About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr Muriel Newman

Fact or Fearmongering?

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

FrostFairIf New Zealand is currently experiencing one of our coldest winters. Temperatures in some parts of the country have plunged to the lowest levels ever recorded.

Chilling temperatures however, have not stopped the media and politicians repeating their mantra about the dangers of man-made global warming and the urgent need for action. In fact, our government has just announced a stringent new target to reduce New Zealand’s production of human-induced greenhouse gases to 11 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030. This will be presented in December to the 21st Conference of Parties for signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris.

According to the Climate Change Issues Minister, Tim Groser, New Zealand produced 400 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per unit of GDP in 2013, of which 48.4 percent came from agriculture and 21.9 percent from transport. Since 80 percent of our electricity is generated from renewable sources, and almost half of all emissions come from livestock – there are few opportunities for New Zealand to substantially reduce emissions. However, by spending almost $100 million on research to reduce livestock emissions, the government is hoping for a breakthrough by 2030, which, if combined with an expected increase in the use of electric cars, will enable the country to meet our target.

But the question that really needs to be asked is whether it is prudent for our government to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on policies based on a theory, since man-made global warming is still unproven.

As New Zealander Dr Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology at Cambridge University and a Fellow of the Royal Society, recently wrote in a British newspaper, “Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.”

In 2009, Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist at the University of Adelaide, outlined some facts: “This century temperature has been decreasing, yet CO2 has been increasing. Over the last 150 years, temperature has increased (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1976-1998) and decreased (1880-1910, 1940-1976, and 2002 to the present), yet CO2 has been increasing. If CO2 has been increasing, how can CO2-driven warming have driven cooling? Over historical times, there were the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings, when temperature was a few degrees higher than at present. Sea level did not change. Over archaeological time, ice cores show that temperature peaks some 800 years before CO2 peaks, hence CO2 could not have driven temperature rise.

“In geological time, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was higher than now, and for two of these six, the CO2 content has been up to 1,000 times higher than now. If high atmospheric CO2 drives warming, then how could there be an ice age during times of high CO2?”

Dr Matt Ridley, a Member of the British House of Lords and former Science Editor for the Economist, believes it is now time to question the theory: “the length of the pause is now past the point where many scientists said it would disprove the hypothesis of rapid man-made warming. Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said in 2009: ‘Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ It now has.”

While recorded data is clearly at odds with man-made global warming modelling, the mainstream media has been reticent to challenge the theory. However, news outlets around the world, including New Zealand, recently reported on a new study from the University of Northumbria in England, which contradicts global warming by predicting that in 15 years time, the earth will enter a “mini ice age”.

As Professor Valentina Zharkova explained, solar researchers have found that two waves of fluid movements within the sun are expected to converge and effectively cancel each other out, causing dramatic temperature falls in the 2030s. They say their estimate of a 60 percent reduction in solar activity has an accuracy of 97 per cent, and will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’ – a period of extremely low sunspot activity that led to the freezing conditions of the Little Ice Age between 1645 and 1715, when England’s River Thames froze over and frost fairs were held.

So, while global warming advocates like to tell us that the science of climate change is settled, it’s clearly not. Our understanding of the earth and the climate is improving all the time – as the mini ice age prediction shows. In fact, just last month a new report was released that explained that what is threatening the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is geothermal heating from within the earth’s core, rather than human-induced global warming.

The reality is that a huge multi-billion dollar industry has now been built up around the theory of man made global warming, and it is understandable that those benefiting will not waiver from their faith. But what is inexcusable is the behaviour of politicians, who prefer to swim with the tide rather than challenging the theoretical assumptions upon which their decisions are based. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars is being wasted on public policy responses that are not only totally inappropriate, but are causing gross disruption to the economy and people’s lives.

A case in point is the use of extremist projections of global warming sea level rise by local authorities: “The Ministry for the Environment recommends planning for future sea-level rise of at least 0.5m, along with consideration of the consequences of a mean sea-level rise of at least 0.8m (relative to the 1980–1999 average) by the 2090s”. When the Kapiti District Council ignored local data showing a long-accreting shoreline to follow that advice and put coastal erosion risk profiles onto Land Information Memorandum reports, property owners challenged the Council in court and had them removed.

Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is about to make the situation worse by hiring NIWA to draw up coastal hazard lines for the whole country – based on the UN’s exaggerated claims of rampant sea level rise. If their report, which is expected to be available later this year, is used by the government to determine coastal policy, widespread controversy will result.

The former Director-General of the DSIR, Dr David Kear, warned about the folly of forcing local authorities to prepare for this “nonexistent threat”, in a report for the NZCPR last year. He explained that “many regions have vast quantities of sand transported by rivers to their coast, released by the erosion of hills and mountains. Their coastlines extend seawards steadily. Citizens in such regions have long noted that the coastline has a net seawards movement. It contrasts with many councils belief in landwards movement or ‘inundation’.”

Dr Kear quoted an example from Ohope Beach, where a council-appointed Commission of Enquiry backed the council’s view of landwards inundation, rejecting a report from its own consultants which showed that based on every coastal survey for which records were available, the sea had retreated by 0.30-0.94m/yr over 130 years – and was still retreating.

Just as the Ministry for the Environment’s flawed coastal hazard guidelines have impacted negatively on property owners – who face a loss of property values, increasing insurance premiums, and higher building costs – so too have the Ministry’s faulty air quality regulations, which have been used to ban open fires and wood burners from New Zealand homes.

In 2004, at the behest of the Labour Government, the Ministry for the Environment introduced air quality regulations based on the United Nations World Health Organisation’s computer models, rather than using New Zealand health and hospital data.

The ambient air quality standards set maximum levels for the amount of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and ozone in the air. Guidelines were also provided for fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in size (PM10), that is generated by natural sources, as well as household fires, motor vehicles, outdoor burning, and industry.

The Updated Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand study, sponsored by the Ministry for the Environment, claimed that PM10 exposure killed thousands of New Zealanders a year: “More than 2,300 New Zealanders are estimated to die prematurely each year due to exposure to PM10 pollution”. The study stated that of the reported 2,315 premature deaths a year from exposure to PM10, household fires were responsible for 655 deaths, motor vehicles for 256 deaths, outdoor burning for 140 deaths, industry for 123 deaths, with the remaining 1,141 deaths due to natural particulates, primarily sea spray and windblown dust! This absurd claim reinforces the danger of using overseas computer modelling as a basis for domestic public policy.

