KEY POINTS:
A draft of the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shows the frequency of devastating storms will increase dramatically.
What are you doing about global warming? Do you believe it is a problem?
Send us your views
>> Read the story
Here is the latest selection of your views:
Michael Peattie
Does no one remember Y2k when all the computers would crash and civilisation as we know it would cease to exist and the bird flu that was going to decimate the population of the world? Global warming is just another media beat up the worlds temperature has gone up and down since the beginning of time and nothing we do will alter that.
V. Gray
You fail to mention important aspects of the draft IPCC Report.Its crucial conclusion is as follows: It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century. The Report includes the very latest graph of the globally averaged annual temperature anomalies between 1857 and 2005. The period since the mid-20th century shows: No warming between 1950 and 1978; No warming between 1998 and 2005. The only observed warming over the period is from 1978 to 1998, 20 years only, out of the 55 years.The actual warming involved over this short period of 1978 to 1998 was 0.53ºC.
The Report considers that it is very likely that most of this 0.53ºC was caused by anthropogenic (human-induced) greenhouse gas increases. Most of this would be between 0.3ºC and 0.5ºCs , the amount that the Report considers to be due to human influence. This temperature rise is negligible. None of us would notice if it happened instantly, let alone over 50 years.. It is below the amount considered in the weather forecasts. Yet this small temperature rise over 55 years is routinely blamed for all manner of climate disasters. The IPCC pronouncement is not a certain one. The term very likely is defined in the Report as amounting to a probability above 90 per cent. In other words, there is one chance in ten that they are wrong. Also, the probability is based on the opinion (or guess) of experts who are financially dependent on an expectation of positive results. Finally, there has been no warming at all since 1998, now eight years. Global Warming seems to have come to an end. This temperature record is quite incompatible with the computer climate models, so why should we believe their pessimistic forecasts for the future? It should also be noted that there has been negligible warming in New Zealand since 1950, and, according to the temperature record for Christchurch, no warming there since 1910, with a maximum temperature in 1917.
Paul
The best thing I have done is throw out my incandescent lights and install compact fluorescent lighting. I have reduced my driving by changing my job. In Austin, TX U.S.A., we have the option to by into a renewable carbon free energy program for our electricity. I will do that as soon as they can accept more subscriptions. Currently, the program is filled. I will buy a plug-in hybrid car as soon as they are available. I cycle on weekends to avoid driving. I have got much more to do.
S Mohanakrishnan
The Stern report on Global Warming has started a much needed debate to discuss the effects of global warming and has pushed it to the front of the agenda in many forums. I can not help but wonder about the double or even multiple standards adopted by the world leaders to the question of development and how it affects living standards and global warming. The developed world has enjoyed the fruits of development and innovation and has reached a stage of richness and prosperity by exploiting the resources of the earth and the world. They are now however talking about the ill-effects of development taking place in China, India, Brazil etc which are aspiring to improve their economies and raise the living standards of their people. But these efforts are being perceived as contributing more to the gloable warming. The environmentalists and naturalists are now worried about the consequences of continued growth of these countries and the effect it may have on depletion of resources and increase in pollution and warming due to more industrialisation. Though it is true, is it justified to ask these countries to go slow on their development so that the already developed world can continue to enjoy their prosperity. The other question is if these countries put a brake on thier growth, what effect it will have on the economies of the developed world like USA, UK, Australia and the OECD nations which see these countries as the market for their goods and depend on them to increase thier exports. Not to forget the Big Oil Companies which take their raw material from much of the developing world and whose final products contribute to the pollution and global warming to a great extent. Will they or their stake-holders be ready to accept a big fall in their income/profits for the sake of improving the atmosphere and lessening the harmful emissions.This is a classic catch-22 situaton where the speeding train cannot be stopped without a break-up, but continuing to speed ahead may take the train to disaster. The only solution may be managed slowing down of the world economy, which requires consent and co-operation by all the major players. A system of compensation for the developing and undeveloped nations from the already developed nations may be required for this managed slow-down to take place. This requires sacrifice by every one. How this will be agreed to and implemented and who will supervise the same? Will the United Nations grab the leadership on this critical issue?
