KEY POINTS:
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.
Jo McKee
First, do no harm. The maxim of the medics is a guide for those of us who dither between the schools of thought. Small incremental changes won't hurt any of us and in the meantime the science models will improve. Let's not get polarised over this, keep an open mind, all too aggressive at present.
David Reilly
Global warming cased by too many humans? True but, true or not, it's time to clean up our act. Stop wasting precious non-renewables like oil, coal and natural gas. We, and those who follow, can only be better for it. Wise up now! Stop plundering the earth for short-term economic gain.
Robert
I applaud the courage of people (like Garth) who resist the tyranny of the climate change red brigade. It's a green herring. The left love any scheme which increases their control over society. It's all about regulation, intervention and regimentation. Control freaks. Why are the left so quick to believe conspiracy theories about the right (eg Bush started war for oil in Iraq) but the left are so naive and gullible when it comes to conspiracies by leftist politicians (eg Al Gore)? Where's the vigilance and outrage at Left rorts? Why does anyone listen to Al Gore when he's not a climate expert/scientist and ignore real experts who rebut his spin? In any court of law, by the rules of evidence, the opinions of non-expert spin-artists are inadmissible and unreliable. The agenda behind the global warming or greenhouse gasbag green herring:
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=256176286615104
Paul Watkins
I'm amazed at how many people have solid opinions to this based on one or two articles. If you don't know how weather prediction works, or why it's raining more when the planet is supposed to be heating up then please read some "scientific" articles and studies before you make up your mind.
RW
Garth George is an ignorant fool. He made more sense when he was a schoolboy at the institution we both attended. The stream of ignorant, cynical invective from "antis" only shows that there is an enormous job to be done in educating the general public, who understand nothing about weather and climate. Most people wouldn't presume to comment on General Relativity and reveal their (understandable) ignorance - but every Joe thinks he knows plenty about meteorology. The steaming mountain of ordure that has accumulated in these columns shows how wrong he is!
Michael Malloy
Mr. George is absolutely right! He won't be around to see the results. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one to look forward to his funeral.
Conrad
Lets face it – it is all about Garth not wanting to give up the 4L Falcon. However he himself needs to take advice from one of his own paragraphs "in end the advice that the panel provides to Governments is political and not scientific." As with so much in life one needs to stick to the laws of thermodynamics and moreover the facts – for example the rate of change of ocean temperatures, polar warming and global glacial shrinking and their correlation to co2 concentration. They are dead giveaways even if the computer generated future predictions may be highly flaky. Of course we should take it seriously as the stakes are so high. Garths spiel is reminiscent of that of a tobacco baron in the 60s bleating on about there being no evidence of adverse health effects from smoking. Put your heads back in the sand folks, because we are doing quite nicely for now thank you very much. Having said that, for me, I do believe that we should let the ultimate market forces play their course i.e. the forces that are resulting from trying to continue to grow in a finite place (ultimately atmospheric co2 accumulation and its climatic effect is just a manifestation of this). Why encourage politicians to confiscate his Falcon it won't help it won't work. Mother nature will take her course, for better or for worse, and more powerfully than the wildest power crazed fantasy of any government.
Harry
I think the focus on climate change misses the point. Regardless of your opinion on this matter I challenge any of you to disagree that we should be moving towards a culture of sustainability. This is a no-brainer. If hype about global warming pushes people to think about how we can better use the finite resources that we have and to tap into the infinite resources, such as solar power, then I don't care whether global warming is real or not.
Peter Witehira
Global warming theory will be dead within five years! The facts will speak for themselves. NZs average temperatures have actually been falling since 1998 and this is also happening in at least half the world, thus showing on average that the climate is relatively stable due to the fact that the sun sits 93 million miles away and all the hot air from "Global Warming theorists" ain't going to change that. Indeed, in the history of modern science it can be observed that if 90 per cent of scientists believe in a particular theory, then the 10 per cent who don't are usually proven right!
Robert Thayer
I have read an article that indicates that the polar caps on Mars are melting as well as the Earths. Perhaps some global warming is a solar effect, not just a human effect.
