KEY POINTS:
Neil
Garth George is an absolute treasure and [as usual] is completely correct about the BS that's being expounded as scientific fact. Remember Easter was supposed to be crummy weather....Yeah Right. These guys couldn't predict out 5 days! How come no TV company in NZ is prepared [or so it seems] to broadcast "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? Now there's a conspiracy the Herald could research.
Carlin
Yes, this guy Garth George probably knows more than the worlds leading scientists. We're better off listening to him just in case he's right and we've spent all that time and effort trying to sustain the world for nothing. In the unlikely event that Garth has got it wrong and the international science community has got it right (slim chance I know) then what's the worst that could happen? Good on you Garth, the world needs more Ostritchs... I mean people... like you.
Buddesatva
Climate change is real, it is happening now and my suspicion is that the tipping point was reached some time ago. This would explain otherwise irrational foreign policy on the part of some nations. It seems like a perfect storm in many ways. The hyperbolic nay-sayers do not consult facts. We now must begin talking about how to live in the changed environment rather than how to save what remains.
Adam
I think global warming may have it's benefits. If it takes ugly coastal suburbs like Omaha ( papakura-sur-mer ) to Davey Jones' locker then something good came of it. It may allow ordinary kiwis that don't have USUS$1.4 million to burn to enjoy the seashore again, even if it is 10 miles in-land from where it used to be. Maybe we could get some real designers to build new, interesting and imaginative coastal properties. The sooner these coastal suburbs take a header the better. Come on global warming do your worst.
Peter W Birch
Science can't even predict the weather for the Easter holidays - but they know exactly it will rain more on the NZ east coast in 2050 as it does now? Except we pay a new to invent "environment tax" "CO² tax" or something similar (it always has do to with huge amounts of money) - and hey presto: the problem will just disappear. Yeah baby, right... A rort? No. A tort.
FTC
The entire issue has been exaggerated by politicians. This will be the best available excuse for them for the next 2 decades to tax their citizens and fill their coffers.
David White,PhD
Yes, Mr George is right. "Human-induced global warming" is alarmism for the sake of a political agenda and financial self-interest. The media is also largely responsible for the size of the problem. I, too, do not believe the IPCC.
Bill Potter
Garth George is absolutely right, The hysteria about global warming is ludicrous and the headline in today's paper linking it to falling property values is just hilarious. The journos must have had a real laugh concocting that one - hits the bullseye combining NZ's green obsession and fixation on property prices. Brilliant! The whole subject (global warming, not property prices) is a classic example of a collective delusion that feeds on itself andit is getting alarmingly out of control. Garth is a rare voice of sanity.
Elaine Naidu
To whom this may concern,considering that the Crisis News Network (otherwise known as CNN) have been running stories about the effects of global warming across the planet, you would be hard pressed to believe that it's all a big rort. Surely the evidence is pretty damning that global warming isn't a thing of the future, it's happening now and the more that we can do individually to curb it the better. Or perhaps like ostriches we should all stick our heads in the sand and hope to hell that the myriad of prolific scientists have got it all wrong.And maybe by then they will also figure out how to make hell freeze over and pigs fly.
Damien
Garth seems to have provided evidence that support only his view on the global warming issue, and based on that who would disagree? No scientist has ever disagreed that earth does go through cyclic climate changes. However these cyclic changes are usually over a period of thousands of years and are caused by a number of factors. With the advent of fossil fuels human kind has added another factor to the equation, additional Co2, that the earth can not recycle into oxygen as quickly as it was once able. The climate change cycle therefore has drastically reduced from thousands to hundreds of years if not decades. So, lets not argue over who caused it but rather how can we reset the balance to what it was?
Adam
I'll take that article as intended to be humorous. It certainly made me laugh at the writer. It's always easy to take the easy route to do nothing, I'd recommend you take your head out of the sand and read scientific literature - not just quote others who happen to espouse your "denialist'"views. Shame though, the articles might be a bit hard for you to understand.