Claims that hundreds of premature deaths a year are caused by inhaling smoke from fireplaces and woodburners, has been used by councils to enforce bans in many parts of the country. But the claims are based on the Ministry’s faulty data.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Christchurch-based Pat Palmer from the Association for Independent Researchers, has been challenging the legitimacy of these claims for years:

“In Christchurch, over the past 15 or so years, by putting out log burners, the Canterbury Regional Council has reduced the concentrations of PM10 in the air from about 30 to less than 20.  Calculating in the same way as the Ministry for the Environment, Canterbury Regional Council science advisers claimed that this has resulted in about 65 fewer deaths each year, a reduction of about 20%. The official statistics show however, that the deaths from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease have not decreased. They have remained stubbornly the same. Putting out log-burners has not improved our health.

“This has been a very expensive experiment for Canterbury people, probably costing us, upwards of half a billion dollars. It has denied us, and is still denying us, the comfort of sitting by our own home fire and being economically warmed.”

No doubt as a result of the sterling efforts of Pat Palmer and his colleagues, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has now admitted that short term exposure to PM10 – the basis for the ban on fires and woodburners – is not harmful to public health; it is the smaller PM2.5 particles that are more problematic. But while the suggestion has been made that the restriction on the use of fires and woodburners should be lifted, to date there has been no action from the government.

Poorly designed regulations based on junk science, are a real problem in New Zealand. For a government that campaigned on reducing bureaucratic red tape and ill-advised regulation, National has made little progress. In fact, they appear to be as negligent as the former Labour government – which found it easier to be seen to be dealing with a problem by making a new law, rather than trying to establish whether a real problem exists at all.

The least National could do is to urgently lift the ban on fireplaces and woodburners, so that families living in areas caught up by these faulty regulations can at least afford to keep themselves warm in winter. Not only that, but they should also reject the notion that the science behind global warming has been settled, putting on hold all laws and regulations based on this vexed area of public policy, until the matter is properly resolved.


Do you believe it’s time the government questioned the science behind the theory of man-made global warming?   


 *Poll comments are posted below.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.


