About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr Muriel Newman

Global Warming Groupthink

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

On the 30 year anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a lead authors’ meeting of some 120 scientists is being held in Christchurch to prepare a report on land use and climate change.  

One of the more contentious issues that will no doubt be raised is whether grasslands can be considered as carbon sinks for UN greenhouse gas inventory purposes – in the same way that forests are used to offset emissions.

This is an issue that has been considered by Ireland, where 30 percent of emissions come from agriculture. The Royal Irish Academy has taken the view that the soil under grassland ‘locks up’ carbon dioxide and should therefore be taken into account when calculating emission targets. They claim that while there is ample evidence that grassland soils sequester carbon, this has not been recognised by the IPCC.

It’s an even bigger issue for New Zealand where, almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by agriculture. Extensive research into this and other related issues is coordinated and funded by the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, which was set up in 2010 and receives an annual grant of $4.8 million.

One of the visiting UN scientists, IPCC co-chair Professor James Skea, is also a founding member of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. Since this UK Committee is being used as a model for the Government’s proposed New Zealand Climate Commission, Professor Skea met with Climate Change Minister, Green Party leader James Shaw, to provide advice.

The role of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change is to advise the Government on emission targets and report to Parliament on the progress being made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee not only sets the carbon budgets and targets, but also monitors agencies for compliance.

A letter on the Committee’s website illustrates their approach. The 2017 memo to the UK Minister of Agriculture decried the lack of progress in reducing agricultural emissions and warned: “The carbon footprint of UK agriculture reflects choices by consumers as well as producers and the wider food industry. Previous work by the Committee has demonstrated that a shift to healthier diets with lower red meat and dairy content could cut emissions while freeing up significant amounts of land. Options to support consumers to make more informed food choices should be considered… Such shifts will be particularly important for the longer term, when deeper cuts in agricultural emissions will be needed.”  

The Committee clearly believes that running a consumer campaign against British meat and dairy producers, in order to reduce emissions by lowering demand, is an entirely legitimate course of action.

While the UK Climate Change Committee costs around £3.5 million a year to run, the real cost to the British people is far greater than that. In 2016, Peter Lily, a Conservative MP who voted against the Climate Change Act which set up the Committee, published a report outlining how the long-term cost of the law was never disclosed to the British public: “The costs of the Climate Change Act, which were not discussed at all during its passage through Parliament, are coming home to roost. Those costs – all ultimately borne by households through higher energy bills, increased taxes and a higher cost of living – are already substantial, growing rapidly and hit the most vulnerable hardest.”  

He estimated that between 2014 and 2030, the total cost of cutting emissions to meet the UK’s 2030 target, would amount to over £300 billion – and that does not include indirect costs such as the loss of jobs and business output as British industry becomes less competitive.

He said that during the establishment of the Act, the strategy of coalition ministers was to try “to pretend climate change policy was practically costless and would even make us better off.”  

It appears the same approach will be taken here by our new government.

When asked in a recent TVNZ Q+A interview about whether the Government’s climate change policies to make the country emissions-free by 2050, will force New Zealanders to make sacrifices, the Minister replied: “My goal is that by the end of this Parliament, we have put in place the architecture for that transition to the low-carbon economy. But I see this as the greatest economic opportunity in a generation, right? It’s not all sunk cost. This is about investing in a cleaner, smarter, more productive and higher value economy. To me, that’s a tremendous opportunity and that’s the way we should be thinking about it.”

It appears that James Shaw intends adopting the strategy of his UK counterparts – hype up the benefits and ignore the costs.

Minister Shaw plans to implement his goal through a Zero Carbon Act. This legislation will have two objectives – the first is to put into law the target of being a zero-emissions economy by the year 2050, and the second is to establish the independent Climate Commission.

One of the first tasks of the Climate Commission will be to advise the Government on whether agriculture should be brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme. During the election campaign, both Labour and the Greens promised to bring agriculture into the ETS, while, in contrast, New Zealand First promised to abolish the ETS altogether.

According to Federated Farmers, the cost to farmers of bringing agriculture into the ETS will be up to $83 million in the first year, eventually rising to more than $830 million per year.

So while New Zealand farmers presently enjoy the reputation of being amongst the most efficient food producers in the world, forcing the sector into the ETS will impose costs that will place our farmers at a significant competitive disadvantage, since no other country penalises agricultural food production through an ETS.

In fact under Labour, the future for farming looks bleak as they will face the double whammy of being burdened with two huge wealth-destroying bureaucracies – the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Climate Commission.

Transitioning to a low-carbon economy, as Minister Shaw is proposing, will fundamentally change the dynamics of how our economy works. In fact, the shift to net-zero emissions of man-made greenhouse gases by 2050, is of such a magnitude, that our economic future will be put at risk. For many voters, this situation will confirm their worst fears about the danger of having the ideological Green Party in government.

It’s not just agriculture, of course, that will be penalised through costly climate change policies – all New Zealanders will pay the price, as the British are being forced to do.

With the Government’s climate change policy agenda set to impose huge financial costs on households over time, it is little wonder that global warming scaremongering is now being ratcheted up.

