Jay Walker’s library of human imagination

One of my favorites

Nicolson of Federated Farmers on Climate Change, Government Targets and Taxes: a call for reason and research

Don Nicholson spoke at the 62nd New Zealand Plant Protection Society annual conference the other day and challenged “the almost religious aura” of climate change, or as he called it “climate variation. Bit before that he took some time to lash out at the weakness of New Zealand’s Government of biosecurity. An area that Federated Farmers would like to see get more priority and better funding.

“It is the one area of Government that needs to increase staff and not make cuts. Yet priorities appear to be an economic weak link.

I say this as New Zealand moves to commit ti an emissions reduction target.

If we are truly committed to ‘saving the planet’ then you would imagine we would be investing heavily into science and research…

But no, what is committed to is not solutions but appearance.”

He explains how the ETS is nothing more than a tax scheme and hardly likely to ‘save the planet’ and that emission reduction targets will not save our planet either. Solutions are to be found through science an research whatever Greenpeace, the Green Party and other supporters may think and yet this is exactly the area that is being underinvested in.

As far as the increase in carbon emissions, he points out the correlation between the percentual increase in emissions and the percentual growth of the world population over the period 1990 – 2007. He likens Greenpeace and Green Party campaigning to moral brainwashing without facts or context with no mentioning of solutions and predicated on the here and now. Instead of giving in to the fear we should be looking at ways to roll in and adapt.

Climate change is nothing new and has been there always and has been shaping land form as well as civilization and has been instrumental to human evolution. However thanks to the campaigning many  of us are led to believe that climate change has gone from natural to man made. Climate change is nothing new and was there well before the relatively short existence of mankind, yet now we are made to believe that it is something new and man made. That brainwash is necessary because it hlds that required call for action. With growth rates going as expected for the world population any attempt to cut emission is doomed to fail. Therefore we need SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF TAXES AND TARGETS, which logically calls for research.

“Federated Farmers backs The Skeptical Environmentalist, Dr Björn Lomborg, in calling for research – not taxes.”

For those who would like to read the whole speech, it can be read here >>>.

I remember well how I sat down and saw the DVD of the Inconvenient Truth. Admittedly I was blown away and convinced. Hats of for Al for doing such a great job. I was at that point already convinced by other advocates  on the importance of the issue and even blogged about it here >>> and here >>>. I read the book HOT TOPIC. And for those that want to hear just that side of the story and how it will affect the future of New Zealand, I suggest you visit the Hot Topic site or many of the other sites dealing with the issue from a man made perspective. At the same time I would not be me if  did not want to get to know more about this important issue.

I also remember how my son, from his own world compared it to one of the “Ice Age movies”, where the animals had to run away from the melting ice. That triggered something: could it maybe be that climate change is something had been there all along and that perhaps we as humans are overestimating our abilities to actually influence it?  Could it be that climate change has nothing to do with men at all? Time for further exploration. It was like buying a red car, all of a sudden there seem to be more red cars on the road than before. As soon as the thought hit my mind I started looking and finding material that is classified as “denial” by man made global warming campaigners.

It strikes me that whilst governments, advised by scientists and policy makers, seem to be ignoring the fact that there seem to be more an more scientists and others lining up that advise that the concept of man made global warming is a a farce or fraud and that we either don’t know the exact causes and therefore how to influence or that man made global warming is a possibility but not supported by current scientific data. More than 700 scientists disagree with the UN on this matter, 13 times the number that authored the UN 2007 clinate summary for policy makers. It is therefore far from “common sense: as suggested in the Greenpeace campaigns, and the science is far from settled. The Wall Street Journal reported recently:

“Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.”

To me that seems to say one thing. Since your life is going to be influenced both by the actual phenomenon AND current government policies, it is time to get yourself informed quickly.

Some sources I found helpful:

  • Ian Wishart: AIR CON, The inconvenient truth about Global Warming, which not just discusses a very compling case but also outlines how this may very well be nothing more than an economic and political game (recall tax cuts and targets bit now complemented with GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, by the UN of course) and lists an enormous amount of resources.
  • Climate Change Fraud at http://www.climatechangefraud.com/
  • Climate Science Coalition at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

This brings me me back to the remarks by Don Nicolson, let’s make sure that we let science do the talking and that we set money aside for that instead of blindly and ignorantly go for taxes and targets. Let’s make sure that the media is concerned with both sides of the story instead of little media horrors like this:

“A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”


Let’s also make sure that (local) governments, in their documentation present the full story as opposed to chosing sides.
Peronally I was appalled when I read the documentation that ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY gives out to “Prepare for Climate Change.” Not only did it not cover the complete story, it actually choses a side and tries to make us believe that we can actually do something about climate change by reducing emissions. That is all fine and well if it is made clear that this is based on a standpoint that the (local) government takes in this matter and clearly explains that there is evidence contrary to this position as well. On the other hand how would we dare to challenge old Helen’s “flagship.” By now I would consider presenting both sides part of what is called “political neutrality” since it has none to do with policy and all with providing a public service: educating the people on important matters. I know this club has a Pollution Hotline, I wonder if it also covers mind pollution.

Albert Einstein once said that “the only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
As far as I can see it both ignorance and arrange are bliss.

Climate change is real an is affecting you, but at the same time it is apparently part of what being on this planet is about. At the moment however – thanks to the green movement – governments that would not want to risk economic interests and being part of the group (UN) eg reputation; targets and taxes the most important matter affected is your wallet and for those running specific businesses: their ability to run their business economically. And oh yeah, don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper or in government information: think for yourself.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]