Click to view x 120


One should always question the science behind any theory – it’s the only scientific and intelligent thing to do. Hilary
It does not have the science credibility required. – also a real concern is the increasing reliance on UN information. Maurice
The weather will go on doing what its always done for millions of years. its just a money making scheme. for greedy people. Dona
It is well overdue time for the so called GOVERMENT to govern the idiotic fools trying to scare us. Brian
It is self evident that global warming is a myth. If we had newspapers that publish facts instead of sensational garbage, hopefully we could resort to a more comfortable lifestyle. Rodney
A lot of expert opinion is being ignored. Lloyd
The whole AGW industry is a scam and a fraud. The “science” simply doesn’t stack up. Keith
After the winter we are having, I would consider global cooling far more likely than warming. After hearing Oprah Winfrey interview Al Gore in 2007, I have never believed the global warming theory myths. Monica
This question could have been better worded. I believe it is time the government started looking at the real science about the climate. This would show there is no need to panic as the world is no longer warming. The global warming scare is wholly dependent on models that have failed to predict the pause in warming that has now lasted 15 years and is acknowledged to last at least another 15 years. Another flaw in the ‘science’ is the so called effect of livestock emissions. Some two thirds of the livestock emissions come from methane. But this gas quickly breaks down. Even the IPCC admits it is gone in 50 years. This means the methane our animals emit today will not be around affecting global temperature in 2100. More importantly, 80% of the methane emitted by our animals in 1990, the base year, is now gone. Our Greenhouse Gas Inventory does not acknowledge this. It is very similar to charging forestry for the trees they cut down, but giving no credit for the trees they plant. The only way livestock methane can affect temperature is through a change in numbers of livestock. A simple calculation using numbers from the most recent IPCC Report. the AR5, shows that if all farmers in the world were to double output of methane the global temperature rise would only be 0.05 degrees. Amazingly, the New Zealand Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and many other AGW believing scientists I have spoken with have ever bothered to work this out before seeking to find a solution to this non existent problem. This is an appalling reflection on modern science. Neil
There is very little, if any, science behind DAGW. It based, largely, on computer modelling & opinion. That we have had no discernible trend in Global Temperature (however that is measured ?) for 18 years despite ever-rising CO2 levels, merely confirms that the whole scam is a political ploy by the UN to gain taxing rights & power. Dave
Let Nature take it’s course. Not global warming more like an Ice Age. Don
Unbelievable that with so much data contradicting the “theory” our Govt (and many others) continues to spend up large in a manner that will lead to the decline of our standard of living. Murray
Especially now that there are reports appearing that suggest we will have a mini ice age in about 15 years. Maurice
I have felt for years that the GLOBAL WARMING PUNDITS are in it just for the money and that we are just following without proper investigation ourselves on the realities of the situation. Bryan
YES! Way, way past overdue. How can you misname it “science” when it s run by economists and UN-funded, marxist flunkies like hanson? But then Key has never shown any spine at all so he will never even blink about letting this political crapfest continue. Mark
Should have been questioned at the outset when the scaremongering emerged. They won’t, of course, as that would mean admitting they were wrong. John
In Nelson I have been forced to remove a logburner which did not emit excessive smoke as I always burned dry wood with the damper open. It had to be replaced with a less efficient and smaller burner which doesn’t heat as efficiently and cost $3,500. The old one was junked because it was an earlier model. No Other reason. The wood has to cut into smaller pieces, more work, and now many older people like me have a colder house and have spent all that money. Chris
Ian Wishart in his well documented book “A VERY Inconvenient Truth” hit the nail on the head regarding this whole “Global Warming” – (ow just “Climate Change) business by telling of a meeting in Italy where those concerned wanted a “rally point” to enable a “World Government” to come into being. They picked Global Warming as the theme and obviously got some Greenies to propagate it. Strange that our polotitions are backing a theory that will do them out of a job, if it all goes to plan! Ted
Absolutely! When Al Gores movie came out, the speed and manner that politicians and scientists jumped onto the theory and literally launched it upon the masses and into policy knocked me back a few steps. Since its launch, more and more science articles are coming out by those who are opposed to the theory of man made global warming and it is throwing the entire argument into disarray and confusion. There are too many things that are not adding up with the man-made Global warming theory. Has anyone read the article of active volcanoes found under the Antarctica? That would probably explain the ice melt now wouldn’t it? However, while we are busy following and contributing to the show down of arguments around man made global warming, and reading alarmist headlines from the media, ever so sneakily, extreme environmentalism is spawning at an alarming rate in our country, manifesting itself in rediculous environmental policies being formed and adopted into legislation. Joe Blog is now a criminal for cutting down or pruning a tree, clearing scrub on their private land or carrying out activities that disturb a bloody stream bed. The PM10 air quality standard is being pushed through under the guise of ‘protecting health’, but no body is stupid – we all know this is part and parcle of the UN environmentalist agenda 21 AKA NWO. Judith in the comments stated “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. It is time the government woke up to the fact that the majority of us are not fooled.” I like your comment and fully agree with you, Judith . . . but . . . why then, are we allowing ourselves to be played like fools? How on our gracious earth dear New Zealanders can we extract ourselves out of this totalitarianism future that the PM is driving us full speed into. Trina
I don’t even know where to begin on this article but it is a load of rubbish. First of all the whole global warming debate aside as it is very hard to predict weather systems etc into the future. So this will always be debated. But the big thing here is that the amount of CO2 is increasing and what absorbs the Co2 from our atmosphere? That’s right and what are the large amounts of CO2 causing in the ocean? Thats right OCEAN ACIDIFICATION and that is happening and can be measured and is a fact. So actually we do need to continue lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere otherwise the PH in the ocean will continue to drop and this is an exponential scale so each drop is significant. Ocean acidification in real and is happening and it is caused by increased CO2 being absorbed in the ocean. This is a fact and can be proven easily. Some areas of the coast of the USA where upwelling is prevalent are already feeling the impacts of a lower PH on there aquaculture industry. So instead of just rubbishing Global warming we should be worried about Ocean acidification as this will have major consequences if left unchecked. So lowering CO2 levels is a good idea. Maybe actually do wider research instead of just nit picking a few different scientist opinions which work in your favor. Look at the wider picture. Sam
But they will not. It’s a UN driven hoax for taxes and a world government, science has near nil to do with it. Paul
I have always felt that the whole program was flawed and just a giant rort on the taxpayer. Fraser
Absolutely!!..ive been waiting a long time for Someone to stand up & be counted & noted for this crime! Pepper
Global warming because of CO2 is a commercially created myth, just to create another money-maker for the select few, first activated in NZ by Helen Clarke’s Labour Government. It is NOT CO2 that is a problem. MervB
This is the biggest fraud ever committed by Governments around the world on the masses. It is just another socialist way of stealing money from the people in the form of levies. From the beginning of time the climate has altered and no amount of interference by mankind can change this. One volcanic eruption pours more CO2 into the atmosphere than any reduction that NZ could make in a year with great sacrifices to our way of life. Allan