Leading the charge is the Climate Change Minister, who clearly intends attributing all adverse weather events to man-made climate change, even though this is blatant propaganda: “We live in a part of the world where sea-level rise, coastal erosion, cyclones, and droughts are happening with the kind of increasing frequency and force that hasn’t been seen before. One recent estimate suggests that $19 billion of assets are at risk from sea level rise and flooding events. Flooding in 2011 cost nearly $17 million. Then there was one of the worst droughts on record in New Zealand in 2012-2013 costing the country $1-and-a-half billion in lost agricultural exports. Quite literally – we cannot afford to ignore climate change and do nothing about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”

The fact that man-made climate change is not the cause of adverse weather events in New Zealand was explained by former MP Barry Brill, the Chairman of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, in a recent complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority against TVNZ for inaccurate and unbalanced reporting! You can read his evidence and follow the complaint process HERE.

Just last week, in the UK, as a result of a similar complaint to the British equivalent of our Broadcasting Standards Authority, the BBC was forced to correct a claim that climate change is making hurricanes worse, by stating that “it is modelling rather than historical data that predicts stronger and wetter hurricanes.” In other words, there was no real-life evidence to support their contentions either.

Barry Brill is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, with details of a new report published in the prestigious journal Nature, that shows, as a result of the cooler temperatures being experienced in New Zealand, our glaciers been advancing:   

“A recent research paper tells us that New Zealand falls into the cooling category. This 2017 study entitled Regional cooling caused recent New Zealand glacier advances in a period of global warming was a collaborative effort undertaken by three scientists from Victoria University’s Antarctic Research Centre, two scientists from NIWA and Professor James Renwick.

“After extensive climate model runs, the researchers firmly concluded that the gain in glacier mass has been a direct result of reduced air temperatures in the Southern Alps since the early 1980s: ‘The lower temperatures were associated with anomalous southerly winds and low sea surface temperature in the Tasman Sea region’. The Regional Cooling in the title of the paper refers to the whole of New Zealand and its surrounding seas.”

In his article, Barry explains that the country hasn’t experienced even the slightest twinge of ‘climate change’ – of the sort of dangerous anthropogenic global warming predicted by IPCC models – and asks why our political leaders are directing huge amounts of taxpayers’ money into man-made climate change research, when no real-life evidence exists.

British journalist and author Christopher Booker has also been puzzling over the modern-day obsession with climate change. He believes the explanation lies in the work of the late Professor Irving Janis, a research psychologist at Yale University. Professor Janis formulated a theory called ‘groupthink’, in response to examples of disastrous decision-making by world leaders and their highly-paid advisors: “My conclusion after poring over hundreds of relevant documents is that the groups that committed the fiascos were the victims of what I call ‘groupthink’.”

He found that when groups supported beliefs that couldn’t be proven, they developed behaviours that bolstered morale at the expense of critical thinking. “One of the most common norms appears to be that of remaining loyal to the group by sticking with their policies, even when those policies are obviously working out badly and have unintended consequences. This is one of the key characteristics of groupthink.” Another characteristic he found was that group members exerted powerful pressure on any dissidents who objected to their ‘consensus’.

In his paper “Global Warming – a case study in groupthink”, Christopher Booker contends that global warming fits the ‘groupthink’ theory in that advocates share their belief without a proper appraisal of the evidence, and they discredit those with contrary views by insisting that their belief is supported by a ‘consensus’ of right minded people.

This was evident in the reaction to the doomsday prognosis of former US Vice President, Al Gore, in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. When his Armageddon predictions of climate chaos, drowning polar bears, a 20 foot sea level rise, and the fact that “citizens of pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand” proved to be grossly inaccurate, with scarcely a single claim made in the film standing up to scrutiny, including by the British High Court, instead of the global warming theory being discredited, those raising concerns were even more viciously attacked.

It’s the fact that global warming groupthink is not based on reality, that makes climate extremism so dangerous.

So why is our new Government planning to decarbonise our economy and put our largest export industry at risk? Because it suits them to do so. As our new Prime Minister declared, climate change is the “nuclear free moment” of this generation. Labour and the Greens have too much political capital at stake to be anything but part of the problem. The concern for us all is that their agenda and ideology come at a considerable cost and risk to New Zealand.


Do you agree with Labour and the Greens that New Zealand should move to a zero carbon economy? 


*Poll comments are posted below.