Caspar Harmer
I am dismayed how people choose the opinions of the media and those that don't have a full grasp of the issues over and above thousands of scientists citing years of research. Did you hear about what happened to Lake Rotorua? Scientists warned about the issues over 30 years ago. The response, do nothing as scientists are wrong. The scientists only option was to say "I told you so." A similar situation is occurring with Lake Taupo today, but what happens, the public and politicians are ignoring the scientists it because it doesn't suit them, its costs money, it means a change of behaviour. The scientists only option is to say "I told you so, in a few years time". Why do people choose to listen to scientists only when it suits them? We will be in a situation before the end of this century where scientists will only be able to say "We told you so again" about global warming. NZ is not as clean and green as you may think, we only have out low population density to thank for saving our environment.
JRed
Don't believe everything you read - on both sides of the argument. From the responses so far it seems people will believe what they want to believe. Educate yourself, and don't rely on politicians or journalists. I think the important point is that climate change is a theory. It is based on broad scale evidence showing a trend and shouldn't be confused with trying to predict the weather, which on a small island in the middle of the ocean (with so many variables that can affect the local situation) has got to be damn difficult. It is likely we will not find out for sure that we are affecting natural climate change until it all turns pear-shaped, but surely we should err on the side of caution? I cannot imagine that pumping tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere has no effect, and surely as keepers of the planet we have a responsibility not to take risks with it, or hope it will sort itself out for us. We have only planet.
Tim Saunders
So, politicians play up global warming for their own agendas? You mean people like Bush, Hu, Putin and Howard? Do me a favour. Those guys play it down. Sorry Garth, your article is fundamentally dishonest. Why don't you mention that the scientific consensus is a) that the earth's temperatures are increasing and b) that it is mostly as a result of human activity and c) predictions have been matched or exceeded? Blaming it on busybodies and the evil media just won't wash.
Boxorox
The Global Warming scare campaign is bad enough in that it seeks to generate sympathy within the public that humans have been bad for the environment. In general, this is a true foundation. However, in the realm of forcing climate change, earth science history makes it clear that tremendous natural cycles are the primary drives behind our climate and weather patterns. Just as a tall mountain or range can create its own weather, so to can a city render effects upon local conditions. However, to stretch that thinking into a cause that humanity must change its ways drastically in order to save the planet from climate disaster is totally absurd. What I find most disturbing, and even dangerous, in recent months is that the climate-change zealots are resorting to distortions of science truth and even revising history to promote their claims. This is unacceptable and must be repudiated.
Jared
Lets not confuse meteorology and climatology. Meteorologists make short term predictions from data collected over a matter of hours / days. Climatologists study patterns and trends in data from the diurnal to the decadal/ century scale. The excuse; weather in five days cannot be predicted, is irrelevant. The focus of this issue are the trends in seasonal and annual weather conditions. Variations in global CO2 (carbon dioxide) can be found in the tiny bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice core samples taken from Antarctica and Greenland. Palaeoclimatic (ancient climate) data can be inferred from; analyses of pollen and - by proxy - vegetation flux, variation in the growth of tree rings near the timberline, the past mass balance of glaciers-inferred from moraine position and glacial sediment layers, fossil records of land and marine fauna distributions and many more… The correlation between ancient variations in CO2 and past climatic fluctuations is very strong. As you can (hopefully) see climatology is a multidisciplinary science and thus predictions of future climate change reflect the opinion of a broad body of the worlds scientific community. Based on the past correlation between CO2 and warmer climate we should be concerned by the accelerating increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. Dissenting scientists often have an ulterior motive, some have links to the oil industry. We trust our medical scientists; with every visit to the doctor we pay them! Why treat the worlds climatologists with such scepticism?
JS
Any comparison between forecasting the weather in a week and predicting future trends shows a high level of ignorance. Global warming is real, but any honest scientist will tell you they don't understand all the effects it will have on the earth, which is more truthful than ignoring the evidence. Problem is you old buggers don't care what happens in 40 years because you won't be here.
Asher
CO2 & Methane are both heaver than air, so can someone explain how they make it 200,000m up to the upper atmosphere to cause this "green house effect" or does gravity not apply to UN reports. And if you're wondering what causes the Ozone hole over our southern ocean - then take a look at Mt Erebus(Antarctic Volcano of Air NZ DC10 fame), the regions largest generator of super heated gases (yes they can climb to 100,000m). And if you think the Ozone hole is why we get sun-burnt in NZ then take a look at a Planetarium next time you get a chance, and notice how the sunlight that reaches NZ comes from the North and nowhere near the "Ozone hole". Some good supporting evidence found at: http://www.predictweather.com/ozone per cent20depletion/index.asp
Rob White
How could you be so irresponsible as to print an article written by an ignorant, selfish, loud and abrasive man? The fact that he will continue to do as he pleases regardless of any consequences to the earth speak volumes as to his lack of understanding and concern for anyone or anything other than himself. One can only hope that he has the exhaust from either his wood burner or filthy auto running into his bedroom window. The world does not need another self centered preacher of consumerisum.