Already USA is proving to be difficult to realise its role in bringing the world to the present desperate state, and is refusing to contribute in any meaningful way. Who is strong enough to bring USA to the realisation that it has a big responsibility in leading the world out of this crisis. Will it be its friends like UK, Australia or its critics like France, New Zealand and other OECD countries which are part of the developed world as of today? Or will it be the new giants like India, China and Brazil etc which themselves are dependent on continued growth in their export markets in the developed world. This is a very complicated situation and just more and more talk will only create more hot air and hard feelings. The time has come to think of radical solutions like massive transfer of wealth and aid to feed and clothe and maintain the undeveloped nations like those in Africa. A mechanism will have to worked out to tax the developed nations and use the funds to slow-down and manage the economic growth in other countries. Time is running out fast and the train is hurtling towards an unknown land and uncertain future. Who will grab the throttle to manage a safe ride and arrival for the passengers?
Dr G.J. van der Lingen
The draft of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC does not say at all that the frequency of devastating storms will increase dramatically. About the past it states: "There is no clear trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones". About future predictions (they "predict", but do not "show") it even states: "The number of tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) per year is projected to decrease". It is highly irresponsible to start spreading unsubstantiated rumours about what FAR will say. From what I have read on various internet sources, FAR will come as a cold shower for all those warmaholic doomsayers. Someone already called its Summary for Policy Makers the "Apology to Policy Makers". The IPCC had to backtrack on many of their earlier extreme scare scenarios.
In the NZ Herald article from the Observer is a statement by the Antarctic climate scientist Chris Rapley. He states that "We are seeing vast sections of Antarctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate. That means we can expect to see sea levels rise about a metre a century from now on, and that will have devastating consequences". He made that comment from the Antarctic Peninsula. That is the bit sticking out towards South America and is in part outside the polar cicle. The Peninsula has indeed warmed in recent times, by as much as 2.5 degrees. But that is only a local phenomenon. Most of the Antarctic continet has been cooling. The Dry Valleys have cooled by as much as 0.7 degree per decade! The Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC is very clear about Antarctica. Let me quote three statements from their draft Summary for Policy Makers (SPM):
(1) Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the continent.
(2) It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica.
(3) Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snow fall. Moreover even their most extreme computer-model-based scenarios (they don't call them predictions)suggest a maximum sea-level rise by the end of this century of only 58 cm (in the 2001 IPCC Assessment report this was 88 cm!). I realise that these quotes are from the latest draft of the SPM. The final draft is still embargoed. But I do not expect fundamental changes to these statements.I have no hesitation to quote from the draft SPM, as every Tom, Dick and Harry in the media is already quoting from it, generally incorrectly to support a sham ideology. I know that the new FAR will come as a shock to all those man-made-global-warming fanatics, like Greenpeace, etc. But theyll message the data, as the Observer article already did.
Mary Roberts
Yes I believe climate change is a huge problem, probably the biggest threat to mankind ever. I do not believe the NZ government is taking it seriously enough and the little they are doing now really is only a token gesture. What am I doing? Started catching the train to work instead of driving? Am building a new home with energy efficiency the highest priority. Standby power is now always turned off. Lights are always off in rooms not being used. Computers are always shut down. Eco bulbs have replaced standard bulbs. Talking to people to increase their awareness!
Dr Denise Bates
The parallels between the dogma of the global warming evangelists and that of the cyclical rise of new religions over the past centuries. It seems to take the place of religion. Similarities include:
1. Adherents go forth to spread the word with much faith and passion and surprisingly little understanding of the fundamental science underpinning their belief (missionary work by well-meaning amateurs).
2. They repeat the lie that there is no longer any dispute amongst scientists when there clearly is a substantial amount of evidence to undermine the global warming dogma (appeal to faith alone).
3. They attack the motives and credentials of the skeptics, rather than address the substance of their counter-arguments (witch-hunting).
4. They advocate solutions (i.e., Kyoto) which would be so woefully ineffective that they would do little more than ease the consciences of the believers (buying indulgences).
5. They resort to calling on dogma (climate modelling) to justify their assertions, without being willing or able to demonstrate that that dogma has any relation to scientific reality (religious mysteries known only to a select few).