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

Click to view x 120


It is becoming even more clear that AGW is more than a myth – it is a tool for the implementation of Agenda 21 – World Governance by the UN. It must be stopped!!!! David
Well these are the facts: Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2? Answer-1/27th of 1%. Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media? Answer-No Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made? Answer-3% or 0.001% of the air. Question 4. (Example)What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce? Answer-0.00001% Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant? Answer-No it is an odourless, tasteless, clear, harmless natural trace gas. They put it in your Coca Cola!!! Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect? Answer-No there is no proof at all. So what is the fuss about? Well its about taxation opportunity to introduce a new tax against the electorate that will maintain the world stage position of the political system and its politicians not to mention a new battalion of bureaucrats. The taxpayer will pay for all this by losing competitiveness and paying more for just about every commodity that we need for everyday life. Is green business fact or fantasy? Answer-Fantasy!!!  Frederick
Scientific evidence, through recent decades, does not in any way indicate a need for such a shift in emphasis, which is 99% smoke and mirrors. Carl
This is just another Cycle, we have had 13 Ice ages. Ross
AGC is Crap Gary
Knee jerk reactions when adhered to politically painful PC attitudes paint the landscape predatorially green with rose red overtones. Al Gore like utterances float forth from adherants like toxic confetti. God help us if we surge flock like down that narrow dark corridor. Marshal
Mindless stupidity. Malcolm
I have noticed recently that it is almost always referred to as catastrophic climate change. It appears to me that they are the fear factor is being deliberately moved up a stage. Robin
Impossible within the foreseeable future. Fascinating that Labour/Greens representatives ALL use fossil fuels to get to their protest sites ! Bob
Economic suicide Lois
Absolute B/S .wonder where all the tax is going not our pocket? Barry
This is just a continuing saga of a group of academic left wing idiots who get most things wrong. Shaw and his group are seriously dangerous, but I think he realizes his party will have no say in anything under Labour. He should have done as the Maori Party did all those years ago, and hitched his wagon to National and get to have a say in the running of the country. In some ways it is better Shaw and his cronies are pushed into the background by Labour because their thinking is archaic and wrong. Lloyd
We are only a very small country whilst the big counties get away with doing nothing towards cutting the carbon emissions..just like the zero policy on neucleor weapons ..we are stupid if we think we can be a big player in anything of consequenc. Audrey
Is fake science going to bankrupt our country ? Catherine
It is an exercise in environmental futility at the extreme risk of economic suicide. Using figures from a paper by Professor Miles Allen of Oxford University, of which Dr Andy Reisinger of the Agricultural Research Center is a co-author, I can demonstrate that the value of livestock emissions that cause one second of global warming is $28,000. If I also consider the work of Dr Tom Sheahen of the US whose paper considers the warming of methane to be grossly over estimated , the cost of one second of warming escalates to over $250,000. Any politician voting for a zero carbon economy needs to put their money where their mouth is and stump up with this cash up front. Of course this must come from their salary, not be booked to the expense account. Neil
The man made carbon global warming is nothing more than ONE theory – untested, unproven and largely poorly supported by actual data. Being a geologist I consider there is ample data for a quite different theory Terry
It’s simply not possible with the alternatives currently available. Just another bunch of dreamers or worse those with hidden agendas. Alan
Unfortunately we have a absolute shambles of government which in real terms wouldn%u2019t have a clue about any climate change but to give them some recognition they are led by the moronic green influence Don 
What a bunch of idiots those in labour and greens are but as they will be able to afford all the increases in costs of goods etc while the ordinary man in the street wont be even able to buy wood to burn to keep warm so all us oldies will die early just so nz can claim to be carbon neutral, why not seen all those nuts that want to be carbon neutral move to Bounty,Campbell,Auckland or Antipodes Islands and see how long they would last without fuel for heating etc and cooking Richard
Anthropogenic climate change supporters have corrupted the use of the word ‘Science’  Peter
No, no, no! New Zealand should not totally destroy its economy by moving to a zero carbon output. The whole idea is outrageously stupid, needless, and self-destructive. Rob
Whilst it is probably desirable to lower carbon levels the extremist Green Party dreamers push for zero carbon is totally impracticable and unrealistic dreaming. So many ‘experts’ release meaningless figures which they claim to prove their case that the general public cannot rely on any statements in this endless argument. The political arguments are even worse. We cannot do without farming operations or our transport systems. Chris.
Zero carbon economy totally impracticable. Alex
Global warming is all BS. Clark
There is sufficient doubt concerning the science of climate change for caution to prevail. Bruce
Ideology without consideration of the general population results in a cult that persecutes those not inside the cult. Jin
If we want to landed up in the position that South Australia and Victoria are in…Yes go ahead. Our Fascist Greens seem to be in full control of our Government decisions. The Paris agreement that the Greens quote so loud and often, permits the establishment of unlimited Coal Fire generating stations in both India and China. This based on the assumption that by 2030 both of these nations (which the Paris agreement consider as ‘developing Nations’) should be allowed time and space for extra coal fired generation and be excluded until that date! What is not clear is whether after China and India have these coal fired stations operating, that they will sign up to this agreement and commitment. Let alone systematically close them down and replace them with renewables such as wind and solar! It is doubtful that either China or India will convert, as coal fired generation stations are costly and both those nations need the low cost energy that coal fire generation provides. This brings into focus that the whole Human Climate Change swindle is merely a very clever and frightening device to gain extra taxes from those Nations so stupid as to sign up to the Paris deal. With a virtual unrestrained immigration policy now an essential part of any NZ Government%u2019s balancing act in a Budget strategy; this country should look further into building extra hydro generation. This would alleviate the uneconomic costs (R & M) of both wind and power generation, which remain a closely guarded secret from the general public.   Brian
Definitely a vested interest propaganda campaign by those whose jobs rely on perpetrating myths. Ross
I don’t see humanity heading over the cliff just yet, and who knows – putting carbon back in the air might turn out to be a good thing – that would be hilarious, hope I am around to see it Matt
Maybe,but not right now.We have a vehicle fleet 14 years old on average.We can’t all afford an electric vehicle or a hybrid.Petrol will be around for a few years yet. Peter
They’re dreamin. Russell
Climate change has nothing to do with what man has done, is doing, will do, it is souly controled by the sun and cycles. Polies world wide are idiots. Sredwood
It is unrealistic, fanciful and unnecessarily onerous – on many levels (including economically) Laurie
The “Global warming” pundits have no proof of such a change happening. Real day to day life does not support the so called “scientific computer models.” Remember The Club of Rome” and all their predictions? None of them have come true. It’s all based on junk science. Errol
This will achieve less than nothing unless all countries, including China, India and Africa go to a zero carbon economy. Paul
A carbon free economy is simply naive and fanciful at best, but it has the character of a dangerous religious crusade with threats of retribution and damnation for those who do not believe and join the crusade. Frank
What is it with these stupid greens??? if they really want to get rid of carbon and green house gasses, why don’t they try blocking up all the volcanos. This world is run by nature, so why does stupid man think he can change it, he has to learn to live with it. Athol
No it will not be possible. Just as we are mot nuclear free with nuclear isotopes being used in science and medicine. Ray
They are dreamers how do they get around at the moment ???? and how are they going to get around in the future??? John
To quote Yogi Berra, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Colin
In an ideal world, yes. However, I believe that there are other priorities, such as poverty, social justice and housing that need to be addressed first. And I’m VERY unhappy with the Government for supporting the America’s Cup. WTF? Who, apart from the already affluent, will be in a position to do anything but pay for the damn thing, and how will it benefit those at the lower end of the food chain??? I’m getting fairly sick and tired of all the focus on so-called minorities and the insistence that they should be given priority over the rest of us? All very predictable and boring. Andy
This Climate Change Crisis (or should I call it by its real name MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING) is non existent All the real evidence points to an ever changing climate and that carbon has virtually nothing to do with the changes Just look at the sun It has far more effect and we cant change that can we. Also carbon is not a pollutant Without it we would all be dead Plants need it to grow. Herbivores need plants. Carnivores need Herbivores etc Finally there has been a substantial increase in carbon in the atmosphere over the last twenty years but no discernible increase in global temperatures The whole idea is ludicrous  Robin
No I do not, because it is both impractical and impossible to achieve. That said, obviously it is desirable to avoid adding pollutants to the environment wherever possible. Peter
Carbon, CO2 really is an integral part of life…simply put no life…no CO2, equally no CO2, no LIFE.  Lionel
Quite apart from the agricultural arguments, no modern country can live without the myriad manufactured products based on oil. The aim is impossible of achievement. Bernard
These dropouts are insane and we as taxpayers are funding these idiots that are so called politiions that willif they have their way will destroy N Z and we will become a third world economy and if they think we have poverty here which is a myth wait when all the polices that they want to introduce take effect.  Ken
This climate change business (that’s what it is) is purely another method of fleecing the tax-payer. First it was Global Freezing, next Global Warming and finally “Climate Change”, a safer option for the Politically correct. New Zealand’s carbon emissions are the envy of the world yet our hard working farmers (the backbone of our country) are being driven to the wall to reduce our faked carbon figures. Suddenly NZ’s clean, green image came to an end, do you believe this or are you able to think for yourself? George
I don’t think it’s feasible but neither do I agree with the comments made by Dr Newman. I was amazed at the comment regarding glaciers expanded when recently when glaciologists flew over the glaciers along the Southern Alps they were shocked at the extent of decline, some to the point of virtually not existing. Where does this fellow get his opinion from? Utter nonsense. Barbara
It’s a rort. Climate change has always been since the days of Noah. There are high, medium and low cycles of varying lengths that sometime converge and cause weather disruption. Global warming trends are a myth perpetrated by scientists for personal and political gain. David
Climate has always changed throuhout history. It is arrogant of man to think that he can influence climate. Brian
grow more trees and limit human population growth carolyn
carbon has no heating attributes john
This whole zero carbon emissions scheme is what the very title says — A SCHEME — born out of some unworldly ideologist,s brain fart and used to shift massive amounts of wealth by taxing everybody except the brain fart artists. Zero carbon emission is impossible unless we stop every living thing on this earth to continue living. What is dead cannot emit anything anymore!!!! So — in short– that argument should be thrown at these idiots and tell them to crawl back under the rock from whence they came. Michael
