From Mike J to Nick Smith 3 June 2010
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 04/06/2010 - 21:32
The following is a reply to a letter from Nick Smith. To read this letter, click here.
Dr. Smith
Thank you for your letter of 3rd inst. in response to my calls to delay the ETS.
Your second paragraph cites statistics indicated a warming earth and a warming New Zealand. The accuracy of measurements and the storage of raw data have been called into question by a large number of climate scientists. The obvious manipulation of raw temperature data in New Zealand by NIWA is well documented and is the reason why they are now reconstructing the temperature record for New Zealand. So, I would contend that the assertion that the earth and New Zealand are warming is debateable. That said, there is no consensus among scientists that the 0.03 percent of the atmosphere which is anthropogenic CO2 has any significant affect on the greenhouse effect. The science is in its infancy and much more research is needed into other climatic influences such as Pacific Decadal Oscillations, El Nino & La Nina patterns, sunspot activity, cloud cover and aerosol impacts, negative feedbacks and much more.
Your reliance and faith in the IPCC AR4 is disturbing given the obvious bias of this body of work. The purpose of the IPCC is to find alarming problems in climate trends. Without such findings, the IPCC would be disbanded. So, of course it is biased in favour of any report that climate is having or will have an adverse effect. Its reliance on crude computer modelling is questionable to say the least. Such models by necessity factor in huge positive feedbacks which are entirely without foundation in observable science. Further, there are questions emerging continuously regarding the breaches of the standards which the IPCC set itself with respect to the peer review process, its publication and review deadlines, and its exclusion of published papers demonstrating counter views to AGW.
Regarding our international obligations - these do not concern me as a New Zealand citizen who is being told by his Government to pay increased taxes to combat global warming. Most other countries, including our closest trading partners, are backing off or have shelved their ETS schemes. Why do you persist in blindly rushing in where others fear to tread? I can't help but speculate that there must be more to it - a hidden agenda of some sort which you are not disclosing to the public. National promised not to lead the world in introducing an ETS, yet this is exactly what you are now doing, despite your personal condemnation of the scheme in 2005:
"The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain. Labour Ministers may take pride in being toasted at International Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue. "
The European Union has an ETS which only applies to heavy industry. Certainly not agriculture! The USA is looking less and less likely to pass any sort of climate legislation, and in fact there is a growing likelihood that the EPA will have to rescind its declaration that CO2 is a pollutant. You say they are exploring various options. This is what we should be doing, not trail blazing. You say Japan and South Korea have plans to implement ETS - but they are nevertheless still only plans.
In your closing paragraph you mention adapting to climate change. An ETS does nothing to do this. Unless you count that the windfall income for the Government will be put to this use. However, do we prepare for a warmer earth or a cooler one? The science is still uncertain on this. We have been in a slightly cooling cycle for 15 years. This looks likely to continue for the next 15 to 20. I have no problem in researching adaptation, but this is not what your ETS does. Instead, it suppresses economic development by increasing the cost of energy, and further it penalises New Zealand farmers and erodes their international competitiveness.
Dr. Smith, again I implore you to review the implementation date of this scheme as our closest allies have done.
Yours sincerely,
Mike J
Tags:
