Letters to Politicians and others

To Victoria University Psychology Dept lecturer regarding recent survey

Dear Taciano,

My name is Esther Henderson and through the NZ Climate Science Coalition I received your email requesting participation in your survey along with a request to forward it on to our networks.

The Climate Realists Network which my husband and I founded and run  (www.climaterealists.org.nz ) has been forwarded your invitation which has since generated quite a response.

I have decided to collate the responses I have received thus far and send them along to you so you gain an understanding of some of the shortcomings of a survey of this kind.

As you read through the responses below, bear in mind one or two of these people have emailed you separately. I have still included their responses in this collation for your convenience.



Wind Farms- Rupert Wyndham to Bishop of Exeter letter 14 June 2012

14 June 2012.

Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish

Bishop of Exeter

The Bishop's Office

The Palace

Exeter, EX1 1HY


Dear Bishop Langrish

Earlier in the week I listened to what you had to say following the welcome decision to withdraw the diocese's application to erect wind turbines in Devon. I see that your remarks have now been republished in The Daily Telegraph. In particular, it is striking that you consider that you and your staff were subjected to abuse by objectors. Well, I was not part of any such exchanges and do not condone, in your own words, 'bullying tactics'. On the other hand, I cannot help pointing out - to a churchman and so an ethical standard bearer, most especially - that such tactics are an absolutely routine component of the dialectical arsenal favoured by climate change proselytisers, amongst whose ranks the prelatariat of all denominations have constituted a prominent and discreditable cadre of alarmist partisans. Accordingly, whilst I will certainly not stoop to the use of opprobrious language, neither do I have any intention of pulling punches simply in deference to 'the cloth', if I may so put it.


Submission to ETS Review Panel (#4)

NZCPR Submission on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review


Dr Muriel Newman on behalf of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research



Submission to ETS Review Panel 2012 (#3)


I have read the consultation document regarding updates to the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. It was all about HOW this onerous scheme (estimated to cost the average NZ household $1500/year for starters) could be implemented, but nothing about WHETHER it should be implemented. Apparently, that’s a subject that’s not open to discussion, since Nick Smith directed the Panel last year as follows:


"The review panel should NOT focus on:


Submission to ETS Review Panel 2012 (#2)

Please add my name to those requesting that the ETS/carbon tax scheme end as soon as possible.


Recent more responsible research has cast doubt on the whole basis for the scheme.


We are experiencing the end of an ice age, and the human component is so miniscule that it will

 never be measurable. 







George Van V




Submission to ETS Review Panel 2012 (#1)

We are concerned about the unwarranted cost increases to NZ small businesses todate which, may have been largely absorbed since having the 'forced' introduction of ETS taxes on both petrol and power consumed within our economy...
1. General:
All the services our company offers to the NZ market place have been affected both directly and indirectly... For example:

To John Key from Jack B 4 January 2012

4th January 2012


Dr N Smith                               cc The Prime Minister

Minister for Climate Change         Rt Hon John Key

Parliament Bldgs                           Parliament Bldgs

Wellington                                    Wellington


Dear Dr Smith,


Your letter of Jun 30 2010


The book Air Con (post Climategate Copenhagen edition) returned unread


The Canadian withdrawal from Kyoto and your response


ETS Committee called to consider rate of implementation and quality of data – also returned my book unread.


Your Quote within the book when the massive fraud was being discovered


Your response to Canadian withdrawal from Kyoto



Minister, with the greatest respect you’re a zealot with your head in the sand. For a man with a doctorate on an issue such as this that is really quite shameful. However your response to the Canadian withdrawal was so pathetic, mealy mouthed and weak that I suspect you may be developing a little cynicism regarding what you’ve been fed and may now choose to do some research yourself. I truly hope so!


To Nick Smith from Neil H 7 September 2010

Dear Minister


Thank you for taking the trouble to come and speak about the ETS in Gisborne. I apologise for not identifying myself to you when talking with you after the meeting.


I made a point during question time about the amount of warming that livestock methane could produce. You expressed doubt about my figures. I did not get the chance to fully explain myself later, so here is the explanation. The maths is very simple. I am amazed someone has not done it sooner. The basics were done by Dr. Wilson Flood, a Scottish chemistry teacher. He starts with the assumption that doubling CO2 raises the temperature by two degrees. CO2 makes up 390 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Methane is 1.8 ppm. We multiply by 21 because of its Global Warming Potential (GWP). But we adjust it down because the molecular weight of methane is only 16 as opposed to CO2 at 44, meaning it takes more molecules of methane to make up a kg. This makes methane’s relative effect to CO2 13.75 ppm. So if doubling CO2 raises the temperature two degrees, doubling methane will raise the temperature by 0.07°Livestock make up about 15 % of the methane emissions, so that means if they double their emissions the temperature rise is an insignificant 0.01°globally.


To John Key from Ken M 4 July 2010

Dear Mr Key,
                       I am a farmer on the East Cape and am growing increasingly concerned about your stance over the Emissions Trading Scheme. Every farmer I talk to at the weekly sale is vehemently against it and are talking of never supporting National again and voting Act as the only practical way of showing there disapproval. This may not concern you at the moment but after 9 years of continuing frustration with Clarkes socialist government the voting public does in fact have a functioning memory and they are not in the mood to tolerate governments who think they know best.
    Nick Smith must think we are stupid if he thinks we would plant pine trees on our farms so that we could claim carbon  credits which would have to be largely repaid on the harvest of the forest.In other words he is expecting us rely on dubious returns from forestry to survive and keep paying our mortgage and increasing farm costs.

To Jonathan Coleman from Alan N and back again- 17 August 2010

To: jonathan.coleman@national.org.nz

Unfortunately National decided to push ahead with its ill conceived adoption of an ETS regime.

If it is still in place by the next election my vote, both party and individual, will be going to ACT. I will also do my best to encourage as many voters away from National as possible.

I had hopes that National would have proved to be a party of thinkers capable of making the types of decisions that would see New Zealand move forward economically.

Sadly they have done nothing since taking office to confirm my hopes. One tax reduction taken away by

ACC levies
GST increases

Hopefully John Key can be persuaded that he does not need to sell us down the drain over the Foreshore and Seabed to gain Maori Party support. I very much fear I am about to be disappointed yet again.

Roll on election year.



Subscribe to RSS - Letters