Theoretically this maybe the ideal but in reality carbon is part of what makes the world tick. Can this idealistic govt remove all volcanoes, fires, animals, people plus items to many to mention. Charging carbon fees is “seen to be doing” – the requirement as far as the human environment needs is technology, in infrastructure.  Elizabeth
Thanks to Winston Peters we have a bunch of clueless airheads running the country, creating unnecessary jobs for their like thinking supporters and costing households unnecessary taxes which will never be removed even when this climate change nonsense is shown up as a farce. Carolyn
The teachings in schools is a bit of a worry…. Don
Too much uncertainty exists about the effects effect of man made emissions and so called global warming Nev
I do believe we should aim to reduce in the most practical ways our dependence on fossil fuels, but to do it in a controlled and scientific manner which means our country is not disadvantaged in relation to the rest of the world. Marc
Current ‘man made’ climate change claims is a religion not a science. Murray
Do we want to return to the 1800’s. I think there should be a gradual change over to other sources. Carl
It%u2019s bollocks. Scientifically unsustainable.  Kevin
An adage says “descisions may be right or wrong but the reasons given are always wrong’. Having said that, being carbon nuetral is ok in itself, but it seems that all the reasons given are pure BS. Supporting the reasons is the problem and produces the sinecure committes and ineficiency of the economy. Ian
Big mistake, huge! Larry
No absolutely not. I have always believed and stated that anthroprogenic climate change is a load of crap created by a bunch of non-scientific left wing losers. Bruce
I don’t believe it is possible to do so as so many people are apathetic about it.  Laurel
The concern is that we have had a generation of young minds indoctrinated in schools since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” There was never anything provided to counter that claim. Perhaps “The Great Global Warming Swindle” by Martin Durkin could have been shown. I admit I have not watched it but have always known that the whole industry is a “swindle” that needs to be stopped. Hard with those young minds though. Di
They are mad. How do we hold them accountable for their decisions? Murray
The Climate Act in Britain is a disaster as would the same form of legislation in NZ. The ETS has no basis in the science and should be recinded. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a lititle over 1C therefore Global Warming will be mild and net beneficial to mankind. Kevin
If all of our indigenous forest is taken into account, instead of being excluded to suit their argument, then NZ is already carbon neutral, if that is important!!! Tim
They have no understanding of elementary biological science. Carbon is abase element, part of all plants, animals and soil. Carbon dioxide is what is emitted, it colourless inert trace gas in the atmosphere but essential for all life on earth. John
Endless fake news by the mainstream media dished out by the puppeteers who control “our” politicians. Gerard
‘Ideologically possessed’ both of these parties with the Tooth Fairy PM and the robotic J Shaw both perpetrators of groupthink. NZF need to put a stop to this global warming madness and ETS schemes. Monica
I think we should all do as much as we can to reduce pollution, and cut emissions but climate change has been happening for longer than man has been here, and will continue even if we disappeared tomorrow. Taxing the crap out of us all won’t fix it  Dave
Ian Wishart in his excellent book “A VERY Inconvenient Truth” reckons this whole concept arose from a group who want “One World Government”, and decided that they would never get it unless they could get a majority rallying around a common theme; – hence “Global Warming” was introduced, but when that proved to be inaccurate, it convienently changed to “Climate Change”. I think thre is a lot more going on behind the scenes than we are aware of! Ted
The idea that the tiny amount of CO2 that may linger in parts of the atmosphere is capable of heating up the huge amount of nitrogen and oxygen plus argon, which makes up the air, and thus cause global warming and climate change is unscientific and insane. The Green party and the Labour party are frauds and liars.  Sharyn
Trees need carbon Steven
The whole carbon thing is a scam Keith
It is as silly as the Victorian Govt, Transport Agency setting a Towards Zero target for road deaths. While 1600kg vehicles are moving around at 100k/ph in opposite, or all directions it is just nuts. It cannot happen and it will not happen – all will cost $millions in time wasting. Dick
It is impossible to achieve a zero carbon ecomony. But I am afraid the government will spend hundreds of millions trying and put thousands out of work in the process. Dennis
Yet another Tax grab by control freaks. Peter
It is NO LONGER a science that can be trusted, so until then back off.  Maurice
It’ all bull***t. Ian
Impossible Grahame
Difficult Question to understand David
Where’s the backup in a drought? Graham
What a load of tripe. If they think that the human population of the world is creating any significant influence on the climate of the planet they’re nuts. Volcanoes alone create infinitely more issues.  Simon
This is very scary. Steve
Only a madman would agree with this. The “green racket” is the biggest con, ever to be inflicted, on mankind’s back pocket.  John
I do not agree whatsoever Aphrodite
Will those avid supporters of Global Warming fallacy EVER get their tiny brains around the ABSOLUTE FACT that even if they succeed in getting NZ carbon free by 2050, that a small country of 4 1/2 million persons, down at the bottom of the Globe, miles away from anyone else, at worst contributes considerably LESS than 1/2% of so-called Global Warming gases, the amount of saving may perhaps match the miniscule level of their brains, and I don’t think either is capable of making ANY contribution to ‘saving the World’.  MervB
Quite ridiculous, simple minds running the country. We have to get them out before the cause irreparable damage Tom
This whole carbon thing is nothing more than manipulated b/s. It is all to do with our position in relation to the sun and a shifting of the earth magnet. Mike 
Those useless no hopers should pull their heads in and do something productive for once! Laurie
