KEY POINTS:
Here is a selection of more views:
Russell Ward
Yes, he is right. This climate warming rubbish is politically motivated.
Diane
I wonder how much research Garth George has done into Global warming? He is a journalist, not a scientist, and the scientist say that without reductions in world omissions by 2050 we will be 5 dec hotter and our sea levels will rise 4 to 5 meters. Our normal body temp' is 137, imagine another 5 dec more, we would not be feeling too good. I could explain for hours the effect it would have on all animal and insect life, some because of Global warming would become extinct. I hope as George suggests that a child cuts out his article and see how wrong he was when being read in 2050.
L K
What an arrogant pratt Garth George can be. Anyone can make any numbers or information prove what they want to prove. Doesn't it seem possible that maybe we are changing the environment and climate for the worse? Maybe we should be moderating our consumption and activities in order to try to stop things worsening.
Brian Spicer
I am no conspiracy theorist however I think what Garth George says here needs to be repeated time and again until people start to see that just because one group of scientists, whose funding will stop if global warming turns out to be the non-event I believe it is, can shout louder than the rest. When I was a teenager the future before us involved huge amounts of leisure time as a result of the coming computer revolution (I am still waiting as the emails pile up) followed by a sudden demise of humanity as nuclear proliferation reached its ultimate conclusion. I think it was only last week that the Herald carried reports that the on-going impact of Chernobyl was must less than anticipated. Then came the "millennium bug" which, like "global warming", reaped mega-bucks' for those who told us of impending doom! Science does not deal in truth... only in facts. And facts change... the earth travels around the sun... the earth is a globe... and ... and global climate change???
Dr Erich S Bloodaxe
99% of the hot air on both sides of the global warming debate comes from people who have no training in meteorology, geology, or any other related field. Everybody wants to weigh in as if their opinion makes any sort of sense when they don't have the training to even understand the myriad of interlinked issues that come together to affect the global climate. One good example of that is those who compare forecast models for rainfall with warming trend data for centuries in the future. That's like saying if you can't figure out what any given person will do in a tense situation, you can't predict mob behaviour, which just isn't a logical statement. As a PhD in geology, I have the good sense to realize I don't have enough understanding of the field to form a snap opinion, yet every politician out there will come along and tell you it's rubbish or gospel. Hot air indeed. Time will provide an answer, but it's always best to be prepared for disasters, whether they happen or not. I'd rather take steps to possibly stave off a future problem that may not happen than get caught flat footed when one crops up in which no one believes.
C.F. Max
Global warming is a natural phenomena and I think humans are only accelerating the global warming .But I do not believe the actions of humans are drastic as we have been told. I think this is a global scandal which is operated by organized groups of people for their own benefit(to gain popularity/attention,financial benefits and political edge).Talking about global warming is just like drinking a can full of soda with a vodka label.
Ian
The amount of science on both sides of this coin is quite staggering. Really the only question that needs to be asked is 'Could it possibly be caused by our actions?' If the answer to that is 'Yes' then our course must be set to minimise our future effect until science can tell us definitively whether it's a natural change or caused by humanity. Regardless of the answer we need to ask ourselves if we want to keep treating the world as we are ie. deforestation, pollution of our air water and land and extinction of many animals due to habitat destruction. If the cause of global warming is us then we are looking at a sad legacy for the next 5-10 generations having to clean up our mess. If we aren't the cause we will be leaving those same generations and more a world polluted, deforested and with a mere fraction of the animal diversity it once had. Whether this version of global warming is all rubbish is not really the point.
Kevin Stitt
I agree with Garth George. The nature of the human being is that we need a cause, and Global Warming doomsay is the latest. The graph shows surface temperatures since year 00 in the Northern Hemisphere. Last winter was the coldest we have had for a long time! Temperatures now are no different to what they were in 900AD or 1100AD. Where was the CO2 coming from then? If records from ice core samples over the millenniums are checked, temps have been 4 degrees Celsius higher than the mean a number of times throughout history. We are now just 0.4 higher. In the 70s scientists were predicting an impending ice age. The same scientists are now predicting global warming. Their data is sketchy if not flawed. Mind you, they have never had so much money sent their way to play their silly games. The worse their predictions, the more money they get for research! One side of any story can sound plausible until the other side is heard. We are not hearing much of the other side on this one. It doesn't sell newspapers. Thank you, Garth, for speaking out.