With many governments seemingly willing to commit large amounts of public money to addressing the global warming problem anything less than a balanced debate is irresponsible. How many other large blocks of government spending are undertaken on the basis of such fatuous research (warfare and religious monuments aside)?
James
Nicely done Geoff. I completely agree. We need, however, somehow for those scientists to become more vocal and to get the truth out that it is a media-hyped load of dookie!! How do we do this?
Geoff Pollard
Anthony and others - good stuff: you are on to it. What keeps the global warming myth going? Its a gravy train. Politicians love it - gives them a bandwagon. Professionals love it - gives them an income. Academics love it - more research needed into modelling. The media likes it - they need headlines. And its so trendy. Anybody against it is immediately dismissed as anti-environment. Thank goodness more and more scientists are highlighting the absurdity of it all!
S Mohanakrishnan
I bought a Toyota Prius Hybrid 2 years back to replace my car. I paid a higher price for an used import. It would be great if the Government can subsidise purchase of such cars by giving an initial rebate and on-going concession in registration fees. They should give incentive for people to buy fuel-efficient, low-emission vehicles like the Hybrids as is being done in USA.
Roger Dewhurst
The Ministry of the Environment has a web page devoted to Climate Change.It contains the following: "The government would like your feedback on the following discussion papers and strategies...This is all putting the cart before the horse! The worlds climate has not warmed for the last eight years or so, indeed it appears to be cooling. New Zealands climate has not warmed for about 50 years. Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide follows climatic warming, not the reverse. Climate changes as it always has and always will. Climate change is natural. The sun itself provides a far better explanation of climate change, for warmer or cooler. Does anyone who does not support the official line ever get feedback from the Ministry? Pigs might fly.
Bryan Leyland
"A draft of the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shows the frequency of devastating storms will increase dramatically." This statement is incorrect as a interpretation of the IPCC document and observations. A correct statement would be: " The output of unproven computer models (that failed to predict that the world would cool from 1998 to the present,) indicates that the frequency of devastating storms will increase dramatically. There is, as yet, no empirical data that supports this claim.
Martin Doms
Regarding the scientific consensus of climate change, the figures stated by Anthony Farrell are misleading. The Heidelberg Appeal indeed has 4,000 signatures but makes absolutely no mention of climate change. The Leipzig Declaration has many signatures from people who lack the relevant scientific background, as does the Oregon petition. In fact it is misleading for you to claim the Oregon petition has been signed by 19,000 scientists. Many of the signatories were not scientists, and of the scientists that signed it only 13 per cent were climate or environmental scientists. As for the real scientific consensus, I refer you to the oft quoted Science Magazine's survey of all 928 papers published for peer review between 1993 and 2003 regarding climate change, where not a single one of those 928 papers took a dissenting view on global warming or climate change. There may a large-scale debate in the media and politics, but in the scientific community there is almost total consensus on the issue.
Randall
It seems that the greatness of the earths climate will be no match for human greed and laziness. But hey, its ok because we have denial, the greatest panacea...
Karen
In my opinion (as a scientist) we need to be focussing on two things - reducing carbon emissions, but this is minor, and more importantly, planning for the climate change that is going to occur. Even if, somehow, we stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions today, global warming and climate change will still occur, so we need to figure out how we, as a country, are going to manage this situation. To get a picture of what the NZ climate might be like in another 50 years, just look across the Tasman - warmer and drier, with some serious water issues. If we start planning now, we can manage to cope with this situation. If we just concentrate on carbon emissions, then we're going to be in serious trouble.
Ben Ross
Am I doing anything to reduce Global Warming? The answer is a resounding no as I hold the view global warming is nothing short of a scare monger from environmental groups. Am I doing anything in mitigating against Climatic Change? Yes! I do all the normal things like drive an economical car and keep unnecessary road trips down, I recycle, reduce and reuse where I can, use electricity wisely and make sure the car and house is up to standards and maintained. I also attend The University of Auckland studying in Geography and Politics and are constantly critically analysing the material that comes through for Climatic Change as I progress through university - Something that our resident outspoken Climatologist (who I await his reply to the article in the Herald)drums into his students and of which I follow - and have so far come to the conclusion I follow that Global Warming is a fast, Climatic Change is real (95 per cent natural and 5 per cent human) and our failing to take proper mitigation against climatic change will be our real undoing.