The elephant in the room is the ever increasing number of humans. Until we %u201Cshot%u201D this elephant we are wasting our time and our money Terry
Climate change is far too serious for any country not to do its best. John H
Huge tax rort, IMO George
I have been in New Zealand for 80 years mostly out in the weather. There has not been any noticeable variation of the weather except there seemed to be a seven year cycle that repeated itself from wet to dry to wet to dry etc. But nothing in the last few years is any better or worse than 70/80 years ago. Yes going back 70 years we went 6 months without rain in central North Island. Australia went several years without rain and their red dust was drifting across the Tasman and covering our things here and California has had 100 year droughts so nothing new. Maurice
James Shaw has made so may grossly mis leading statements that our media never investigate. The latest one was when he was making false statements on the last cyclone that was about to hit NZ. His comments made me realise he will do or say anything to advance this global warming/climate change rubbish Nick
Anything they do will put up prices. Wayne
It is an impossibility, but in the process New Zealand’s leading role as a global source of quality natural food will be sacrificed. Allan
James Shaw is possibly the most dangerous person in our country right now, with his strongly held views that humans are the cause of “climate change” (previously called global warming) He completely discounts the view that any change to the Earth’s climate is a natural occurrence, as this doesn’t suit his politics. Gifford
The only way to straten out the New Zealand mes is to give those beehive chair pusher time to do more stupid things. Force them to go for an election and send them far away on a one way ticket.  Johan
However this should be synchronized with all other world economies. As a planet, the impact of man should be zero, regardless whether we attribute climate change to our actions or natural events. It should not be done as a political stunt but as a responsibility.  Bruce
Take your money, take your freedom! All part of the plan. Joan
Can Labour and the Greens not see the risk to our economy, especially if agriculture is included? So much for talk of rural development! Laurence
Just another ploy to keep the general public supporting the doomsayers. Diane
I would only agree if it could destroy corperate neoliberalism. However we do need to support our farmers they earn our off shore income stj
It is a scam. Ken
Most of these twerps have not lived long enough to know summer from winter Colin
They’re like silly little children Peter
It’s a scam to ultimately fund UN endeavours John
If the basis for the policy is sound scientific research conducted by reputable climate scientists my view will be different. Until this happens I will remain skeptical in regard to adopting policies like this based on the unsupported assertions of zealots and activists. It is just another example of fluffy virtuous utterances of a poorly led and poorly informed group of naive socialists and fellow travellers that comprise our “government” – are we that stupid?? Andrew
How are they going to fund this on top of all the other schemes that they have which are not income generating nor cost reducing? Maurice
no!no!no! Anthony
This global warming farce has happened dozens of times throughout history Murray
How impossible would that be. I can agree to an attempt to reasonably lower it over an extended period but zero is rediculous. Peter
Impossible to do if we want to keep our current strandard of living Mike
Man made climate change is bunkum. Carbon Dioxide is non poisonous and essential for life on earth. This government will stuff NZ. Murray
Maybe it is their brains that have a zero economy Bill
Read The Climate Cronicles by Climatologist Joe Bastardi. CO2 is not a problem. John
These so called highly educated idiots will never give up or admit they are wrong. Now is the time for the real thinking NewZealanders to stand up and be counted. Max
If New Zealand sank beneath the waves tomorrow, the immediate absence of our miniscule contribution to the world’s greenhouse gasses would not make the slightest difference to the worlds climatic destiny. Michael
We are FAR too small to have any effect and in any case NZ grasslands are not credited with sufficient Carbon Sequistration. It’s all UN orchestrated claptrap. Geoff
As much as is viable. There is no doubt that man is screwing up the world Kerin
Socialist liars have invented a scam to redistribute the wealth, created successfully by capitalist economies. Now, with a whole generation indoctrinated through an education system that teaches that theories are facts, the current government, & most around the western world, will have no problem implementing their GLOBALIST AGENDA. Only President Trump, & the reality of the Grand Solar Minimum are standing in their way. Why is the main-stream media, not reporting the record cold & snow-storms, in the Northern Hemisphere?.  A.G.R.
They HAVEN’T the brains to think clearly themselves so they are just copying the UK & ALL it costs ordinary people is being kept HIDDEN & SECRET Cindy
I totally disagree with the zero carbon concept. It is inhuman to propose such taxation. It will drive NZ into a third world future. This should be opposed at ALL costs.  Bruce
No Govt has the right to penalise its producers and citizens by making them less competitive and artificially increasing costs. Unfortunately, governments of the Left and Right have failed to give proper recognition to the science that presents a contrary view to the “Global Warming” protagonists. Even when evidence was found that the data, used by principal protagonists supporting Global Warming and the impact human influence has in supposedly accelerating the phenomena, had been edited and selectively excluded by these “scientists” in order to support their alarmist stance. Yet we now find ourselves with a government that is even more determined to give legitimacy to this myth and implement policies that will seriously damage our economy and our international competitiveness.  Michael
The CON is that humans DO NOT CONTROL climate change, it will happen regardless. Any financial pain inflicted on the people of NZ, in the name of climate change is nothing more than a tax, it will go straight to government wastage. George
Whatever those morons think, then I think the opposite. Derejk
