To Nick Smith from Peter F 2009


Dear Dr Smith
I have just received a copy of the pamphlet New Zealand’s 2020 Emissions Target. I am angry over the shear dishonesty in figures, masquerading as science, quoted in this pamphlet. I am also really angry that you want to charge every taxpayer $30 per week plus increase fuel, power and food, to tilt at windmills, or is it to be able to grandstand at Coppenhagen.
When you were made climate spokeperson in opposition I thought National had someone who could sort the sheep from the goats. I sent you several critical articles that showed that CO2 is not a driver of climate change but it is obvious that you are not reading any of the scientific evidence that disputes the IPCC’s hypothetical models.
Please tell me Dr Smith, where is the correlation between CO2 and Temperature in this graph of UAH global temperatures and Mauna Loa CO2 data.
(Ed: Graph inserted here)
Your pamphlet mentions a 0.7ºC increase (time frame omitted) but fails to mention that global temperatures have dropped by 0.4ºC since 2000.
The graph below compares the Hansen IPCC projections with the actual temperature data from UAH.    Please tell me Dr Smith, why are these graphs diverging so much. Could it be that the assumption of strong positive feedback from water as required by the models is incorrect. The evidence, after all shows it to be weakly negative. Could it be that the hot spot at the top of the troposphere in the tropics, as required by all the models does not exist. After all, the IPCC collated all the radiosonde data, but no one could find the hot spot. Does this not mean that all the IPCC predictions are invalid !
A similar graph showing heat is being lost from the oceans (data from ARGO buoys) is also totally at odds with the IPCC predictions. Could it be that the models got it wrong again !
 (Ed: Graph inserted here)
Through most of the last half billion years CO2 has been above 4000ppm. Earth has had glaciations for less than 20% of that time (obviously much warmer) and that two of the four glaciations coincided with high CO2.
(Ed: Graph inserted here)
The graph shows that CO2 and temperatures were generally much higher then than now and there was no runaway global warming. So please tell me Dr Smith, why higher CO2 should cause runaway global warming now if it did not cause it then?
In addition, the Vostok ice core data (from 1998 – not the Hansen used 1985 data) show clearly that Temperature leads and CO2 follows. The lag period average is 800 years (which is what you would expect from degassing of the oceans following temperature increases).
Clearly CO2 increases are a consequence of global warming not a cause.
 It is abundantly clear from data like this that CO2 does not cause global warming. Calculations by physicists who specialize in this area say that at best a doubling would produce a temperature increase of 0.5ºC. (the non feedback rise would only be 1.2ºC)
You do not appear to appreciate that the IPCC is a political body not a scientific one. Its policy report for politicians was prepared before its last science report and was written by a small number of environmentalist bureaucrats  – all of whom have a vested interest in promoting the alarmist view point.
You do not appear to understand that models are not evidence – they contain assumptions and those assumptions have already been proved incorrect.
Lastly on Agricultural emissions – methane is a natural product of biological systems, even if you killed all the herbivores (like the Americans slaughtered all the bison 150 year ago) you would not change the methane emissions as rotting grass a few years later would replace that from the animals – after all – where did the methane hydrate come from that is stored in periglacial climates. Why does every interglacial cause the release of massive amounts of methane (as shown by the Vostok ice cores). Methane is natural and to tax New Zalanders on the basis of a natural process is plain dumb. (That methane did not cause the Earth to cook either)
National would do better to start informing the public about the real state of science in global warming instead of carrying on with the dishonesty of the IPCC. That course will eventually lead to a lot of politicians, and you in particular, looking pretty stupid.
It will only be a matter of time before scientific evidence will prevail over hype.
The last 150 years of climate change history would strongly indicate that the current cooling will continue for the next 20 years. How do you think the public will react when they come to understand that the cost of everything has been increased for a theory that was discredited before the taxes were even implemented. I don’t think you or National will come out of this with any credit whatsoever.
If the world was going to cook it would have done so before now, the fact that it hasn’t, despite higher CO2 and temperatures, shows how easily the ignorance and naivety of the political community is manipulated by a global propaganda machine.
Yours faithfully
Peter Foster
PS try reading the book Heaven + Earth by Ian Plimer. Professor of Mining Geology – Read for yourself all the evidence that shows your stand in this matter to be ignorant.
PS I have attached an article from the Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.