Pip
Thank goodness there is a little sanity in the media. I find the global warming debate very frustrating and so one sided. Even though I really do have a problem with the amount of waste that we humans produce and the huge gas guzzling cars and SUVs we drive, surely there has to be a better way to make us waste less than global warming which is, depending who you believe, based on dodgy science. I am sure that at school was taught that CO2 molecules where heavier than air and that trees need CO2 to photosynthesise. Surely a better cause of CO2 levels rising is the wanton destruction of rainforests and vegetation over the last few decades? Are we really that arrogant to believe we can change the weather of an over 4 billion year old living planet? It seems to be the nature of things to come and go over time.Yes we waste and destroy but change the weather, I think not? I should be around in 2040 and will definitely print off Garth Georges' article to keep for posterity if no thing else.
Karl Rohde
It is the biggest rort in history! The evidence put forward by scare mongers simply does not stack up, and the media engine that rides on the coat tails of peoples fears is simply re-enforcing the fiction being presented. We seldom ever hear from the small voice of those who say there is no disaster. Why? Because its not as dramatic to report on. The politicians are simply going with what they believe will get them in favour with the masses.
Peter
I am stunned! I never thought I would read such an objective opinion on Global Warming in the Herald. Of course Garth George is right. Good reporting. Finally a NZ reporter is doing his own research instead of relying on handouts from the IPCC. The IPCC's previous models and predictions have all failed and even when it is proven to the IPCC their models are wrong, they still fail to correct them and attack the messager. The outlook for NZ in the IPCC report is basically based on Niwa scientist Dr Jim Salinger's opinions, but they should be peer reviewed by experts independent of the IPCC, like Dr Vincent Gray or Prof Bob Carter rather than the "incestuous" little group as mentioned in the Wegman Report. Then I think you would find Prof Wendy Lawson would be studying the effects of advancing glaciers (which they have been since 1999), rather than the opposite. Oh, but she probably wouldn't get funding for doing that? It's not PC. But it does look like there is some money to be made by buying cheap coastal property off those who have been sucked in by the IPCC.
Angela Paul
Yes, he's right. 30 years ago, we were warned of a coming ice age. It is PC political rort designed to control us through fear and deflate our wallets. It's extortion. And it comes from the UN...need I say more?
Andrew
Of course he's right! Let's put this in perspective. CO2 occupies 0.035 per cent of the atmosphere & even if it doubled it would only be 0.07 per cent and we can easily live with that. 99.9 per cent of the entire world's CO2 is at ground level or below, most being dissolved in the oceans. CO2 is heavier than air for a very good reason, that is where the sinks are namely the oceans and plants that require CO2 to survive - nature made it that way. The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 44, nearly double. CO2 does not rise, if it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. The only hot air being spouted forth is the garbage that comes out of politicians for political gain - and our money as taxes - don't be fooled otherwise! It's more about how they can control us!
Duane
Tell the people in the low lying islands that Global Warming is a rort. I ask Garth to come explain to the islanders who are watching their land disappear under water that there is no such thing and that it will all just go away some day. Whichever of the scientists are right or wrong, the fact remains that islands that have been around for thousands of years are going under water. All the bickering is simply to see who can get their names in the brightest lights, and meanwhile the poor people living in these islands are suffering as they lose valuable land. On one side we have the doomsday lot, and on the other the head-in-the-sand lot. We need the scientists to sort themselves out and concentrate on finding a solution to the problem of the rising sea levels, rather than just making more problems.