What a load of unadulterated garbage is being talked in an effort to justify and perpetuate the global warming hoax. Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor fund them to do so. Money laundering on a grand scale. Alan
In promoting global warming based on computer generated models when the facts are ignored is treacherous and should receive the same reward. With a computer any idiot can create a great looking model but still worthless. Frank
Another nutty idea from our new government. Bruce
Group Think indeed – very dangerous. Mot only for Climate Change. Neville
Definitely no no no. Jim
Absolutely not. with my open mind, I will await any ‘science’ that supports their view. Can anyone point me to a ‘scientific’ connection between temperature and carbon please? Donald
How totally ridiculous. As if we can control the weather!!?? It is all to do with the solar system and there is not a thing we can do about it. It’s been cooling, warming, stormy etc etc for centuries and without any input by man. We would have to be God to be able to make any changes. Helen
A lot more research needs to be done on the measurement. For example how much carbon is being captured as farmers increase the organic matter in the soil. David
The whole theory of human induced climate change is a fraud. The climate does change over the passage of time and it is arrogant of humans to think that they can control nature. This is just a huge Socialist scheme to transfer money from wealthy nations to the so called poorer nations. Children are being brainwashed in schools, hence the increasing hysteria over this matter. Allan
An absolutely ridiculous conception – as usual – what are we – .0001% carbon emissions – FGS they need to get a grip. I suppose they think that they have the talent to change the earth’s climate. The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now with Antartica a tropical paradise at one time and no humans on earth anywhere!!!!! George Sorus and Al Gore must be rubbing their hands in absolute glee, succeeding with their biggest scam ever perpertrated on society. It’s just another leftie way of taxing anything that moves and anything that doesn’t. Carolyn
Definitely NOT. Steve
Always OTT with these areas Gillian
Our emissions are so low on the global scale that if we went carbon neutral next week nothing would happen in terms of climate change. It was a very bad move to put a total greenie like James Shaw in charge of “Climate Change” Graeme
Groupthink is powerful and people need to wake up to its threat. Sheilah
It is very political & money making for the policy pushers Tony
For a start it’s impossible if we get rid of fossil fuels and go electric how is the government going to Collect road tax they would have to toll every road and that’s just the start The world has been lots hotter and lots colder so I believe everything goes through cycles and there is not much we can do about it throwing vast sums of money at it won’t solve anything  Peter
UN rubbish i.e. BS Wayne
These people are intellectual Pygmies if they believe the UN IPPC Panel garbage science .At best it is all a stalking horse for control or raising revenue Heaven help us all if they proceed with this guff  Phil
There has been no global warming for a considerable period of time – Glaciers will always ultimately end up in the sea because that is how nature works – How B***** arrogant of the left to believe it has the power to dictate to nature Rob
Pollution should be tackled. Climate change should not (especially by “Groups” of scientists who have plenty to lose if their funding is withdrawn). Graeme
It is political parties on the left are always trying to convince people that NZ has a climate change problem. Now the media (who are now closely aligned to the political left) has also trying to brainwash NZders. Alton
Absolute lunacy. Ross 
Very good case From Dr Newman as usual. NZ cannot afford to build ourselves an uncompetitive economy. Climate change another form of Tarrifs? Murray
Following along in others footsteps., Using data that has been well and truly proven to be gained from flawed data Owen
Labour and the Greens are going the right way about killing the Agriculture industry John
In my opinion it is MORE politically correct Labour & Greens BS Ian
Global warming existed over and over before mankind inhabited the earth. Maurice
Definitely not – it is taking ideology to the extreme. Pdm
Would never work . Would cost many millions of dollars to even try and the result would never be accepted by either of them –GET REAL Marylin
no,climate change is a natural recurring event which has occurred many times in the history of the planet, the sun of course and the moon both control our climate ,and no amount of petty cach will prevent cc. human activity produces only 1%of co2 old sol does the rest end of story. Ps leave the nz farmers olone to carry on with the great job they do, and all you dopey polititions can go and suck eggs,[ if they haven’t been banned yet) James
Stop wasting the country’s funds and become more economical to the tax and ratepayers. stop the economic waste. Ian
Climate change has been happening ever since the world began. There is nothing we can do about it.  Frank
Catastrofic result for NZ if they do this Man made global warming is a huge fraud Alan
Totally unrealistic goal! Andy
ZCE is an artificial construct for the purposes of propaganda and is physically impossible since carbon forms an integral part of our world. It is meaningless. Kerry
Climate change is natural. We cannot change it. Billy
Great formula for impoverishing the people while the political elites lead their profligate carbon burning lifestyles. Lee
There is way too much hype about this whole issue. Companies are making billions while the jury is still out. Yes we should curb our pollution – that is nothing new. Sea levels are rising but nations should take responsibility for that themselves. ‘Hasten slowly’ and act nor react. Peter
Labour and the Greens are driven by the philosophies of Marxism and Eastern mysticism (vegetarian and animal rights) Duncan
Sooner or later, NZ will need to prepare for the forthcoming cooler period, similar to the Dalton Minimum.  Peter
It’s all a hoax, to benefit fraudster politicians and scientists who exist on grants. Mike
These are people with nothing at stake themselves and a strong hatred of farmers Owen
Agricultural emissions are a falsehood designed to dump NZ in with the wealthy western economic “polluters” Kevin
Not needed Donal
They have no understanding of the problem – nor do they have a solution. Agricultural emissions are measure don a gross basis so are reported roughly twice as large as they actually are John
