply a damn good pretext for encouraging us to use the earth's finite resources more diligently and responsibly, eliminating pollution, encouraging biodiversity and improving quality of life for us and future generations. So if climate change is the pretext for reducing CO2 emissions so one day I can jog down a street busy with cars, without coughing my guts out, then I'm all for it.
Muzz
To Duane, Henry Woodhouse, Dan Jones earlier in this blog, please read;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
It's the Sun not anything man made. We of course do need to clean up our act on pollution, and a global population explosion in the near future but the climate will do want it wants, with or without our help.
Carl
Even if we can't be certain as to the existence of human induced climate change, given the potential consequences of delayed inaction we must act. This is the precautionary principle.
Colin
The debate on global warming has to take into account established knowledge of earth mechanics and cycles. Firstly, many Pacific islands are on the tectonic 'conveyor belt' moving away from rift areas and sinking at the same time. Coral growth normally kept growth with the sinking process and sand production and movement along with biological processes built up above-sea habitable islands. Other facts to note are; a) ice ages are sometimes preceded by a sharp warming period as shown from ice core analysis using nitrogen isotopes to indicate atmospheric temperatures. b) Temperature changes correspond to a wide range of factors one of which is the 11-year sun spot activity. Dozens of other terrestrial and extra terrestrial influences combine to make the cyclical patterns extremely complex and difficult to make accurate cause and effects. Despite proven evidence of rising temperatures, it is poor science to assume just one factor is at play here. The moral question of overpopulation and squandering earth's resources in a geological eye blink is another matter.
Greg G
Climate change occurs naturally. If humans have any influence on it it may be only too accelerate it? Since China is exempt from Kyoto any changes we make won't change anything anyway. Except in having less harmful pollutants that affect our health. On that note why is only the health of the planet a factor in regards to pollution, what about the health of humans. This media fenzy of experts reminds me of the y2k bug of 2000 the biggest fraud this century. Humbug.
David
At least one positive has come of today's debate. A strong scientific future for New Zealand is assured as it appears that those (like Garth George) with absolutely zero training on this subject actually are more knowledgeable than those who study and interpret the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere every day of their working lives! Thank God for the in-bred half-wits of NZ society (i.e. Garth George and co. at the NZ Climate Science Coalition) whom without such debate would be rather short.
Rowan Lane
There is a very good precedent to global warming which should serve as an alarm. That is the state of our oceans, sealife and its degradation. For years the impacts were ignored and scoffed at. Now there are worldwide measures in place to try and recover the destruction to the ocean system.We know that the whole planet is complex system of environmental relationships.It is either foolhardy brave or naive to claim that global warming is something dreamed up by the fairies.It maybe overstated in consequence in some places but it is nevertheless a fact.
Nick
I can't believe people are still burying their heads in the sand on this. Climate change is real. It's going to have adverse impacts. Modern civilisation is causing it and it is up to us to do something about it. It's time to get over the question of whether there is any meaningful debate left to be had. On one side you have a few pseudo science crackpots and on the other side you have the weight of scientific opinion.On the other side consider the recent IPCC report. 2500 scientific reviewers 1250 authors from 130 countries compiled over 6 years. I know who I'll put my money on.
Andrew Montgomery
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth re climate change. It is either human caused or not human caused. Either way it is going to be business as usual for the atmosphere with the world population projected to increase by 15 per cent over the next decade and with China et al unwilling to agree to Kyoto. It is fantasy to believe that any useful reductions are going to be made in C02 emissions when most of the world pays only lip service.
Our country has much to lose and little to gain from the carbon credit circus and should drop out of Kyoto. It's either that or to continue rearranging the gold plated deckchairs on the Titanic.