M.Riegstra
My opinion is that it is irresponsible for a self-respecting editor to give equal prominence to a columnist as to the thoroughly reviewed results of bona fide serious contributors/scientists.At least you should inform the public of the professed slant, bias or creed of the columnist . We can than straight away decide to skip the published crackpottery.
Anne Clur
A basic right we all should be able to freely enjoy is life in our homeland, just as all the hundreds of generations of our ancestors have before us, and our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will after us. What are we to do when that land is swallowed up by the ocean? How do we continue as a unique individual culture when we are an extension of the land that is swiftly disappearing? We cannot exist as our true culture if we are separated from our land. This is not an option. For generations now, our people have harvested the fish from the sea, coconuts from the palms, fibers from the Pandanas tree, and root vegetables from our earth: all we needed has been supplied for us from our environment, and we have been diligent in the sustainability of our environment, preserving it for future generations.
Why is it then that our land is disappearing? How can the sea levels rise like this? In even the oldest memories of our people, there is no story that comes close to this. First the Westerners came to rape and pillage our land, steal our young people and enslave them on foreign shores, infect us with terrifying pandemics which almost entirely wiped out generations of our people. Then they came to use our lands as military outposts, further unbalancing our fragile ecology through their munitions and runways. Next came the atomic testing- affecting our fish, our water and our air. Now the greed and selfishness of Western culture again hits our shores with blatant disregard. As you drive your SUVs and light and heat your homes with energy you get from fossil fuels, do you consider me? I am drowning in your apathy!
The ocean levels rise and engulf my island nation as a direct result of your steadfast unwillingness to consider the impact of your need for immediate gratification.
Dom D
Shocking ugly selfishness, and sadly I have to say, indicative of many views in NZ - 'not my problem'. The fact NZ cannot be bothered to introduce mandatory emissions testing on vehicles says a lot - why not for heavens sakes? The 'I'm gonna drive my 4 litre Falcon and not give a damn' generation are going to make us and our children pay in the future for their selfishness. These backward and dated views are precisely why we are plunging into a dark and uncertain environmental and economic future. Why was this article even written?
A Buckland
I've never read such rubbish. I worked for the Uk Met Office for a number of years and there clearly has been an alarming change over the last decade or so. The few opponents left also conveniently neglect the substantial cooling signal in the stratosphere and mesosphere. Slightly less heat received there because of an enhanced greenhouse effect in the troposphere but with fewer molecules can still effectively radiate to space. A net cooling that has been clearly observed and fits in well with theory. Also the scale of human emissions is not insubstantial or why the increase in mixing ratios of CO2 (275 to 380 ppm (+38 per cent))methane, HFCs, HCFCs and CFCs. The last three compounds are gases the planet has never seen before the 20th century with enormous GWPs and long residence times. If there is a natural process than it must be clear process and not some vague general change. I dont hear the astronomers clamouring about big changes in the sun or our orbit or oceanographers about seeing large ocean warming from volcanic heating below. It's because they aren't there. Something has to explain why the planet's ice cover is diminishing rapidly and the general rise in temperature too. Face up to it instead of writing utter twaddle.
Paul Swift
Why does the Herald continue to give prominence to Garth George when it could give the space to intelligent, open-minded writers who could contribute well-reasoned, balanced thoughtful opinions? Coincidentally today I was reading an article on climate change written by John Lanchester (Garth could read it on-line at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n06/lanc01_.html) - an intelligent and thoughtful article in contrast to George's self-centred pomposity. Garth has quoted some scientists who are absolutely convinced that humans are not warming the atmosphere. Any kiwi with any true Christian or other moral principles must surely see the value in reducing pollutants for a wide range of reasons - including the strong possibility that an excess of pollutants in the atmosphere will cause climate change. Only a foolish fatalist with no religious or moral sensitivity could so crassly promote the stance taken by Garth George.
Dave Terangi
Most of those who deny the harmful effects of global warming theories have vested interests in quelling the debate. Notice that the anti warming lobby have a common trait, they are right wing conservative wealthy business men, ie, not women.
