To John Key from Maureen C 16 September 2009

Good afternoon Mr Key


“Today's debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”


Vaclav Klaus

President Czech Republic 2003 and re-elected 2008

from his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles.


We can only hope this man attends the Copenhagen conference.


After listening to your conversation with Leighton Smith on Tuesday morning, I feel compelled to write to you, on the subject of climate change. You appeared hesitant and unsure on this subject and that is of concern. Your Chief Science Adviser is highly respected in his field, but with respect he is not a climate scientist although he apparently spent a month schooling up on climate change. His published paper appears to draw heavily on the IPCC review and was peer reviewed by The Royal Society of New Zealand's Climate Committee (hardly an unbiased view) with input from Simon Upton, who I understand was involved in the first Kyoto protocol agreement, also unlikely to be objective. It is disappointing that an alternative view has not been investigated and that the general opinion is that the science is settled. Science cannot be settled, there is never a consensus in science. If science could be seen as being settled we would never make any new discoveries because we wouldn't be looking for new discoveries.


With reference to science I refer you to the UK Royal Society research as reported on TVOne News and extensively covered on the internet which suggests that 'engineering earth is feasible'. Some of the suggestions include the establishment of fake trees, tubes filled with algae attached to buildings, painting roofs white, a giant mirror on the moon, a space parasol made of superfine aluminium mesh, and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years. I almost forgot to mention the cloud ships which would send sea water into the clouds to make them more reflective. It was with relief that I read that greening of the oceans and whitening of the deserts was thought to be cost prohibitive. All this to tackle climate change. They cannot be serious and I seriously question the value of the Royal Society in Britain and here if this is their level of 'science'. This is not about science, this is about ideology. If you wish to check out the author of this research, his name is Professor of John Shepherd, a researcher from the University of Southampton who chaired the Royal Society's geo-engineering study. This is the same University where Professor Gluckman apparently has an honorary chair.


I refer you to the attached Hansard on 10 May 2005 on the occasion of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill in which you speak with disdain about the whole climate change issue to the point where you show concern about New Zealanders jobs and standard of living. The world has not changed since that speech, we are still on the same planet as China, India etc. The difference now is that Helen Clark is at the United Nations and we have the chance of a new beginning. You refer in your speech to the US and Australia, both countries have had changes in Government but both countries are struggling to get climate change legislation into law.


It appears you changed your mind on climate change after Al Gore came to town. Are you aware that his film An Inconvenient Truth has been challenged in a British court. The film was being shown in schools and a parent challenged the Education Ministry and won. Attached is a list of the nine errors cited by the court, although there are others. Now this film cannot be shown in British schools without guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The Judge commented that the “apoclyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.


Perhaps you could research Senator Fielding in Australia. He is an independent senator who accepted climate change until he was asked a question he couldn't answer so did some research. He self funded a trip to Washington and met people on both sides of the debate. He returned to Australia and when Al Gore was in town requested a meeting, any time any place to ask the questions of him. Al Gore left without seeing him.


This is now more than an issue of climate change (global warming is no longer used, perhaps because temperatures are cooling). This has now become a religion with ardent followers who must be seen to be 'doing something'. I refer to the attached item in The Wall Street Journal entitled Kiwi Carbon Haze. This article refers to disputed United Nations climate change assumptions.


And now we have an agreement with the Maori party. It appeared that initially the Maori party opposed an ETS, now they have not only accepted it but have joined the Government to enable this to be pushed through Parliament. This is of very real concern, one wonders what the payback is, will it be Maori seats in Auckland, probably not, will it be reviewed Treaty settlements, probably, or will it be signature to the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People, almost certainly.


This is a big price to pay to look good at Copenhagen.


My husband and I both voted National last year and have done previously. At the time of the Election we were aware that National would be supported by ACT and United Future. We accepted that as we believed we could look forward to stable government with no back room deals. We certainly didn't expect agreements with the Greens and Maori party. For all the good things National has done or will do, they have lost the plot on this one. The people of New Zealand did not vote for change for more of the same.


Sad but true. Unless things change, it is unlikely our votes will go to National in future, and believe we will not be alone in that.

Maureen C