Kelly Bolton
I can't believe anyone is even still debating this. The Pentagon considers global warming the greatest threat to long-term US national security. Tony Blair has said that it is the greatest threat to Britain's future. 11 of the last twelve years have been the hottest ever recorded - worldwide. This year was the first year in recorded history that there was no snow in Tokyo. The Gulf of Mexico (New Orleans)and the Florida panhandle have had more major hurricanes in the last 3 years than in the last 30. The Czech Republic, Germany, England and France now experience regular, serious flooding, for the first time in their meteorological histories. Moscow had its warmest winter ever this year, it was actually warm in January. Amphibians and insects around the world are dieing, causing a breakdown in the pollination cycles of plants. London has had three very hot summers in a row, breaking all records, reaching 100 degrees for the first time, ever. The recent flood in Manawatu was the most expensive natural disaster in NZ history. Fishermen all over the world are reporting changes in currents and temperatures and sighted or caught species. Dolphins are dieing en masse from previously unknown fungal infections, and those that survive are racing to cooler waters - they are being slowly cooked alive. Polar bears are running out of ice on which to hunt. Previously ice bound mountains are suddenly ice-free in Antarctica. Greenland is melting. I suggest that Garth George go and live in Nauru. He could try burying his head in the sand but unfortunately, the beach there is underwater now.
Christine
Have you ever considered how we make alcohol? We get a bucket of sugary fruit juice or similar and keep it at a constant temperature. Add yeast organisms who then eat and breed indiscriminately excreting alcohol which eventually, when it gets too concentrated, kills off the yeasts. We humans are like the yeasts This planet has had many cycles of wildly differing temperatures. Now is no exception. It is up to us to survive whatever the planet throws at us and the results of our own excretions. Or we will die like many other species before us. No doubt some will also keep on living, probably those with skills like fishing, growing plants, cooking and food preservation, outdoor survival and the like. So what skills do your kids have? Playstation probably won't help them much.
Brian Cowie
Perhaps we should listen to the experts on this one...This would be the scientists that have spent their lives studying the complex ecological environment that we live. For those that doubt the effects we are having on this earth I would suggest they spend an hour in their garage at home with the door shut and the car running..
BJ
Scientists motivated to create a political conspiracy and falsifying data? Or politicians and businessmen who are rolling in dough and are lying to maintain the status quo? Who do you trust with the future of the planet? I don't care who Garth is, or who Augie was, if you don't pay attention to the actual science, all of it, you are misreading the situation. No scientist said the ocean would go up 5 meters by 2050 either. In that sense there is a lot of hype out there. It's enough though, that people in many very well-armed nations will get hungry and thirsty. The deniers could be right because a nuclear winter could easily be the end of the global-warming controversy.
Pdm
Of course there is Global Warming just as there have been temperature fluctuations since the world was created. It is called Nature.
Julian
Climate change is happening. No-one is calling for it to be stopped (as if it could be). Yes it has occurred before, we have been warmer and colder in the past. Sea levels have been higher and lower in the past. What makes current climate change different? Speed. Changes in the Earth that previously took hundreds or thousands of years, are occurring faster. So much faster that scientists started noticing changes taking place over mere decades. Coincidentally these changes are occurring at the same time humans have become ever more industrialised. Coincidence? Not when hundreds of studies, in dozens of different scientific fields come to similar conclusions. Ever heard of the weight of evidence? How George is able to call over a thousand of the world's most respected scientists "boffins" suggests he has been captured by those that are threatened by the conclusions of the IPCC: oil companies, big CO2 emitting countries and industries, scientists preferring to engage in the debate via the media rather than peer-reviewed work and others. Inform yourself by reading Science and other respected outlets, not the biased web pages of individuals and suspect organisations!
Ana
I came across an article about the whole humans causing global warming debate and the naysayers. It says that there are two possible erroneous conclusions in the debate: 1) global warming/climate change is caused by humans when it's actually not or 2) global warming is not being caused by humans when it actually is. Economically and environmentally, it makes more sense to assume that we are responsible for global warming and that we should do something about it, such as limit CO2 emissions, etc, because the consequences of a wrong conclusion of type 1 are far less disastrous than type 2, which could ultimately result in our demise as a civilisation in the worst case scenario. This is common sense. Do you carry an umbrella when there is a 85 per cent chance of rain? Also, the problem of increased CO2 is not just warming of the planet. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes the oceans to acidify. This is potentially a bigger problem.
Tania Sickling
Regardless of the impact our lifestyles may or may not have on the global environment in the future, many of our activities have an identifiable and negative impact on our local environment in the present. Garth George may "keep on driving my 4-litre Falcon, use as much water and electricity as I want, take as many airline flights as I please, and keep the woodburner well stoked throughout the winter", but not without adding carbon monoxide to the air we in his neighbourhood breathe; nor without contributing to the electricity demand that causes us to dam rivers, build super-sized pylons across the countryside and consider resorting to nuclear power with its own unsafe byproducts in the future. Surely these issues are reason enough for a less selfish, more custodial attitude towards our environment.