Definitely. It’s all a load of hogwash to glean ever more tax dollars from us. Actually I feel the UN is pushing it for the New World Order and for some reason Governments bow and scrape to them no matter the cost. CO2 is a necessary gas and not a dangerous one. We couldn’t live without it. Of course, we should care for our environment as a matter of course but I do not believe for one minute that man is causing climate change. It has always changed and always will without any help from us. We just need to be prepared for what it dishes up. Helen
Yes government need to take a look and see what is the science behind all of this and then put out a paper on what they have come up with. Robert
It’s been time forever! Richard
Computer modelling – change a few assumptions, get the result you want. The traversty is that these models are taken as “evidence”. Steve
What’s the matter with these useless pr***ks……time for “we the people” to stand up and take back our country from this self promoting lot . We need a leader [like in Fiji] who will do what’s right for the country, not politicians pushing and their own and parties ideology. Neville
Yes but, as with the treaty of Waitangi, our spineless politicians would rather kowtow to the UN than look after New Zealand’s interests. John
The science says it is a complex system, and it has sufficient chaotic elements that it could easily tip out of the relative stability it has had for the last 6,000 years. We need to develop technologies that actually allow us to manage climate – and prevent it going either too hot or too cold, either of which could easily happen. We are doing heaps of things that could alter those systems. We could easily develop technologies to manage them, and it would require going beyond competitive market based thinking, and into high level cooperative (post scarcity thinking). All doable and not yet common. Ted
Global warming, Yes. Man made, definitely not. We are the victims of a man made agenda by people who will not admit their science is flawed. Jock
If we are to question the science behind man-made global warming then we should also question the science and propaganda propagated by the global warning deniers. The simple reality is that we need to be prepared for the possible eventuality of global warming in the same way that we need to be prepared for earthquakes and other natural disasters that may not occur for if we don’t the cost can be huge (as we have seen). To not consider the probability of global warming would lead to an even larger cost to the earth and its population – in fact it would probably be game over! Analogy: would you get into car where you knew the breaks were doggy but may or may not fail on your next trip or wold you take precautions to fix the problem. Richard
Absolutely – but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Every man at my coffee group argues strongly one way or the other -all based on hearsay. Dick
# YES. It is well past the time government questioned the outpouring of this ‘trash’ science on man made global warming. As a retired herbivore nutritional scientist I have reiterated here and elsewhere that my and other studies show ruminant animals are at least carbon neutral, that is to say that methane and CO2 emissions are completely offset by the photosynthetic CO2 absorbed in the forage they consume. As regards the relationship between CO2 and climate change, if there is one, all evidence points to the the fact that periods of global warming and cooling are due to the cyclic behaviour of the sun and atmospheric CO2 changes may be a lagged result of these but certainly not the cause. For instance more CO2 is absorbed in cold water than in warm, therefore a minuscule increase in sea temperature will release a vast amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. Carbon is the foundation element of life un earth, yet this unfounded ‘garbage’ science has contributed to it being labeled as ‘dirty and toxic’. How dare it suggest that humankind has the power of the sun and the earth’s core to influence the carbon cycle to the degree it can affect climate change. Bruce
Question the science, make a decision but don’t create another govt. department to do so. Binding referendum anyone? rosa
Not only should they put a hold on any new regulations, they should cleanse the statute books of all reference to the stupidity of global warming hysteria. It is absurd and such regulation has devastating effects on the New Zealand economy. While they are at it, they should take a knife to many of the statutorial absurdities relating to health and safety laws which are also causing huge financial losses for farmers and other producers and providers of our means of earning our way in the world. My understanding is for example that for every quad bike related farm death, there are 18 farmer suicides, no doubt some of which are related to severe depression directly attributable to the economic losses farmers are having to carry because of health and safety and environmental penalties. Dianna
The National Government must go. Clive
Yes, absolutely – we knew even before the ETS was introduced that it was just a back door for a few to get rich, and was never about addressing ‘climate change’. We knew the science was flawed – but the concept of climate change/global warming plays on people’s fear (including the press) much like insurance companies do. That’s why insurance companies are so powerful – and why the ETS and climate change advocates still exist. Until there is some powerful mainstream backing that challenges the science currently being used, we will all be paying through the nose for policies based on a ‘theory’. Fiona
Even the “experts” can’t agree! Sheila
Theory promoted by radicals. Jim
It is unbelievable that our politicians allow these types of policy to become law.Is it because by trying to be leaders in makes good theses policies some of our politicians obtain very high profile (and high paid) positions such as Helen Clarke. Brian
Global warming hasn’t been proven, seemed to have happened as a natural phenomenon over many years. Tom
It is clearly called climate change, global warming is outdated terminology. Also the same IPCC report you all reference estimates losses between 5-40% of world GDP by failing to act on this. Similarly a review paper showed 97% consensus within the science community that this is actually occurring. Denying it is akin to claiming evolution or gravity are also just theories. Here is the review link http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article Rob
Have been looking at both sides of debate for 15 years and strongly believe there is no threat of global warming or sea rise. Brian
www.suspicious0bservers.org Murray
Just a sop to the noisy greenies, never was a threat of manmade global warming and if there had been the NZ contribution on a world scale would be unmeasurable. Don
The foregoing is essential for the future well being of this country. Tom
Yes it is , g/w is the earth in flux whitch is a natural occurence and not a man made farce to steal money. James
Climate science has failed to remain objective, having become a highly subjective issue – as humans we tend to believe in our pet theories. One factor never before in the earth’s history is the vast number of climate investigators whose jobs & incomes depend on keeping a politically alarmist view on climate alive. Russell
Even if the highly questionable Anthropological climate change is real there are two main factors being ignored: 1. NZ contributes a minuscule amount when compared to giants like China who are doing very little to mitigate their emissions. 2. Destruction of Rain Forests is a far bigger problem per se than emissions because Rain Forests are primarily C4 plants capable of sequestering 5 to 15 times more Carbon than the more common C3 plants. Why aren’t governments encouraging more planting of commercial C4 plants like Maize, Hemp, even Marijuana? Geoff
Maybe they are on the gravy train. Colin
Perhaps If we stopped listening to all the drivel that come out of the UN we would al be better of. The UN should try to do the job it was formed to do and which it has failed so badly and stop trying to be world government. Hugh
Judging by the way the temps are going down in Central Otago I would say we need further research. Andre
Well past time !!!!! Tony
But they won’t. They have signed up to it and would lose face if they did. Eric
It is the greatest scam of the 20th & 21st centuries along with Agenda 21 and all the fascistic regulations and controls that bind us more and more into slavery. Don
The biggest hoax ever pertatedon man kind. Peter
How can we make them DO it? Don
Global warming is a ploy towards global govt. go see what the pope is doing at the moment,more worried about global climate than any thing else. Jack
Climate has changed over millions of years before we were here. Edward
