I know that people in my trade in Europe earn fully twice as much as I do far the same work, and this is fairly typical. (But if we were to compare a range of vocations, probably the one in which NZ-ers do stand to earn disproportionately high amounts would be in bureaucracy, and possibly consultants and lawyers too.) I object to being saddled with the same cost of living increases as people twice as well off as me, and furthermore, whose governments are not Luddites when it comes to nuclear power. This is the elephant in the room when it comes to NZ politicians and activists speaking highly of the carbon neutrality about to be achieved by France, Sweden, or whatever.

Europeans can all afford the latest low emission cars and low energy appliances. I can’t. Most Kiwis can’t. That’s why they’re cleaner living than us. We DO NOT live high on the hog. We’re just paupers by their standards.

What we need is economic growth and wealth creation. Green tyranny is keeping us all poorer, although this is not as immoral as what it is doing to Africans, Bangladeshis and the like. Take the Resource Management Act. All this has done is drive up the costs and lengthened the delays for every essential project, thus restricting our economic growth, and probably affecting the environment negatively in the overall because of this. The incomes of bureaucrats and consultants that have been boosted (and are the only ones to benefit) are of no net use to the nations prosperity.

As I said above, I don’t have too much difficulty with the IPCC on global warming provided it is taken in tandem with the superb work of Bjorn Lomborg concerning the relative cost benefit structures of the alternative courses of action that offer themselves. Movements that bloodymindedly want to shut down economic activity rather than improve our ability to cope by way of expensive technology, are anti-human and totalitarian, and are busily shutting down both rational debate and the flow of factual information.

So if in fifteen years you are proved wrong you would say sorry, as nice as that sentiment is I think it might just be a little to late.
If the greens had their way we would be a third world nation by then……but perhaps thats the aim.

Hypotheses about solar flares…… Yeah, just hundreds of references in Scientific texts prior to the global warming scare, regarding cycles of warming and cooling, regular, and predictable, and still happening. Not that anthropogenic global warming isn’t real, it’s just that it makes no sense to deny all the other established science in an endeavour to say that Mankind is solely responsible for everything that happens with the weather and climate. This is Tower of Babel stuff.

What really worries me is not the science or the scientific observations that might be made, it’s the politics, and the possibility that we’ll never even find out if the phenomena are not proceeding according to the climate change bureacracy’s master plan, and that brave “whistleblowers” will get given the works just as bad or worse than nasty big business interests might have been guilty of. I have less of a problem in this regard with the IPCC than I have with Mr Al Gore, who would fill the role of “Napoleon” in a modern Climate-change version of “Animal Farm” quite nicely.

There is no green tyranny to deny the Chinese or Indians anything. Insofar as these two sovereign nations sign up to GHG reductions (and they are doing so), they are doing it both out of self-interest and global responsibility. They are conscious that, unlike NZ, they are big enough to make a major difference, and that they will be in large part responsible for the consequences if they do nothing. They are no doubt inspired by the responsible example of Japan (especially) and Europe (to a lesser extent), and increasingly indignant at the irresponsibility of the USA and their hangers-on.

The fact is, despite its high population density, Europe is well on the way to becoming carbon-neutral, which is no easy feat. It’s an absolute disgrace that NZ, with its high level of development (higher than that of about half the nations of Europe) and low population density, is nowhere near doing so, and making, objectively, no progress towards it.

Kiwis do NOT live high on the hog driving gasguzzling SUV’s and so on.
Yes they do. NZ is fourth-worst in the OECD in terms of energy consumed per unit of economic output.

This is leaving aside the question of whether all the distinguished climate scientists who are saying the problem has been overstated might be proven right in a few years.