Eman Radwan
Yes, there is definitely global warming and climate changes. Science has proved this fact already and so I wont go through the scientific facts again. I have been on this earth for almost 41 years now. I remember when I was young and we went on the beach in summer, mum used to take some heavy clothes for us as usually at night it turns cold. Now, I have my own kids and I don't remember ever that I had to take any jackets with me in summer. Actually, summer turned to be unbearable. all the houses have air conditions on. When I was a kid, we only used a fan and that was not that often. No science there yet it is a sufficient evidence for me. By the way, I was talking about the climate in Egypt but I think it is changing everywhere.
Angela
Predicting technological advancement is incomparable to predicting natural phenomenon; you're comparing dreams to reality - it's ridiculous. Is Global Warming for real? I don't know. I do know that in my 30 years the climate in NZ has changed dramatically. Whether we are causing this or it is a natural phenomenon, who can be sure? But if there's even the slightest possibility that we are the cause (or accelerant) then that's enough for me. Ignorance in this case in unacceptable. If there was a possibility that an earthquake was coming, would you rather be ignorant, or prepared just in case? If nothing else we have to admit that many of the earth's resources we use are non-renewable so it's inevitable that we'll have to start looking for alternatives somewhere down the line. For the monetarily minded – even if you don't believe you're saving the earth, you'll certainly be saving your bank balance with cheaper renewable resources. As for the whole "politics, fame, fortune" argument; the majority of politicians across the globe view global warming as rubbish so I can't really see how this "politically motivated" argument works. And fame and money? Please. Grant money is re-invested in the project, there's little to no financial gain unless there's an outcome; and I couldn't tell you the name of one scientific supporter. The bottom line is it's possible – do we really want to wait until it's too late to find out for sure?
Brad
On the 21st of Sept 2005 the Herald published an article about Mars warming up http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=E7C0D4BA-39E4-11DA-8E1B-A5B353C55561. Obviously this is proof that life exists on Mars, because if you were to believe the doomsayers the only way a planet can have climate change is through the climatic abuses of the native population of that planet. Or maybe planets go through climate changes naturally.
Iris
More scientific studies? Watch the documentary "Unconvenience Truth" it give lots of fact in global warming.
Geoff Lamb
I agree with submitter David; greenhouse gases cannot exist, as CO2 is heavier than air and cannot rise, just as water is heavier than air and cannot...oops, never mind. Best crack a few books before opening our mouths, ay David?
Anna
Re Garth: was an intelligent, informed commentator not available?
Ben
Garth, setting aside the fact that you're clearly an old dinosaur, determined to stay set in your ways no matter what, I am in fact inclined to agree with you. Your criticism of the IPCC is ridiculously over the top and not a little misinformed. The science on which you base your argument is just as sketchy as that which you choose to criticise. Having said all that, the amount of hype that global warming is getting in the media is simply ridiculous, and is clearly designed to frighten and shock. Al Gore's movie used maps to show what would happen to major cities if sea levels rose 4 metres, while even the most adventurous scientific estimates say that sea levels will only rise 30 cm by 2100. Temperatures at worst are estimated to climb by barely a degree in the next century. Global warming, while still a legitimate problem and one which people probably contribute to, has been latched onto by the world's media as a way to sell news, articles and books. Rather than trying to confront the world with the type of trash best characterised by the Hollywood flop "The Day After Tomorrow", scientists should make a better effort to bring forth the real facts.
Michael T. ONeill
I have no problem accepting that the climate is changing: I do have a problem accepting that mankind is largely responsible. I have no problem accepting that pollution is increasing - and I have no problem in accepting mankind is largely responsible.
Ben Picard
Clearly the opinions are just what the carbon credit traders will need from the alarmists and the scientists as a denial will mean being sidelined by the employers of those highly qualified people. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 and of Oxygen 29. Does that mean anything? Hydroponics use CO2 to promote plant growth and is not considered to b a pollutant at all. The money is the main motivation for this hype and clearly the number of people who have followed the "Inconvenient Truth" devised by a man who says he has purchased carb