I began reading books and essays on environmental issues over 40 years ago. Much of the environmental damage/degradation that has occurred in my lifetime – I’m 71 – and continues to occur, has come about as a consequence of our behaviour. We are a plague upon the planet and behave in ways that has accelerated the loss of other species and that continues. We ought to be more respectful and prudent and willing to adopt precautionary principles. We refuse to accept Nature as a community of which we are but one part and treat so much of what’s around us as a parcel of commodities instead of a community to which we owe allegiance. We are rapacious, greedy, ruthless, and often destructive. The willfully blind rule. Humility, where is it? Brian
Actually it is long overdue! Graeme
I think it is certainly time they did take a long hard look at it because down in the deep south the powers that be are at this very time trying to get open fires and older coal and wood burners shut down. Raymond
I have tried for years to get a response from the govt on the subject. It is a waste of time. mad.monk
I wrote to Tim Grosser on 1st March 2015 stating in part “My submission to you is to reject the global warming myth known as Anthropogenic Global Warming, and not commit NZ to any carbon dioxide emissions reduction at all. This is the direction taken by Canada and Australia in recent times, and has earned the admiration of those who can see things as they really are, and not what the MSM reports.” I received a reply on 18 March, stating, in part: “The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is clearly established and credible. The Government bases its climate change advice on many sources of evidence. This includes information produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, universities and research institutes from around the globe, and research from within New Zealand. These multiple lines of scientific evidence show that climate change is happening and humankind%u2019s emissions of greenhouse gases are extremely likely the cause.” This is boiler plate text that could have come straight out of the Green Party manifesto. I expected a National Party returned to office for a second term to be above this nonsense. Peter
Yes yes and yes. Vaughan
Yes it’s crazy. John
I have thought this since reading the Skeptical Environmentalist some 10 or more years ago. I is all B/S. Neville
Man made global warming is the greatest pseudo-sdientific scam of of all time! John
This whole global warming thing is a crock. Climate has been warming and cooling at different times for millions of years. It is all being driven by the greedy money men and ego tripping scientists. If we didn’t have computor modelling etc we would do what we have always done and that is to adapt to the climate that exists at the time. The main cause of changing temperatures is all to do with the sun and we can’t do anything about it. Mike
About time real information was used, not just a guess from machines. Graeme
The world prefers to believe one great lie than a lot of small truths. John
Yes, but … “the sea had retreated by 0.30-0.94m/yr over 130 years %u2013 and was still retreating.” That is vertical vs horizontal land movement. River sediment to the coast is not going to raise houses to counteract a sea level increase. Jay
They are too gutless to question anything! John Key likes to go along with every populist theory or group. Laurie
Too much convenient science arising out of large grants of public money….and people fearful of keeping their jobs if they properly question the science such as it is. Threats made towards those who are sceptical only serve to undermine public confidence in the willingness of governments to thoroughly investigate theories in a neutral manner. A lot of grants to so called ‘green energy’ providers has also skewed outcomes. Dell
But they won’t as they are collecting a lot of extra sneaky taxes in the name of “cRbon” or something. But they won’t as the sneaky b……s who think we are all stupid, are collecting a lot of extra taxes from us in the name of carbon (and we are not allowed to know what they do with the dollars). Carolyn
The need to obtain undisputed facts is paramount. There is certainly reasonable doubt to question the reliability of evidence claimed by some “interested” parties. The government has due responsibility to ensure this detail is beyond reproach before legislating further. Chris
Another world wide fraud and the science is not and never “settled”‘ Too many “real” scientists are disputing those with agendas. AND whats with the INCREASE of ice in the arctic ??? Alan
Most definitely. In fact if it is an honest ‘question asking’ it will find that clearly anthropogenic global warming is almost non-existent. It is high time that the nonsense surrounding this problem is laid to rest. John
Global warming, if it is happening, is the result of natural actions of the world. It has been promoted by so called experts to satisfy their own greed for money. It is also promoted by the UN so that they can then forward the proceeds to so called poor nations so that they can buy more weapons etc. to control their own countries. I have had enough of one sided reports in national newspapers. Newspaper reporters have recently been lowered to the most untrusted people in New Zealand. Allan
The research and reporting published in the book “Air Con” first published in 2009 is a must read for any thinking human being.x Instead of the propaganda preached by educators to our children Air Con should be curriculum reading and debate by all students 15 years of age and older. I have been the recipient of this propaganda from grandchildren who have been brain washed by their educators. When they were asked searching questions the same rhetoric was regurgitated from them all. Sad but very true. It required strong argument together with basic logic questions for a glimmer of doubt to be shown by any one of them. Their ages were 2 X 15 yrs& 2 X 17 yrs. Two have graduated with degrees from Massey University and two are at present completing trade apprenticeships. When educators are approached about the subject, most often their immediate response is “Oh you must be another of those silly, ignorant non believers”. With which I often reply, Fact is difficult to comprehend by the “great unwashed” and “belief’ requires rhetoric using powerful emotional verbs to capture young vulnerable minds by the “great unwashed so, yes I am an unbeliever who prefers scientific fact and history to rhetoric, Ego or ignorance generally ends the conversation??? If the UN were so sure of their so called science – why change the term Global Warming to Climate Change. A question posed to the MP Dr Smith. “When does and is not and has not Climate Changed? The question was not answered. This leads me to believe, The question was too difficult for the then minister to comprehend or he and his colleagues have been reading too much Chicken Little. John
It really is time that the falsehoods put about by supposedly eminent scientists and opportunist like Al Gore, based upon manipulated and false climate data, are finally put to rest. Michael
I ticked yes, but of course this National branch of the Labour party will never waver from the United Nations agenda. Unlike the Australian P.M., this government lacks the guts or the honesty required, to question a scam that was invented to either redistribute wealth, or eventually invent a new monetery system. I explained to Tim Grosser, that a theoretical problem cannot be solved using virtual science. {computer modeling}. Real science demonstrates a perfect system, where CO2 continually sinks to be absorbed by the earth or the plants that grow in that earth. Virtual science shows CO2 hovering at some undisclosed height, preventing heat from returning to space. Strange that that same heat penetrated that same CO2 layer, to get here in the first place . Also strange how latest predictions have decided once again, that we are heading quickly toward a mini ice age. Mr Grosser acknowledged my letter, but refused to communicate further.. Allan
The use of computer simulation relies on algorithms that are based on questionable information, often bearing no relation to a country’s long term observations. The effects of volcanic eruptions for instance can throw a spanner into the works that no algorithm can immediately cope with I believe. Wally
The science is most certainly not settled but as Max Planck so neatly put it: changes in science do not result from new discoveries but by professors dying. Michael
IT IS THE BIGGEST HOAX IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.and who is behind it, the United Nations, Follow the money, the UN will use it to fund agenda 21, both Labour and National have signed up for agenda 21, God help us. Athol
Global warming is a very like a religion and they hate non-belivers! Roger
