To the Select Committee from Neil H 11 May 2009

 I made a submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Select Committee. I asked to speak to that submission, and believed it was my right to be heard. So I was somewhat surprised when I was informed I would not have the chance to speak to the committee. There were sections of the submission I would have written differently, had I realised I would not be speaking to my submission. I believe that you are now nearing the end of the task of hearing submissions. Presumably you will now be considering the rest of the submissions.  I am taking the liberty of sending you the comments I would have made to the committee, and I respectfully request you give these additional thoughts and comments due consideration.

 I wrote this submission as a well informed, scientifically literate individual. Many others could have done it, but tragically so many appear to be too brainwashed by the mass hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or otherwise just too politically correct, too lacking in courage, too lacking in integrity, to stand up and point out the flaws in the global warming scaremongering.
 I have not always been a non-believer in global warming or, as those in the pro-global warming lobby would prefer to label me, as part of their campaign to silence and discredit their critics because of the associated stigma such labels carry, a “sceptic” or  “global warming denier”.
 When the theory of human induced global warming first became popular it seemed to me to be plausible when taken at face value. Since New Zealand’s farming systems were as near to natural as anywhere in the world, I believed we would be largely unaffected by it, so I did not trouble myself with it. In fact I could see NZ getting great advantage from it as our competitors faced increasing costs. With hindsight, I should not have let greed get in the way of commonsense. Why would Europe push so strongly on a platform that gave us such a great advantage at their expense? Well, the answer is they weren’t. It soon became apparent there was more to this than meets the eye, with the birth of the “Fart Tax”. I immediately became concerned as this was clearly outside the science of the carbon cycle I had learned at school. About the same time I saw an interview with the late Augie Auer. He pointed out that the greenhouse gases being addressed by Kyoto, namely carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, were not the only greenhouse gases. There is also water vapour, and it is vastly more important than all the others combined. It was then I realised Kyoto and the global warming theory had more to do with politics, and less to do with science. The more reading I have done on the science of global warming and climate change, the more certain I have become that the whole thing is totally to do with politics and nothing to do with science. The science is merely a smokescreen to fool a public that lacks the knowledge to understand what is being fed to them, while deeper political agendas are advanced. I therefore find it deeply frustrating to watch our government advancing on a path of economic suicide. I believe this is largely a result of ignorance on the part of politicians themselves over the science of greenhouse gases, climate, and the changes that are going on. My submission touches on a few of these issues and should make this committee aware of the truth. I particularly would refer you to Part II and III.
 This issue bears many similarities to the old story of Chicken-licken. Chicken-licken was hit on the head by something. She thinks it is the sky. She tells her friends, who in turn believe her. Meanwhile, Foxy-loxy sees an opportunity, and with the story now whipped to a life or death issue of monumental proportions, promises assistance, and an “easy” solution. Little do poor Chicken-licken and her friends realise they are on a one-way trip to Foxy-loxy’s dinner table.
 To doubt the story is to invite ridicule and contempt. Normally intelligent people quail into submission, and refuse to speak out. The procession advances towards the dinner table. Who is going to warn Chicken-licken and her friends? This submission if mine, along with others I now note from a perusal of some of the submissions that have been released, are warning you.
There is no longer any excuse for an uninformed Chicken-licken in this committee. You all now know the truth. I expect this committee to unanimously recommend that;
 -New Zealand needs to repeal the existing Emissions Trading Scheme and Climate Change legislation.
     -New Zealand needs to withdraw from its Kyoto obligations
-New Zealand needs to take a lead position to educate the world about the truth of Anthropological Global Warming (AGW).
-New Zealand needs to put in the utmost effort to ensure there is no replacement for Kyoto.
I quite bluntly state that I will consider anyone supporting the continuation of any greenhouse gas/climate change legislation, however watered down, and a post Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases to be promoters of the deeper political agenda mentioned above.
I would also like to present to you the following footnote as a result of developments since I wrote my submission. I would like to refer to the ShapeNZ survey commissioned by the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development, released around 23 March 2009. This states “76 % of Kiwis believe climate change is a problem”, among other statistics. This is a stupid statement and the whole survey is not worth the paper it is written on. Consider the following;
 A group of six year old children is told Santa is real, and that he lives in Greenland. They are assisted to write a letter to him in Greenland, and in due course get one back. They find he is going to visit the local shopping mall, so they go down and see him, and get a cuddle from him. The children are then surveyed to see if they believe in Santa. What is the likely result of the survey? I respectfully suggest nearly every one would believe in Santa.
The public of NZ, and indeed the western world has been fed an almost exclusive “diet” of global warming doom and gloom by the IPCC, Al Gore and many others. It should be hardly surprising to anyone that they believe climate change is a problem. What the survey does show is how effective the propaganda program of the IPCC, Al Gore and others has been. It is frightening. As our elected members it is your duty to turn back the tide. It is your duty to unbrainwash the public of NZ, and do your bit to start that process globally. Anything less is simply unacceptable.  
Yours faithfully
Neil H