G.L.G.Richardson Capt(ret)
The globe is in the middle of the coolest times in 8000 years. What really caused the global warming myth? Margaret Thatcher started it when she wanted nuclear power and to alay the public fears funded an anti coal and oil campaign, humbug story so the British would not grizzle to loudly about N power. Have a look at some of these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
It spells it out loud and clear. We are about to enter an Ice age,of what magnitude is yet to be determined.
Grant MacLean
Of course he is right. Special interests that include socialistic governments (wanting to impose further governmental control) are pushing this for all its worth. Even noted scientists are branded ignorant if they don't concur with the dubious conclusions of the far left. I hope my children will be among those who take up Mr George's challenge to say "I told you so" - or better yet, help to overcome the sick fad of global warming.
Mike van Blommestein
I agree with Garth,s view and see the "global warming" as being promoted, as being a vehicle to introduce carbon taxes on a world wide level. I cannot fathom how New Zealand will become responsible for a multi billion dollar tax bill under the Kyoto protocol! Who gets the money? There appears to have been climate change for millions of years with ice ages coming and going and frozen woolly mammoths having been found with remnants of spring flowers in their stomachs would indicate climate change in a very abrupt manner. We should not be made to feel apologetic for living in this world, the human spirit is unlimited in what it can achieve and this is what will see us adapt to any natural changes that will happen in an unforseeable future
Doug
To support Grath's views reference last night TV3 news report on glaciers in the Sotuh Island, we had one report of a Glacier, Franz Joseph I think, that has been growing .5 of a metre every year for the past few years. The 'scientist' who commented tells us this will stop and it will retreat 4 to 5 kilometers due to global warming - next we cut to another south island glacier, can't recall which, this one is retreating at the moment apparently this is a sure sign of global warming at work! So ones growing in the same world as the other one that is shrinking and no one at TV3 thinks to themselves this does not compute, if global warming is affecting glaciers, remember global, surely they are affected the same; these Green nutters seem to find evidence of GW no matter what is in front of them!
RW
Here we go again - another journalist who knows nothing about meteorology but feels free to spout off. Lindzen is a crank, known now only for a failed theory. Quoting geologists who don't understand either meteorology or short timescales won't wash, either. And as he himself admits, George won't be around when the reckoning is done - he and others will look like the fools they are, but we won't be able to laugh at him to his face. Unfortunately, if attitudes like his persuade governments to sit tight, the joke will be on all of us. It is a bizarre aspect of human nature that the more the science behind AGW gets validated, the louder the screaming from the "antis" gets.
Jeanette
Yes Global warming is rubbish. It is another convenient problem created like war, so that the world round table can make more money. Big corporate companies can now conveniently push for the sale of their solutions to solve the "problem they created" and cream it big time. Is all about money.
Philip
Historically, the Church has taken the lead in areas such as the value of human life, education, and the abolition of slavery. Garth George is a classic example of today's Church becoming reactionary not proactive in important areas it should be leading, such as gender equality, ecology and the "green" movement, world justice and the elimination of poverty. www.everyhomeachurch.blog.co.uk
R. Briggs
Garth George is a laughable moron. And by quoting Richard S. Lindzen, corporate tool, he proves it in spades. Full stop.
Howard
I agree that this subject is over cooked. What caused global warming 15000 > 20000yrs ago, when the glaciers etc melted,& the sea rose 100mts?
Chris Brazendale
I tend to agree with Garth - a healthy dose of skepticism is in order here I think. There have always been chicken littles running about yelling that the sky is going to fall in. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear is a pretty good maxim for these times.
RickyJJ
You're kidding, right? Quoting from wikipedia: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect." "Very likely". If you know anything about the philosophy of science, you'll know that nothing can be proven definite. But all these people (who are not hack journalists but people who have devoted their lives to science) believe global warming is at the moment the theory that best describes what is happening. "These conclusions have been endorsed by at least 20 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the G8 states. Some scientists disagree with parts of this conclusion as does the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[2] Only a few of these dissenting scientists specialize in climate science." Are most scientists smoking crack? You'd think they'd know the dangers, being scientists and everything. No, rather I think "Petroleum Geologists" says it all. Hmm, I wonder if there could be any ulterior motives here? Just teeny-weeny ones perhaps? There are good reasons to deny global warming - oil companies want to keep making big profits and, as Garth George notes, many people want to continue driving their big cars. But what are the reasons to support it? Sure Gore might make some money or gain political leverage, and it keeps the Greens in the news a bit. But what do the scientists get out of it? Do you really think they're all on dirty old Jeanette's payroll? If someone can give me a good reason why these people are making it up I'm open to changing my mind. But it seems to me there were better reasons for faking the moon landings or the Trade Center attacks than making up global warming. And both these events clearly did happen!