R. Hide when leader of ACT, in parliament, so recorded in Hansard, gave all the necessary science to refute the scandal of human caused climate change [then known as global warming] <a href = “http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html”>Proper science </a> From NZ Climate Science coalition; layman’s guide {Has been quite rewritten and not so good now}. Information that was known when Simon Upton [National] agreed to nobble us with “carbon ” reductions; known when National added taxes to fuel and electricity. Peter
After the coldest winter on record? – duh! Mark
I believe the gov already knows that it is bull but considers it expedient to stay with the current program. Mara
Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t clean up our act. However, that is another story. Let’s get to the truth of global warming. Kevan
It is time our polititions woke up and listened to reason. When I hear Russell Norman talking about rowing a boat along Lampton Quay I wonder what cloud he and others live on. Robert
With the prediction of a mini ice age in 2030 due to the sun cooling we need to warm up the environment not cool it…. Chris
Global warming was a red herring thrown into the World arena when Britains Maggie Thatchers Govt was trying to distract folks from the taxes her politcal party were introducing at the time and her “Think tank team” came up with the Green House theory. All this cock and bull about the storms of the century, Glaciers melting, Etc Etc. Bollocks, I can remember years ago, when we had storms coming in from the Northely direction that would last for three to fours days. Howling winds and torrential rain, roads washed away. and settlements all around the country side isolated for days. Nothing new ! Its just mother nature doing her thing, but we must look after her where we can without all the dramatic measures that are being put into place. I reakon deep down there are hidden agendas lurking which always has the sound of cash registers ringing ??? Wayne
Yes get the facts and then make correct decisions. John
So much evidence now against the concept of Global Warming. Hylton
Absolutely agree. Alan
Be wary of any and all information emanating from the UN. Hidden agendas by the cart load that ignore fact and truth. Fred
I believe the industry behind the promotion of man made climate change is filled with people who fuel this because of self interest. Otherwise they would be the turkey who voted for Christmas. Catherine
The government should always question theories regarding future events. By definition these cannot be known but can only be assessed in order of probability. This is clouded by fanatics whose expertise is in inverse proportion to the noise they make and media exposure they receive.. If these people have their way the industrialised West will revisit medieval times. Peter
Governments must address particular environmental issues which are peculiar and unique to the ir own country, not base all “cures” on overseas data. Like all else in this corrupt world the dollars which global warming reduction fixes produce are the main factor, l evidence of a natural cycle reoccurring, as, h seems to be the case. Donald
Yes, indeed, however I won’t hold my breath. Sadly, I voted this government in and now regret it as it has proven to be utterly one sided and “to hell with anyone who questions me”. The Flag referendum is a classic example – the public have shown their feeling with this subject and totally ignored public comment and Mr. Key continues to waste 26 million on a dead duck. The cause of Auckland’s spiraling house prices is another subject where National pretend not to know – or want to know – the cause. I am now an ardent non National supporter. And I am very saddened to have to say so. Peter
Better late than never?????? Who’s to believe? From every scientist there is a theory…….? But of course whichever Govt we have is Far Too Busy with that B*&^%$# TREATY and not doing anything positive about the fallout from That….last week’s commentary and poll were shining example of just that. Climate Change is a similarly under-defined and inadequately researched subject in NZ, particularly as it applies or may apply in the future, in this country.. Is it just another topic to keep junior journalists in a job? As far as we see in the daily news, that’s about it. Could we please have more informed research results and comment on the science/s affecting our climates, our crops, our health and safety, and just incidentally, the consequences, and effects on NZ’s primary produce and thus our place in the economics of the Great Big World Outside???? Personally, I would vote for Attilla the Hun or any dam’ bod if he/she/someone would just get us all onto some kind of universal parity and recognition of One People One Law Book…and THEN we can start worrying about the weather… I don’t live here from choice, believe me. You’re all welcome to it. Maggie
I am confused over the conflicting data fed to us. Apparent qualified scientists promote completely opposite theories on future warming or cooling. meanwhile it’s freezing. Rod
Absolutely Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the climate Change, Global warming people who use their alarmist doctrine lie to frighten people into believing their Propaganda. Dr Goebbels stated if you tell a big enough lie often enough then people will start believing it is the truth. Colin
There is so much evidence to support the fact that there has been no increase in world temperature for 18 years. John
They won’t because it would mean no jobs for the nutters,with all the fossil fuel burnt in the pre and industerial era the world should have melted by the co2 etc we produced, and the reason the oceans are rising could be caused by the massive ships with there displacements which if added up would cause a rise of oceans by quite a bit. Richard
It is discouraging that so many people treat this as a religious, rather than an empirical, question. Don
You should listen to Dr Russell Gray an NZ scientist who heads the Max Planck Institute on Science and Human history. Most NZ scientists cannot believe how we under fund science in this country. Alastair
I doubt that anyone in government has the guts to ask the question. Ken
Whilst we must all be conscious of polluting our planet / environment and take positive steps to avoid pollution, it does not make sense to keep following others like sheep. Stop using a pendulum mentality and take a more balanced approach with Government policies as they often adversely affect those who are most vulnerable. Martin
There is no real science behind the theory of global warming………only lies and data cooking. As in all of these situations, just follow the money and you will find the source of all the obfuscation. Ronmac
But unfortunately, the believer lobby is so heavily weighted now that it is tantamount to being seen as a Holocaust Denier to challenge them. Look at the outpourings against Abott in Australia, not helped by his real idiocy in other matters. Allan
Yes, yes, yes! Thank goodness you have asked the question. It is possible, even, that more lives have been lost (due to insufficient warming) than have been saved by the crazy removal of wood-burning heaters from city houses. And as to the man made “global warming-climate change” rort, we need to dig our toes in before our government wastes any taxpayer money on man-made climate change alleviation. What bullshit! Rob
They should have questioned it a long time ago. That does not fit in with UN political agendas. Don
Global warming?… now Climate change as we listen to more scientific clap trap from the scientific community who thrive on the government funding for research and development. Lee
Definitely. The Government is too quick to follow ideas that have not been tested properly. Mary
Every time we get hit by a new wave of freezing weather, I keep on asking myself – We are experiencing Global Warming, aren’t We?? Pierre
Scaremongering and very doubtful science. David
While I agree with this article both my neighbours have Wood Burners and they STINK. John
Worldwide oceanic measuring devices have detected no significant change in temperatures for some 18 years, yet the media fear merchants continually feed the ignorant peasants (that’s us) with tales of sinking islands, sea front inundations and global catastrophes. And all of this is based upon a computer readout that was pre-ordained by they who programmed the computer. I tend to go along with the latest sunspot activities report that forecasts the approach of a little ice age – at least this theory has a scientific basis. Mitch
Long overdue. Matt Ridleys article should be compulsory reading for all……especially parliamentarians. Gail
Absolutely…this fraud has been going on too long. It must be stopped. Mike
Of course, but so should the case made for any extreme position be always challenged. Martin
Absolutely it’s time, but I’ll not hold my breath! Barry
