Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:29
Dear Minister
I have read the Ministry for the environment brochure "New Zealand's 2020 Emissions Target". I am appalled at its bias, and its ignorance of current knowledge! Towards the bottom it talks about the need to safeguard our clean green image. True, we should. But what is more clean and green than animals belching methane just as they have since God made them, or if you prefer, they climbed out of a muddy puddle?
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:26
Thank you for your email of 27 July 2009 regarding New Zealand’s 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Your submission has been noted.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:24
Dear Dr Smith
The National Party used to rely for its support on the Rural Heartland and I, and probably most other farmers, feel badly betrayed. You rightly point out that Agriculture is a big problem, but no other country is including agriculture in its emission reduction targets so therefore they have not yet come to the realisation that agriculture is not a net emitter, only a gross emitter. Cows, sheep, pigs, llamas, alpacas, horses, vegetables, fruit etc all recycle carbon which is already in the atmosphere or taken from the atmosphere to grow grass. Agriculture may be nearly 50% of gross emissions, but probably accounts for 75% of absorption from the atmosphere - in other words carbon negative.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:23
Dear Mr. Smith,
I wish to protest at your stated aim to reduce gas emissions from natural and man-made sources to 10% or more below 1990 levels for the following reasons:
1. To reveal what was supposed to be a negotiating position ahead of the the actual start of negotiations is the action of fools,
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:21
A Practical Submission on Emissions Trading from the Coal Face
February 2009
Objective
The objective of this submission is multi-layered as follows:
- Emissions Trading should be abandoned because carbon dioxide is influenced by temperature not the other way round. The science on this is very clear. I refer the committee to all the scientific evidence contained at nzclimatescience.net.
- If the select committee disagrees, then agriculture should be removed from Kyoto and therefore from emissions trading.
- If the select committee disagrees, then kiwifruit should be removed from emissions trading.
- If the select committee disagrees, then the basis of calculating emissions for the kiwifruit industry must be changed to give offset for trees (shelter belts, native trees, bush, avocado trees), and scientific research should be undertaken to give proper credit to deciduous plants.
- If the select committee disagrees, then the basis of measuring emissions should be changed from an industry level to individual orchards, otherwise the emission trading is no more than a tax because there is nothing an individual orchardist can do to change the liability. I note that Australia has decided that it would not be practical to measure emissions directly in the agricultural sector.
- If the select committee disagrees, then the government should underwrite the costs of emissions trading. When anthropogenic global warming is found to be the huge scam that it is, then the government should make up all the losses of people and organisations forced to part with money based on government laws and regulations.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:16
Dear Mr. Smith,
I wish to submit the following comments concerning New Zealands plans to meet international obligations of Emissions Control by the year 2020.
It is noted that the NZ Government claims to be "working actively to secure an effective global agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after 2012."
The Government of which you are a Minister has said: "An important issue in these international negotiations is the commitment New Zealand makes on a greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020.." which has "..significant ramifications for New Zealand households and businesses."
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 17:09
Dear Sir,
Climate Change and Global Warming
I am writing to you as I am concerned that the direction you are following in promoting an ETS will cause enormous economic damage to New Zealand as a whole, it will drive many of our citizens to poverty and bankrupt the New Zealand economy. From my letter below, you will see that the evidence for global warming being man made does not exist.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 15:59
From jennifermarohasey.com/blog
Michael Hammer, September 21st, 2009
I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’? There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate. So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 15:39
From my ongoing study of the subject I can see no demonstrable connection between carbon dioxide levels and climate. The historical record shows no demonstrable correlation.
Human contribution to carbon dioxide levels is miniscule compared to other contributors, but it makes no significant difference, because of the point made above.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 19/12/2009 - 13:27
David Horowitz's newsreel- article by Nancy Morgan- 17 December 2009
New revelations have come to light casting yet more doubt on the UN backed science data being used to buttress man-made global warming claims. The Russian media is reporting that the Hadley/CRU, whose e-mails were hacked last month, deliberately distorted the climate of 1/8 of the planet.
[T]he Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
Pages