Henry Woodhouse
Well, well,well. The truth according to Garth George. You criticize the findings of the IPCC and anyone that may take their warnings seriously by saying that the jury is still out on global warming while at the same time agreeing whole heartedly with an equally (according to your logic) 50/50, but convenient for your lifestyle, analysis based on satellite readings. Where do these satellites get their readings from?. I am assuming they do not drill ice cores through the Antarctic ice sheets from their lofty positions. I would ask, do these satellites get their data from the atmosphere, the same atmosphere that others such as Roger Revelle have been testing for over 50 years with alarming results? Who owns these satellites and what are their motives for releasing this data into the public arena? It seems logical to me that every action (that being gigantic amounts of human released CO2) has an equal and opposite reaction (that being the climate into which it is released). If one volcano can alter climates in different parts of the world (Krakatoa) what of the far larger amounts of particulates produced over decades by man. I think this is a convenient excuse for you not to modify your lifestyle and instead of promoting a bi-partisan analysis of both sets of data, you have settled for the one set that fits your lifestyle model the best. That of consumption at any cost.
Rossnz
For millions of years the earth has been subject to major climate changes. Minor climate changes today are just a continuation of the process. The overemphasis on global warming is more political than scientific. Care for the planet by all means, but do it for the right reasons.
Andrew Jackson
So, disregarding any opinions either way, there is a strong argument that we need to clean up our act anyway and make our daily environment more pleasant. Humans may or may not be affecting the global temperature but we sure as hell are the creators of a myriad of disgusting practices.
Dan Jones
Er.. Garth, about those satellite measurements that you go on about. Perhaps you should know that the allegation that these measurements do not show temperature rises has been thoroughly debunked for two years now (New Scientist magazine, 20 August 2005). The relevant quote from this article: "As nails in the coffin go, they don't get much bigger: three independent studies have shown that climate sceptics who claim that Earth is not warming have been using faulty data to make their point." Please do us a favour and do some basic journalism before making an idiot of yourself in print. If this is the quality of evidence that the climate sceptics can bring to the debate, well, colour me green.
Angela
Ice core samples that go back about 1.5 million years show that the earth has both been cooler with higher than present CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and warmer with lower than present CO2 levels. We don't really know why the earth warms and cools over time, but we do know the earth is a self regulating system, which will make adjustments to look after itself. So yes, I agree, stop the scare mongering - its getting boring. However, sustainability is an important issue if we want to secure the future of the human race. Stop wasting non-renewable resources such as oil, and start living a lifestyle that will see future generations able to support themselves also. Don't waste water, don't drive a four litre tank, and don't buy cheap throw away rubbish or goods with excessive packaging. Be smart and be caring.
Sean McDermott
The Chinese are not going to worry about global warming. While the governments of the western world are bureaucratically destroying our competitive advantage, the Chinese (and Russians)are undermining our production bases, stealing our knowledge and developing their industry. In five years, when China has overtaken the west, has become the new superpower, colonised Africa and is producing 90 per cent of the worlds consummables, we will be starving and getting aid from them. John Howard is right. Balance our economy before we play environmental backgammon.
Bill
So, the science is questionable - and being twisted by both sides of the political debate. Maybe global warming is happening, maybe its not - maybe it is human caused, maybe not. However jumping from "global warming is questionable" to "I'll 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" is pretty ignorant and greedy. Weather aside, what sort of world do you want your kids and grandkids to live in? When someone reads this article in 2040, as you hope, they may say "he was correct about global warming" but they will also say "that greedy bastard lived opulently with no care for the next generation."
Sustainability is important - and has next to nothing to do with global warming. With individuals consistently using more resources than the previous year, and an exponentially growing population (the only way a breeding population can grow), resources are becoming scarce. Whether burning fossil fuels causes global warming is irrelevant - we should use what's left purposefully - not on silly tough guy cars and extra warm, excessively lit homes. Sustainability is important – Sustainable growth is an oxymoron. Neoclassical economics, which has been the foundation of western civilization for 150 years, depends entirely on continuous growth. The theory of neoclassical economics assumes infinite resources; it is incapable of understanding dwindling resources – we need a better theory to base our way of life on.
Ana Dermer
Loser - global warming or not he only needs to look at what happened on Easter Island to see that we are in trouble! We are definitely running out of resources.
Tommy
I couldn't agree with you more Garth George. This is just another money laundering scare just like SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu, Mad Cow disease Etc. All were and some still are known as something that could "wipe out" millions of humans. Lets just make it clear more people have died going to work than from all people that have died from SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu and Mad Cow disease shall we all stop going to work for our own safety? Come on people stop getting brainwashed!