Not only should we question the theory, but also consider that NZ contributes an extremely small amount of emissions. So small that if we reduced our emissions to zero it would not change anything on the worlds’ total emission. It would be like taking a shovel full of sand from a beach; there’d be plenty left. Graeme
A load of Hog-wash!!! Ian
I have been saying for 20 years now that it is not global warming but rather global cooling we have to fear. This’mini-ice age’ may not be so mini; it may, in fact, be the beginning of the next major glaciation like occurred 100000 years ago and every 100000 years before that for the past couple of million years. Maybe this cold winter will become our new summer climate. Alan
Sooner the better. Eddie
The reality is that our government and local bodies like to spend our hard earned incomes and global warming is considered a great revenue earner for the government. John
Miles overdue! Kevin
Well over due. Mike
There has never been any “science” behind the theory of man made global warming. It is based on computer models which have demonstrablly failed . Tony
Because scientists announced last week that we are heading towards a mini ice age in around 15 years. Someone has got it wrong. about global warning. Rog
Do not believe in global warming. Dorothy
A recent article in the Dom Post stated that scientists had discovered a conflict in opposing vortexes on the suns surface which could lead to a repitition of the 17th century big freeze in Europe. I consider that the “Global Warming” promoters have another agenda – to reduce the planets population and “Global Warming” is the scare tactic they use. Brian
Overdue! Roy
IT’s way past time, but they won’t because it’s all about money power and control of the people. Leonie
This is one area I disagree with Muriel. For instance I view the acidification of oceans as a concern. However, government compulsion is seldom necessary.. Labour’s proposed light-bulb changeover has happened anyway due to market forces. We have a surplus of electricity – largely renewable – and electric vehicles will thankfully help wean us off dependence on oil from politically unstable countries. Government could help expedite this. Jonathan
My answer is yes. However the extrapolation of suspect research to wider models, with resultant errors, should in my view never be used as a reason to abandon the reduction of pollution in any form. Peter
Past time! Ranald
Kill geo engineering which the Govt denies is happening, the Govt is the enemy in toe with the lame stream media. Wayne
One of the biggest con jobs of recent times. John
Al Gore who started all this nonsense some years ago is now a very rich man out of it – he is reported to be worth $NZ300 million. He has hype it all up for extreme personal gain. Larry
Its 97% obvious… John
Definitely. Laurie
Take an unbiased look at recent data regarding sun spot count and global temperature changes Read information put out by legitimate science-based observers such as NASA. Kelvin
I have read several books on the subject of ‘global warming’ [GW]. One forecast I kept, said antarctic ice would be gone by 2012! The Al Gore GW industry has created many academic jobs around the world,much hot air and abusive terms such as GW skeptic. In my view John Key has lost the plot on this and many other issues. For the first time ever I abstained from voting at the last election, as an ACT original member what else could I do? David
When I was at school 50 years ago we were indoctrinated with the FACT that if we didn’t do something about CO2 then the polar caps would melt and the beaches we all love would be completely under water by now. I believed it at the time but here we are 50 years later and I can still go and sit on the same piece of beach with no fear of drowning in melted polar ice. I now believe it to be the biggest hoax, second only to religion, that has ever been inflicted upon mankind by idiots who always think the sky is falling. Jim
We will always have climate change – from morning to night, day by day, etc. This is nature and natural. From ice ages to heat waves to storms and draughts. Yes, clean up human debris and ones own ‘back yard’ but global warming is a hypothetical unknown. Stuart
The global warming theory, later renamed climate change, was a trumped up claim by the greedy 1% in order to make them richer and the rest of us poorer. It is now time for New Zealand to stand up and show the world that we will not be pushed into ridiculous ideas. We showed our courage with our stance to remain ‘nuclear free’ and we can do it again with a stand against the money grabbing, fearmongering climate change theory. Diana
Absolutely, there are many proven issues that need funding without, wasting the money on a self-serving, or should we say self-funding, sector of the scientific community. George
I voted no because successive Govts lunacy shows they are incompetent to investigate what is even more obvious than earlier. That is the world is not warming or coolingat any statistically significant rate yet they continue to abuse their powers by allowing a culture of fear to develop amongst citizens. And now the Vatican and USA state governors are colluding it will only get worse. Its a shameful part of mankinds evolution. Don
The burning of the Indonesian rain forest causes smoke to be so thick that schools are closed in Singapore. Why are they burning the forest? to plant palm oil trees – greenies are happy they think it will stop the use of mineral oil. It is being used in much of the food people eat – look at the ingredients of your biscuits. The Amazon rainforest is still being cut and burned. Not only the loss of habitat for the people, the animals, the birds etc. but the loss of unknown plants. Trees use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen – they are the lungs of the Earth. Without trees we may indeed have global warming. Meanwhile some are worried about climate change – that has happened since the beginning of the Earth. We have volcanoes constantly erupting, the sun has sunspots, effecting the climate, and what about the recurring ice ages – we are told a mini ice age is on the way. Glaciers are receding – but when I went on a cruise into Glacier Bay off the west coast of Canada we saw a glacier which is growing. Penelope
It’s obvious that they should. Duncan
Global warming is total rubbish. The science behind it is completely false. Norm
Absolutely and while they are at it, take our agriculture out of the equasion. If the Govt believed in it, they would not be converting forestry to dairy farming so just proves it is all a big fake business and they know it. Di
How long will it be before the Greenies start encouraging everyone to produce more CO2 in order to stop the next mini ice-age and stop some tiny creature from being frozen into extinction 🙂 Gary
Wishart was right, the lefties howled him down because he railed in science against their agenda, but his research was right, humans arent the least responsible for the carbon footprint its all a scam to fund the socialist world order and we dont need to pay for that lot of slave lords to tax the life out of the working family. Wishart should be exalted for his insight and plain wisdom and the falsehoods of the unionised pinko left exposed for the garbage they are. Richard
The Arctic icecaps are shrinking while the Antarctic ice is increasing. Should we use the northern example to ‘prove’ that global warming is occurring, or should we cite the southern phenomenon as ‘proof’ of an oncoming ice age? It probably depends upon the preconceptions of whoever feeds the data into the computer program. Mitch
Yes, in fact it’s way past time. This utter rubbish is just one more of the idiotic proclamations from the United Nations a body which believes it has a mandate to. tell the whole world how to.live their lives. The clack trap continues unabated, but where is this August body being present in the many trouble spots around the world. Jim
The time for questioning the science behind the theory of man-made global warming is well past, by about a decade at least. Ego-pride and vested interests are about all that hinders that questioning now. Paul
Even if a pole from the public suggested the Govt questioned the non evidence of climate change, would they listen and stop sending penalty money to the UN or world bank. I doubt it. David
I am living in the UK at present and saw the articles regarding the next mini ice age and how by 2030 we could expect to see the Thames freeze over. What interested me more was how small the space the newspapers gave to this news. Tim
But most parliamentarians are as good as scientifically illiterate, so they have to rely on what the recognised ‘experts’ say. And those ‘experts’ are the ones who sing from the approved song sheet which they are co-authors of in the first instance. It’s all rather circular and you end up where you started. Barend