Justin Ferguson
So does Garth think humans can not harm there environment ? 400 hundred years ago the planet was covered in forest. Now most of it is gone , every inch of ocean water now contains plastic molecules.
Dr. Horst Safarovic
Here in Germany full hysterics broke out about global warming, reminding me to the 1980s, when we had the phenomenon of acid rain and dying forests. Within 20 years, Germany was supposed to be a tundra-like area, no forests left over – hitting straight into the German soul! Today, you can still enjoy the German forests, the area and volume of the forest has risen. (Still, there is an annual report about the situation of the forest, which still claims it is highly endangered). In the early 1990s, BSE was the theme of the day, 20 000 people were about to die in Germany, up to now, we had no death in Germany, there is a number of people who dyed in Britain (I think the number is about 200). … And don't forget the impending ice-age in the late 1960s.
Garrett King
Even if they are wrong you err on the side of caution and so what if we might not be able to stop the warming fast enough if the predictions, you try. You wouldn't take this disgusting she'll be right attitude with your own health so why take that attitude with the planets health? Outside the global warming his arrogant view that he can use resources as much as he likes is unbelievable. Has he even done any basic economics or research? Economics is the study of how to best distribute scarce resources, they arent as bountiful as he thinks. But if he just looked at the US use of resources and extrapolated just the Chinese reaching that level of resource consumption he would quickly realise that those levels of consumption are not sustainable at all. Maybe he could also look at NZ's economic footprint per person and how wasteful we are. Because if he did, he would also realise if our population was as high as the UK's we would be a cesspool. NZ and NZers are not clean and green. But thats alright, he summed it up at the end of his article, Hes an arrogant old man who will be dead and he doesnt mind passing the buck on problems his generation mostly caused to his grandchildren to fix.
Igor Telyatnikov
It frightens me that old men so utterly unconnected and remote from reality have been given any sway in a discussion that should not even be taking place. Wake up, global warming is real. Any credible scientist that doesn't work for American Association of Petroleum Geologists agrees on this. I'm surprised you point out environmentalist lobbyists having so much sway over politicians, when it is clear to any clear headed educated mind that oil lobbyists as well as representatives of large companies truly have governments around their fingers. I don't see environmentalists spending nearly the amount of money on political campaigns. Thats who would lose the most money if governments start acting responsibly, which they will do all they can to prevent. It makes me laugh that you think environmentalists will somehow greatly gain from regulated CO2 emissions. The fact I don't understand, is why are people like you so opposed to this idea, that humans can have any effect on the environment? And even if you dont believe that, why would it bother you if your Falcon started getting 50 miles per gallon rather than 10? What would you be sacrificing if auto companies had to make cars better and make the air cleaner? The sun in New Zealand is hotter than in many places in the world, because the ozone over it is thin, which has led to a steep increase in skin cancer in your country. I truly hope that in 50 or 150 years somebody will come up to me or somebody else and say "I told you so" like you suggest. What if your wrong though, and the scientists tell your children "We told you so", which scenario will be worse? Your obviously too old for change or possibly to care, but to speak out and against science that hopes only to save your children's lives and could have only good consequences if taken seriously is just wrong.
Paula
I think that Insurance companies are rip offs when it comes to house insurance. It seems that everytime out of control weather happens or (hopefully never) terrorism in NZ, then the Insurance companies change their policies so that we the average kiwi, trying to live here are no longer covered. What is the point in having insurance? You are better off to put the money in the bank and fend for yourself.
David Thornton
Garth George likes to quote his apparently new best buddy, Professor Bob Carter. Bob Carter is/was a contributing writer to Tech Central Science Foundation. Exxon Mobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support." Climate change is indeed a very natural occurrence. The climate has cooled and warmed since year dot. Nature, thanks to the belchings of volcanoes and the decay of plants, emits roughly 200 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, far in excess of what we achieve. So far the Earth's oceans and forests (carbon sinks) have been able to manage our extra contributions, but the fear is that one day a crucial threshold will be crossed where mother-nature ceases to buffer us from the effects of our emissions and actually begins to amplify them. Such cycles have occurred in the past, but not with the extra contributions of human beings. Garth George also misses the point about air pollution caused by car emissions and wood heaters, which are a serious health concern in many parts of New Zealand and which directly contribute to early morbidity in this country Garth George would be best to not jump on the climate change skeptics band-wagon and leave the science and its' interpretation to those who know what they are doing. He should stick to what he does best, whatever that may be.
>> Next