Kevin Cudmore
Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ ("Whom even the wind and the waves obey"), a relatively tiny understanding of the laws of nature and good common sense should never let us be duped into believing what the political, heretical and pagan masses are trying to shove onto us through the media about global warming being caused by the human race. What utter nonsense! Wake up and use your brains! Weather patterns are cyclical. There are greater forces in nature than mankind can understand (in this life). We shouldn't be wasting our time trying to control the weather or climate but rather working together for the common good of mankind.
Andrew Macdonald
In the Persian Gulf right now investors are spending millions of dollars on man-made islands of sand just a few feet above sea level, maybe these million and billionaires are just ignorant folk who don't realize these islands will be under water in a few years. And while we spend millions of dollars trying vainly to reduce carbon emissions to save people in 100 years, millions of people are dying every year through lack of medical facilities, food and clean water which has nothing to do with climate change.
Grant Diggle
Always follow the money In the case of governments its a new way to raise revenue and quash any arguments by referring to those who object as deniers and caste them in the same light as holocaust deniers. In the case of the "scientists" is about funding. As long as they dish up what the governments want to hear then they will get all the funding they require.Then there is a 'carbon trading" industry. A wonderful new way for the middlemen to clip the ticket. And the biggest laugh of all with this "carbon trading" is that the polluters just keep on polluting and pay some money to "buy" carbon credits to sate their conscious.Future generation will look back and laugh JUst like many of us are laughing at the rort by the computer industry that was Y2K Again if you followed the money you saw who profited. And it wasnt the citizens.
Ivan Robins
It was good to see a don't care option for this poll. Can we have that option on all future polls?
Michael Russell
Good on you Garth! I'm with you 100 per cent. Whenever the planet reaches an imbalance it will always find a way to balance itself out. In the case of global warming, when the oceans undergo thermal expansion, and all the land-based ice falls into the sea and melts, the excess water will just spread out evenly and fall off the edges of the world. In fact, I'm thinking of trading in my bicycle for one of those fume-spewing, gas-guzzling, SUV's that everyone seems so addicted too. Hell, if everyone else is doing it.. (In reality I am sure that Garth is the flat-earther - probably believes that the earth is supported by pillars and covered by a dome that holds back the waters - just like it says in the Bible).
J D Harper
I agree with Garth George. Its a lot of hot air - and its all and completely about power and control.
Richard Z
The debate about whether the change in climate that we are experiencing is due to human actions or not is the wrong debate. People seem to believe that this is important, because if it is humans causing it then humans can fix it. However, the sad fact is that there is simply no evidence that humans have ever in the whole course of history taken the big picture view and worked globally, as one, for a common purpose. Why do they think humans would start to do so now? The best approach might be to spend less time debating irrelevancies and more time actually doing stuff that increasing our chance of outlasting the climate change, which is happening anyway. Once again, I suspect that our propensity to act selfishly will in fact be the best approach to ensuring our individual survival. Charles Darwin was right.
Ross
I agree with Garth.Having just read the complete IPCC report I was shocked to see how vague it is.It is full of expressions like, likely ,very likely,almost certain etc etc.Almost nothing in it is certain. Dont know if anyone else viewed the UKTV4 documentary on climate change but it stated that the ice core CO2 links quoted by Al Gore were in fact wrong. The CO2 levels were in fact higher after 600- 700 years of warmer weather rather than having the temp increase after high CO2 levels.This rather disproves all the rubbish we are hearing about CO2 levels.
Richard Hume
By in large these predictions are a load of rubbish....hype created by self interest groups, politicians and the media. Exactly the same as the whole Y2K rubbish!