Jayson
I tend to agree. I am beginning to wonder if this is going to be like the whole Y2K thing. I am annoyed that the news this week focused on the dire predictions as if everyone was in agreement. Insight on Radio NZ had a great report on those who are not in agreement with this issue. I will not go as far as keep using all the water I want etc, I still want to look after my environment, I am just not sure about this global warming thing.
Peter
For once I agree with you. I am inclined to side with the view that "global warming" has nothing to do with humans and everything to do with solar activity. This could be worth taking a look at . .
Phil Sinclair
Garth George can regurgitate all the hot air from a few scientists opposing the proven science around climate change that he likes, but he will never be able to undermine the proven science, which supports global warming. It is true there are a number of once distinguished scientists who, either for reasons of self interest, ie under the thrall of special interest corporations, or who have decided to be oppositionist because of some personal failing, have chosen to ignore the large body of science that supports global warming.
There are so many scientists who have done the research, studied the arguments and who are certain that human activity is affecting climate that this just cannot be dismissed as George and his ostrich companions would like.
Take just one of the myriad organisations: the Union of Concerned Scientists for example. Founded at M.I.T. one of the world's greatest scientific institutions in 1969, long before this notion was accepted by any political or corporate leaders, the UCS made of of both faculty and the student body was formed precisely because the data was becoming too persuasive to ignore any longer. Take a look at the UCS board at http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/board.html and you'll find fourteen scientists working across the gamut of climate related endeavour each one far more qualified and held in a higher regard than George's small cluster of curmudgeon's.
Denise Bates
I agree with Garth! The current "global warming" dogma is taking the place of old-time religion, by preaching a message that if we "sin" (however that may be defined) we will face doom. Like old-time religion, it gives the technically ignorant a chance to grandstand and place restrictions on the behaviour of the general populace. The substantial number of scientists who challenge the dogma are sidelined and silenced, while the global-warming lobby pretend that their claims now represent a "consensus" and are a "fact". There are no "facts" in science, and the unwillingness of the global-warming proponents to allow a serious critique their own models shows the quality of their "science".
Steve Curtis
We came to NZ from the UK 2 years ago. We lived through some of the most extreme weather in centuries in the UK - unprecedented winter floods, summer droughts and severe storms. I am not a "big time" environmentalist but cannot ignore the evidence of my own eyes. Also, for every scientific hypothesis you can find contradictory results somewhere. You have to look at the overwhelming body of evidence. Don't we want to be better guardians of the earth? This opinion column smacks of a desperate attempt to find a loophole, justifying self-interest and wastefulness. The final sentences betrayed that totally as far as I'm concerned. Please think again Garth, and check out the melting icesheets!
Michael Petherick
I can't believe the idiocy of your column, Garth George. It might be best for the world if you die shortly. That being said, I imagine that you'll want to be cremated, just to spite the next generation.
John Pooe
If there is any global warming it certainly has nothing to do with the activities of humans,it has all happened before, the burning of fossilised fuels has very little to do with it, as I repeatedly say the Kyoto carbon tax is a scam, a money laundering scam, any one that takes the time to read up on the subject can't help but realise there is plenty of evidence to rubbish the theory that humans have any thing to do with it.
Chris H
After reading as much as I can on both sides, I believe there is a flaw in the global warming argument in that this is presented as a "never before has this happened" type scenario, when we do know it has happened before. In fact it has happened before at a far more rapid rate than we are currently seeing it at ground level. Also, there is a solid body of evidence to suggest that we are not getting warmer. However, I am still recycling. I am still driving a small car. I am still composting. Not because I am on a global warming bandwagon, but simply because I want there to be resources available to my childrens children. One generation is going to have to find a sustainable solution to petrol, Avgas, Diesel and coal. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be mine. Mine is the "me" generation, whereas my children are growing up amongst the "mine instantly" generation, however I hold out a hope that my grandchildren will live in a "we" generation who also think a hundred years out when acting.
>> Your Views on the subject continues here