It’s absolutely hogwash since and propaganda perpetrated by our left leaning news media.  It’s all snout socialism of tax and control by academics to keep themselves in high paying public service jobs.  It’s the same for our councils tax and control at the suffering rates payers expense, the people must revolt together.cheers Morrie
We need balance in this debate, not assertions based on “I am correct” Andrew
One only needs to read Professor Ian Plimer’s book; Heaven and Earth, the Missing Science. to believe the fallacy of the Global Warming scaremongering. Albie
As usual they have gone with flavour of the month or is it decade. Dave
The government must realise that their policies based on flawed/unproven data, must be stopped. Cliff
Finally there is someone willing to speak out on this extremely vexing matter. For far too long the news media have inundated us with nonsensical alarmist reports without examining the actual facts. Go for it Muriel.! Ron
Yes indeed. We need to remember that our spaceship Earth will provide fluctuations and cycles in temperature trends as it goes about its orbit of the sun on a slightly varying track each year. The sun also fluctuates in its energy streams which govern our temperatures. Remember the science which gave us the ‘acid rain’ scenario of the 1970s which predicted most of Europe’s forests would die out. That did not happen. Peter
Yup!! I suspect a real inconvenient truth would be too inconvenient for the government and their greenie luvvies. Peter
The problem is it seems impossible to fight unreason with reason. Reason is based on facts, the facts are just ignored. Gary
Global warming seems to be a political football based on guesswork. Peter
The global warming threat was debunked years ago and since then it has been discredited even more. The government subscribe to the “herd” mentality and won’t buck the trend. Even if a contrary view was expressed by a room full of experts the government would fill another with those who support the theory. I suspect we are on a trip without an end in sight. Mike
The time for questioning the theory has long since passed. It has been proven to be wrong. Get rid of all expensive, counter-productive climate change regulations now. Kerry
Make facts and common sense rule decision making. Konrad
It is way past time, stop listening to the melons (greens) and other socialists. Allen
Now we have one group of doom-saying scientists claiming the world is going to overheat and another lot saying that we will freeze. Yet more say we are going to drown from rising sea levels. It takes just a few minutes of research to put these things into perspective, yet people seem to be willing to take everything they read as gospel, and begin to panic. Regrettably, this includes our politicians who have set out yet again to prove that intellect and courage and the desire to seek facts are not pre-requisites for political office. There is a fear of sea levels rising and drowning the coast. It is claimed this is an accelerating problem. Although this is good reading, it is nonsense. Geologic evidence shows very clearly that the sea level 21,000 years ago was about 140 metres lower than today. Over time the level rose, with most gains being during the period 14,000 to 6,000 years ago. Since then the rate of increase in sea level has been reducing, only rising a few metres in the last 6,000 years. In this time frame, it becomes stupid to try and make a judgement based on a few millimetres over a hundred year time frame. Evidence is available is available, just by recognising the fact that around most land masses, including New Zealand, there exists a continental shelf with a remarkably similar depth throughout the world of about 140 metres which was once the shoreline 20,000 years ago. When the rate of sea level rise is graphed, it is clear that the rise has nearly flattened off. Other factors also influence sea levels. Any floating object will float higher or lower, depending on the load it is carrying. Land masses float on the fluid core of our planet and follow this law. When they are carrying the burden of three kilometres (or more) of ice, they are pressed down, but rise again as the ice is removed. This rise in the land does not occur suddenly, but over time in a process referred to as post-glacial rebound. It is still happening and is apparent in areas of Canada and Scandinavia to this day. The Great Lakes are getting more shallow while Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia are rising at the rate of one centimetre per year. In both cases shipping and navigation are being affected. These areas are not unique with other areas also rebounding. The effect of this is a double one, in that the melting of ice contributes to the amount of free water, while the emergence of land displaces the water. Both effects will cause a minor increase in seal level, but it is of minimal consequence. There are also claims about carbon dioxide levels becoming dangerously high, but once again the facts are easily found. The reality is that over geologic time carbon dioxide levels have been decreasing, with present levels being only a small percentage of the historic highs of 525 million years ago. There have been fluctuations within that time, of course, but the trend is apparent. The present focus on a few tree rings over a ten year time frame is meaningless in the wider view. One thing does seem to be clear %u2013 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, when measured over a geological time scale would appear to be decreasing. Claims that the earth is getting hotter can also be tested with a minimal level of research, when it will readily be observed that during most of time the planet has been hotter than at present. Even during man’s own history, there have been significant events that the doom sayers tend to ignore. The fact is that temperatures over the last 2,000 years have trended down, although there have been short term increases such as occurred during Roman and Medieval times. There were fewer people and nothing by way of fossil fuelled machines for most of this time, yet the temperature spiked above the average for several hundreds of years each time. Throughout time, the earth has cycled between ice ages and warm periods without needing intervention from mankind. The indications are that we are in a warm period, but with temperatures three to six degrees lower than during other warm times, so maybe a further increase is to come. Ice volumes are also higher than the historic norms for a warm period and may still reduce. One thing that is certain is that the climate is in a constant state of change, and has been throughout time, and it may be appropriate to start giving some thought to surviving under a sheet of ice. Theo
I don’t believe in global warming, but I do believe that our politicians and bureauocrats will try every trick in the book to squeeze some more tax dollars out of us at every turn. One thing I’ve noticed is they have stopped calling it global warming and changed it to climate change. It’s not about climate change, it’s about money. Stevo
Over the ages the planet has experienced vast variations of weather patterns including an ice-age. Such variances have nothing to do with emissions from mankind and are beyond our ability to control. Perhaps Earth is experiencing a slight variance in average temperatures yet again. NZ’s output of so-called “greenhouse gasses” is about 1/4 % of the total increase in world output. We barely register as a polluter. So what? John
You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. It is time the government woke up to the fact that the majority of us are not fooled. Judith
It is about time to get real and look at the evidence and stop with this charging of tax just because they ‘think’ it’s going to help. Christine
….planet earth has everything under control..what the hell would a bunch of humans know..??? Christopher
13 Ice ages. All the snow both Islands. This is just another cycle. Ross
Long overdue! Karin
Science, has been the practice of observing nature, determining patterns and attempting to explain the patterns, through theories, that are then tested against examples…to see if they work! GW is not science! it takes restricted data, and without seeking to explain, extrapolates as a linear trend the outcome that has been PAID FOR. Lionel
Get China, India and the U.S.A. to reduce their shocking pollution first! Don
Where’s the “Hell yes – way past time” option? John
Global warming is the biggest scam of all time. The sooner it is dropped from our laws, the better. Brian
There are far too many ridiculous laws and regulations in this country – most could be abolished and we would all be better off for it. John
Absolutely the science behind global warming should be investigated. It has never been proved and should not be part of our legislative framework. Barbara
Global warming is a con job – it should all be scrapped. Graham
The Ministry of the Environment should be investigated for all of the trouble they have caused and all of the radicals should be sacked. Jeff