Carbon is a natural part of our Earth cycle. Do away with Carbon and we are all in deep do dos. Geoff
We need not base our food economy on meat production. Land can be cropped- Delivering healthy food for home consumption and export. This alone would reduce carbon emmissions. Remember that NZ emits ‘natural gas’ from the ground and in leaky reticulation services. Meanwhile carbon ‘offsetting’ does nothing to reduce carbon….just shifts the blame! Joe
Ridiculous that we should aim to go back to the Stone age. The whole concept of made made climate change is a left-wing concept and well beyond science. People with any brains should reject the religion that is man-mde climate change. Roger
I am not ignorant like Labour and the Greens Chris
The weather is the main reason we have changes, also no body talks about the Earth moving off its axis which has a effect on the climate, It has been said that we have moved 2 deg off our axis. so has a huge influnce on the climate Geoff
Too many scare tactics which are erroneous. June
This slogan follows Germany. There, the cost has been estimated by Bain Capital to exceed one trillion dollars. The “benefits” have not been identified, let alone quantified. Barry
Utter Tripe!! John
Labour and the Greens are a disaster for New Zealand. Jacinda has never had a real job and James Shaw looks to me like a man who is on the brink of insanity. Some of his comments have a core of eccentric hysteria. The danger is that he is clever enough to dress up his commentary in language that makes it almost sound intelligent. A very dangerous person in my opinion. I do wonder who is driving these people to promulgate the climate change insanity. What’s the benefit? It is so clear that there is no evidence in historical reality, so what’s the motivation? I’ll hazard a guess … it is all about power and control and then the communist straight jacket. It is all clearly orchestrated throughout the education system. That is why the Teachers Unions are hell bent on eliminating Partnership Schools. In Partnership Schools they cannot squelch the individuality of the students and use centralized brainwashing. The Union’s hysterical efforts to kill Partnership Schools is replicated in the climate change hysteria. We sooo need a Donald Trump leading NZ! Dianna
Look at the evidence, not the computer models! Mark
I’d like to vote 1000 times *NO*. Ross
The language used by the head of Greenpeace (Russell Normal) on Sunday’s programme was factually wrong.  Malcolm
We need to move past the hype, and focus on what is real and reliable information. Hugh
I believe this whole “zero carbon economy” drive is purely a political stunt promoted by United Nations and the vast liberal left – including the fake news liberal left media .  Stuart
Anyone who wants a zero carbon (dioxide?) economy is insane. If they want it, why don’t they do on their own first, and we’ll observe the results. Dave
How is one to change such a narrative based upon false science and alarmist media propaganda which is backed by billions of dollars? The New Zealand media will not entertain any contrary view regarding the alleged anthropogenic global warming dicta as I have found by personal experience when trying to have articles published. Also, prior to the past election I sent submissions to all of the parties on various global warming topics and I was completely ignored. Ron
Ideally yes BUT there will be practical limitations on reaching the objective. In priciple great in reality Time for some to get real Kelvin
Those pumpkin heads have no idea what they are talking about, and the negative implications it will bring to the NZ Economy ! They should consult Donald Trump on this issue !!  Pierre
I am a climate change skeptic, but consider that pollution should be minimised. Christopher
Back room idiots Rex
They will bankrupt the country. Robert
Not yet. Frank
Yes if it is recognised that the only EXTRA carbon being added to the carbon cycle is that from the burning of fossil fuels.Cows are just part of the normal carbon cycle.Sure there are more of them these days, but they don’t generate more carbon, the just cycle it.Not so the internal combustion engine that burns previously “locked up”carbon.  Dave
The present Govt. must be barking mad to propose this. Renewable energy is proving to be a total farce worldwide. Witness South Australia’s recent power cuts to illustrate this! Carbon based fuels are still the only answer for affordable power or better still nuclear type generated power. Ron
…extreme moves are dangerous avoid them if you can… CHowes
No evidence to need it. Leave well alone. June
It’s a load of bunk to keep the scaremongering up to take more of your money to find false science and scientists. If your a scientist and want to be on the gravy train just tell the government you need funding to study some effect of ‘global warming/climate change’ on something.  Barry
Sick Green Neocon sociopaths are mired in their ideology. They are no less than, a VERY DANGEROUS CULT. ie. ISIS comes to mind ! Alan
There is from my research (layperson) NO evidence of catastrophic man made climate change. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. It is I believe an attemp to control people, basically neo modernist ideaology. Tracy
This carbon tax rubbish is just a greenie feel good trip . The research data they use is so flawed it is ridiculous and the other main issue is what happens to all the tax that is gathered and who gets it ? I have asked this question of many people and no one can give me an answer . Probably proof of the scam it is . Jock
NZ exports earning basically come from farming, Chop that and we have nothing to export. Wayne
We must take all options and steps to stop polluting our planet Kevin
Too extreme. John
No, no,no. Never David
A zero-carbon economy is totally mad. What planet are these people on!  Steve
Absolutely not. The sooner NZ gets a leader, like Trump, who will stand up and say enough is enough with all this climate change nonsense, the better.  Roger
The problem is that between the politicians, the teachers and the media, everyone is being brainwashed about global warming. It’s a very scary situation to be in.  Amy 
If this zero carbon goal is enacted, it will ruin the economy. Hopefully, the public would rebel before it got to that stage. And we need to make sure that the Green Party is nowhere near Government in the future. Andrew
This is all extremely depressing. Where is the common sense! Paul