Ged Maybury
Right or wrong, there is a clear warming trend happening at the moment. Whether we humans are the cause or if it is natural doesn't matter; we still have to make changes and prepare for changes or a lot of people are going to die and a lot of our real estate and other goodies (all created by consuming energy and resources) are going to get trashed.
If we believe in the greenhouse-gas/we're-the-cause scenario (even if we're wrong) it will still do us, and our planet, a great deal of good by reducing our consumption and waste of energy and resources, and by living more ecologically and conscienciously. If we keep up with business as usual (that is: continue to live with our heads firmly implanted up our own bums) then we'll pretty soon finish the job of sucking our planet dry of its available energy and material resources, then face the prospect of a lot of people dying etc etc (refer paragraph above) as our society implodes squabbling over the last litre of petrol and wide-screen TV. Take your pick, people. Believe it or not, we've got to change or die, or see your grandchildren die.... etc etc So this guy really should just shut up, or start changing.
Joseph Howard
The world is warming at this time but there have in the past been times of warming but not necessarily at the fault of man. I do not believe that man has enough accurate records for a long enough time to say that man is the cause. How do the people that claim that man is the cause know by any positive manner that the earth was or was not warmer or cooler at any previous time before records were kept. What about a possibility of the earth having some small anomaly that no one has found yet and it is cyclical and we are in the cycle and no matter how much we conserve fossil fuels and reduce pollution it may not make any difference if it is cyclical. Now I can already hear some one saying or thinking that I must be for dumping all waste in the ocean and forget about it! No people I do not condone any wanton dumping of waste and it is necessary to reduce, reuse and recycle, only a fool wastes resources. Putting your head in the sand (ignoring) the situation will not make it go away but I am not convinced that man can really have any effect. Man has claimed to know so much and been proven wrong by himself many times. A question? under perfect conditions how long does it take to fosilize something (say a small fish) do you have any idea for sure? 1 million years, 1/2 a million years, have you got a guess. Now notice I stated "under perfect conditions", under perfect conditions it takes three 24 hour human days, a total of 72 hours. Another question? how long does it take to petrify wood. same as above under perfect conditions it take 7 days. So how much does man really know about any of the issues that he has no control over.
Cameron Smith
In response to Garth Georges column, I think he's missing the point. Of course the world has heated and cooled at varied rates through history, that's not disputed by anyone. The fact will always remain that we have been given just one planet for us to live on, to use as we will. Even if human CO2 is actually not responsible for warming the earth we must make a bigger effort to use what we have wisely. It does not make common sense to me to continue using non-renewable resources, to continue to pollute the air, sea and land with waste we didn't need to create. The 20th century saw the human race make amazing advances in technology that are all welcome, but I hope that the 21st will see us seek to adjust our societies to look after what's been gifted to us, and our future generations. Looking after what God has given us isn't idolatry, it's honouring him, and thinking about those yet to come.
Greg
Of course Gareth is right. I would trust him any day over someone who has a PhD in meteorology and has spent the last 20 years studying the climate. He is, after all, a newspaper columnist with absolutely no bias who tells the unedited truth every single time. If I developed cancer, I would place Gareth's opinion well over that of any so-called 'Medicine Doctor'.
Roger Dewhurst
The absolute and unarguable facts are that interglacials are short compared with glacial episodes, that almost all of the cultural evolution of man has occurred in the last quarter of this interglacial and that the technological world as we know it has evolved in one tenth of this fraction. Humanity as we know it has evolved cuturally and technologically in and as a result of the climatic amelioration of this interglacial period. There is not one single shred of evidence that warming has or will adversely affect humanity. What evidence there is on periods warmer than the present is that they were periods of cultural and technological advance. What we should consider is the inevitable coming glaciation and the advance of the ice sheets. We cannot yet predict when this will happen but on past performance it will be within the next few thousand years. Nothing excludes the possibility that it could happen in this century. When it happens mankind will have to deal with a vastly reduced living space and a climate which will make the production of food very much more difficult. It will, whatever else, result in the decimation, or two, or three, or four, orders of decimation, of the world's population. Of course the populations of north America, Europe, and northern Asia will seek lebensraum. Where do you suppose that they will seek it and what will be the consequences?