There are none left, Phil. All you’ll find is a few old cranks that are too stuck in the mud to recognise that they’ve been wrong throughout their long and distinguished careers. The science is overwhelming. On the other hand, if, in say ten years time, the polar icecap has re-formed etc, then I’d be happy to admit I’ve been wrong for 15 years (25 by then)… but someone will have to come up with an explanation as to what enormous and currently unknown chilling force will have counteracted the ever-rising levels of greenhouse gases we’ll have by 2027. Perhaps a providential massive outbreak of vulcanism, or an unexpected asteroid strike, will save the day (and plunge us into a new ice age)?

Yes, and we cut a lot of ours down on Aotearoa / New Zealand too - because we didn’t know any better. The science didn’t exist in those days, so we (both Pakeha and Maori) did what we thought best to advance ourselves economically. We had no idea of the long term environmental and economic consequences - nor did the Europeans who did the same a couple of hundred years before we did.

Climate change isn’t the only consequence - just take some time to go round East Cape from Gisborne to Opotiki, and you’ll see land that is now absolutely useless for anything because of erosion because we were stupid enough to cut down the forest.

And I’m not bothered by the minority of climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming. All their hypotheses depend on some other reason like cosmic rays / solar flares to explain atmospheric warming.

But no scientist whose report I have read is prepared to refute what has been demonstrated in the laboratory - that the infra-red emissions resultant on the dipole moment of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide & CFC’s increasingly warms the surrounding air with increased concentrations of those gases.

Show me the evidence that the results of all the experiments that have been done on this are flawed, Phil, and I’ll start to take your suggestion that we should give more credibility to the pronouncements of the climate change denier scientists.

N.Z. on the other hand, if we admit the honest truth, falls somewhere between nations like France that can afford the technology to meet Kyoto requirements, and nations like China that get special dispensation to enable them to catch up. Kiwis do NOT live high on the hog driving gasguzzling SUV’s and so on. The relatively large size of Kiwis “Carbon footprint” is a measure of our relative lack of wealth and our inability to afford the technology that Europeans can; rather than profligacy.

So yes, I do say that Chinese, Indians and so on have a moral right to develop their economies and catch up to the West (and I abhor “Green” tyranny that would deny them this right) and I also believe that Kiwis have a moral right not to be saddled with the same sort of environmental compliance costs as rich Frenchmen, Germans, Swiss, and so on. And I suspect that the vast majority of Kiwis would agree with me, especially once their energy costs REALLY start to hike.

This is leaving aside the question of whether all the distinguished climate scientists who are saying the problem has been overstated might be proven right in a few years. I know they are in a “minority”, but minorities have a habit of being proven right in science. But what would it actually take, “climate change” interests being now so entrenched and powerful? How many years of temperature decrease or reductions in the incidence of unusual weather events? In fact, would we even be told if this was the case? Does this not bother anyone on the “left”?

According to your moral compass, it’s fine for Americans to continue driving huge SUVs, because they “own” enough trees to absorb the CO2, but Indians and Chinese had better stop farting? It just doesn’t make any sense, either philosophically or pragmatically.

About forest fires : do you have any evidence of “tree worshippers” preventing the creation of fire breaks? It’s an interesting allegation.

I would say that most people who are informed about global warming are aware of the boost in vegetative growth that has occurred with increased CO2 levels. It’s one of many feedbacks, positive and negative, that complicate issues of climate change. If you think the IPCC doesn’t take it into account, think again.

We’ve been discussing climate change on this site for several years now… I believe you’re new, welcome to the debate. You’ll find we’re generally pretty patient with beginners.

Kevyn is right too, regarding plantation.

Actually one of the worst things for Carbon release into the atmosphere is forest fires. It is insane for “tree-worshipping” policies to prevent the clearing of fire-breaks and undergrowth that would restrict the damage when a fire starts.

Regarding the size of biomass, how many people are aware that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has caused approximately 7% increase in vegetative growth?

This gets really interesting. Who really, really understands the earth’s climate? Making hugely costly international policy decisions on the basis of computer models that haven’t got anything right so far, doesn’t seem wise to me - but Saint Al seems to have the adoring masses right in his pocket.