Susan ONeill
Global warming? What a lot of media influenced rubbish. The world goes through cycles, and as for warming more like cooling, look at the crappy summers we have been getting, still waiting for the hot one. If global warming really existed then we here in little old NZ can do nothing unless America and China do their bit. It is pointless without these two super powers on board. They are not doing so so why bother.
Bob Bolton
Anthony Farrell, you are wonderful. Thank you. Global warming is such unbelievable nonsense its truly hard to believe that scientists go along with it including, now, Stephen Hawking. A generation or two into the future people will look back and laugh at our foolishness much as we now scoff at sciences past idiocies. It seems to me that the whole concept of global warming is just another end of the world scenario so beloved by religious nutcases. The fact is that there is no right climate for the earth. It has changed often in the past -- before human beings even existed -- and will certainly change often in the future. Indeed, huge climate changes, caused by volcanic activity, earthquakes, sunspots and meteorite crashes, have, in the past, caused the earth to heat up and freeze and, in the process, wipe out about 98 per cent of all species that ever existed including the most obvious: the dinosaurs. And the poor little human had nothing to do with any of it because he did not even exist. The biggest current human conceit is that we caused the so-called carbon problem (remember that carbon dioxide is essential to the survival of vegetation and vegetation's survival, and the oxygen it delivers to the atmosphere, is essential to animal/human survival) while the second biggest conceit is that if we caused it we can fix it. Truly, if, for some reason beyond human control the earth heats up to the temperature it once was, or cools down to another ice age lasting millions of years, there will be nothing we vain humans will be able to do to stop it. By all means go green, ride a bike to work, become a vegetarian, or do whatever you like that makes you feel good -- its just like religion -- but do not for a moment imagine youll have even the slightest effect of the vast and immeasurable forces that govern the earthly climate.
Stan Coveney
I am doing nothing when it comes to climate change- a natural and thoroughly perplexing phenomenon of wehich science is ignorant, in the true sense of the word. OPur knowledge of Anthropogenic climate change is even less reliable and at best guess work (climate modelling). You would not buy your house using the stats and assumptions chucked into these models and nor should you beggar your public and your economy either. Faith and hope should be left to religionists- it is not part of science.
Diana Blythe
I am going to save energy by not reading any more of
this nonsense.You(the media) could do your bit by not printing any more on this subject. If, however, you can not see your way clear to doing that then the least you can do is to print some articles giving the other side of this controversial argument.Sell the rumour,buy the fact.
Christopher
I forgot to mention earlier that Im eating more meat-less meals. Animals require a lot of energy input per calorie, while fruit, grains and veges require lesser amounts. So I eat less meat. And I feel healthier.
Nick Young
I used the Clean Energy Guide (www.cleanenergyguide.org) to make the switch to clean energy and I made sure I told my old supplier (mercury) that they were losing my business due to their advocacy of fossil fuels.
Alan Waller
In reference to heat waves caused by global warming.
I do hope you send some of these heatwaves to Wellington as we have had one of the coldest winters in at least ten years.
Geoff Keey
I only use a modest amount of electricity and make sure that I buy from a company that generates electricity from renewable sources. Greenpeace has a good Clean Energy Guide. I also encourage politicians and others to take climate change seriously by meeting with them and writing to them. I would really encourage people to tell their local MP and regional council to take climate change seriously.
Christopher
I am using a composting Bokashi system to compost my kitchen waste, which before I started, didnt realise how much volume the kitchen waste took up in my waste stream (it is a lot). I walk a lot more and take public transport (although with recent price increases I might walk a little more). I invest in alternative energy technologies, for example wind power. I get my energy from Meridian Energy as they emphasise using renewable energy.
Raja Guru
I use public transport every week day; use my car very limited times. I use electric heater over fireplace at home during winter.
Anthony Farrell
Ten facts about global warming: 1. Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.
2. Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
3. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
4. Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.
5. Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.
6. The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
7. Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
8. The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
9. The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
10. The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.