Elizabeth Will
Dear Fellow Kiwis, I write from the UK. The arguments here about global warming are now so one-sided that those who disagree are labelled 'deniers' (as in 'holocaust deniers'.) There was a documentary shown on Channel 4 a couple of months ago -- the Great Global Warming Swindle -- and senior politicians tried to have it banned, unseen. They didn't succeed, but parts of the press derided its science as 'junk science' without saying why... One of the interviewees (who thought GW is a load of crock) was one of the founders of Greenpeace. I am definitely anti pollution, but I wouldn't mind the climate improving in the UK a bit.
Clark Caudwel
I am constantly amazed at the gullibility of the general public, listening to politicians who have no idea of the facts, and who are pushing their own agenda. Global warming is a fallacy. It has become a religion based on opinion, not on science, and it suits the greenies because they are an extremely vocal minority.The earth cycle is far more dependant on solar activity, angle of earth rotation, and tectonic plate motion, rather than human factors. We are minor contributor to global climate change. Sure, we can attempt to make a difference, but nature has a far greater effect than humankind. Read the facts and then make a decision. The vast majority of "scientific" opinion is sponsored by companies with a vested interest in carbon credits. Lets get real
Geoff
Seems like typical politicking to me - you create a drama where there isn't one, then propose a massive plan to fix it and thereby win votes, all the while making life miserable for those implicated and spending large sums of tax payers money
Matthew
Climate change, a natural phenomenon. Now being used in the name of power, money and political wrangling by people and groups from both sides of the debate. Many commentators and groups on both sides are missing the point. For example if you fly in a plane often or use power from a coal fired power station you should feel compelled to change your habits not because of CO2 emissions, not because catastrophic human induced climate change is unproven and unlikely. The motivation to change should be related to the damage and dis-ease caused by pollution in all of its forms, habitat loss and species extinction and the negative social implications of the processes that cause this damage and dis-ease!!! Humanity cannot separate itself from the health of the environment as we are a dependent part of it, and no one technology can save us from having to 'use less and share more' while applying holistic integrated systems to create health.
Janice
Global warming? Geezz.... this sounds like another bird flu. Just some overly scaring stuff to get the busy bodies from local and central government occupied with some "noble" and "altruistic" task. And for them to unleash the little hitler in themselves, and tell everyone else what should be done. Interestingly, only those who support the policies of the left are gullible enough to buy in all that rubbish.
Richard Clark
If anything I believe that the concern over climate change is not anywhere strong enough. I truly believe we sit on the brink of a meltdown and that any talk of New Zealand being relatively unaffected to be arrogant head in the sand posturing. God, we have a problem.
A bit like Apollo 11 really. We blithely go along hoping and believing that government will take care of it, Well I am here to suggest that not this time folks. This is far too large a problem for the mandarins in Wellington to even comprehend. It is a global issue and as such needs a global response and local individual reponsibility. There is much that can be done, today. If we lead the World will follow. Demand bike lanes. Cycle to work. Replant your lawn in native grasses and trees, stop using mowers. Buy a hand saw, get rid of your chain saw or use it for the big stuff only. Buy locally, support organic farmers markets. Do not buy imports. Demand emission testing stations for all vehicles, especially farm vehicles, farmers are a major part of the problem.Turn off your TV, listen to radio, get involved. Be part of the solution, today
Lyn Dear
The reports remind me of the old religious doomsday theories. Is this just a modern version?
Andrew
I must say that Bill Guy had a good point. We should remember that our politicians need their issues like vultures need their corpse. The idea that the climate issue may have been "over invented" is not unreasonable. I would say that the worse fear for the Green party, for example, would be global warming disproven.
Geoff Holdem(Christchurch)
I agree with Augie Auer we can't change the climate of the planet if we wanted to there seems to be a certain fraction of people trying to convince us there is global warming the report is worthless and full of misinformation I believe the science behind the predictions is lacking. I think Augie Auer who is Chairman of the science panel of the New Zealand Coalition has much more credibility and knowledge than the rest of them put together
R Scott
One gets utterly sick and tired of the hype over this so called global warming.We seem to have an industry built on it and who is paying non other than all us poor pheasants Climate is going to change whether we have billions sucked out of us or not The pattern of the climate keeps continually changing as it has over previous centuries Some body is getting rich out of all this and I for one would like to know who.
Head In The Sand
The issues of Global Warming and Climate Change are quite separate. Climate Change is an inevitable characteristic of nature, while Global Warming is a political football of massive proportions. The arguments should be focussed on the accurate collection of data, and the accurate interpreting of that data to determine the human contribution to Climate Change, if any. As yet, no proof has been found that humans have contributed to Climate Change. Many emotional arguments have been put forward, (and entire forests culled to print some of it) but the statistics collected thus far indicate virtually zero temperature increase globally for many years. In fact, there are so many holes in the argument for Global Warming even the politicians must be having trouble keeping a straight face at the moment. Unfortunately, it would be seen as political suicide to actually face up and tell the truth after years of selling us a crock. Instead, the few voices raining on their environmental parade are put through the name-calling which has become an integral part of any political disagreement, referred to as "deniers", "with heads in the sand". Various other terms are used which are solely intended to mock and humiliate and ultimately silence the "sceptics". And who pays the price?
Chris Chamberlain
Isn't it at all possible that both Climate Change theories are correct? Isn't it possible that the Earth's climate is changing by itself and that human influence is assisting/ accelerating it? I think it's just as naive to think that Climate Change is a human fault as it is to think it's not. As for ratepayers picking up the cheque? Personally, I believe rate payers should pick up the preventative costs of Climate Change. Who pays for a rock face to be retained in order to prevent a landslide? There's nothing wrong with sitting on the fence for this one.
Murray Anderson
There is only one fact I can deduce from reading these responses: Not one of these correspondents, for or against, knows whether global warming as a result of human activity is happening or not. What can be said with some confidence is that based on the information available at this point in time, it seems logical to accept the possibility that preventable climate change is occurring. I do not see what is to be gained from opposing steps to reduce the possibility of our children inheriting a damaged environment.
Mark V
Global warming? Huh! You will forgive me that I do not believe in Global Warming. I had to turn my heater on during December last year and I had to put on my jacket as well. Extreme climate change? I think it's more of a natural occurrence. Was the last ice age melt down caused by so called emissions?? How about the Spring tempertures in the USA? Global warming, yeah right.
Alan
More garbage from a Govt that energises on the nonsensical. As another respondent has said - we are 4million so what impact do we have on the global picture. Focus on China, India, Russia, and the biggest cuplrit of all the US - they won't even sign the Kyoto agreement and still want cheap oil! Come on NZ Govt - get in the real world!
Paul Webby
The climate has been changin since the beginning of the world (assuming of course you believe in that). The earth has been through many ice ages and obviously hot stages yet all of a sudden we get comfortable with ourselves then panic because something beyond our control is forcing us to change...So what? We knew something was gonna happen, somewhere, somehow...We just have to prepare for it whatever way we can.
Karl Rohde
Sigh. I think I prefer to go with the small group of very experienced and respected scientists that are saying "Hang on a minute, don't be so silly!" backing this with actual evidence indicating this is a normal cycle of nature. The scare mongering and media hype is simply not very convincing. Just another excuse for the powers that be to control and tax us more. Thats not to say we should not be efficient, but come on, cow farts?
Adrian Kerr
I can't help but wonder how many of the correspondents published here have any understanding of the science behind climate change. We marvel at the advances in technology that is the result of scientists applying the scientific method, but suddenly with Climate Change those same methods are considered to be highly flawed and inaccurate. Ignorance is a poor basis for an opinion.
Alan
Oh dear. The climate change denial industry seems to have rarked up all its members to post their usual drivel on this discussion string. In my experience, those who deny the climate is changing fall into one of three camps: (1) Climate "experts" being paid by oil companies and/or the coal industry to attempt to portray that there is dissent within the scientific community, eg US "scientist" Fred Singer (2) The nutters (3) Those who have a strong right wing political agenda. A lot of these people have political views that make the Act Party look like a bunch of tree-hugging liberals. They are sometimes funded by right wing and/or religious fundamentalist organisations from the US. Some of the funding originates
