To John Key, Nick Smith, Anne Tolley from Alan N 1 December 2009

How can you justify passing the ETS bill which is supposed to be the means of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere when the amount you are talking about amounts to 0.8% of the total atmospheric CO2 worldwide and 0.04% of the total greenhouse effect. Water vapour accounts for 95% of the total effect, CO2 accounts for 3.4%, other gasses make up the rest. The total greenhouse component amounts to 1% of the atmosphere. What effect do you honestly think reducing such a small portion of this will achieve in altering climate change?

Historical documentation over the last 2500 years records climate change variations with warmer and cooler periods than we are experiencing now. Crops requiring warmth were grown at elevations which will not support those crops today, eg grapes. The two outstanding warm periods were the Roman and Medieval warm periods, both of which had temperatures higher than now. In the medieval warm period the Vikings settled Greenland running livestock and growing crops neither of which can be done today. The catastrophes currently being promoted today as a result of global warming did not eventuate in spite of substantially warmer temperatures than we are now experiencing. The planet was actually more benign and friendly to life forms.

Incidentally a recently released peer reviewed study by Dr. Ferenc Mikulicz a Hungarian scientist has revealed that CO2 warming has reached saturation point and any increase in CO2 will not make any difference to temperatures. Fellow Hungarian scientist and UNIPCC reviewer Dr. Miklos Zagani champions his work. Increasing CO2 will however substantially increase food production and benefit all plant life.

With all my reading and observations on climate change all you have done is inflict extra costs on the citizens of this nation. Put businesses at risk which means loss of jobs and the creation of booming unemployment. There are reports Australia is looking at 20% unemployment under an ETS, so what chances do we have. There will be no impact at all on stabilizing the climate.

Also by going to Copenhagen you will be asked to sign a document that will have serious ramifications for this nation and all nations of the world. It will also have no impact on our changing climate for the same reasons as above. Another aspect of the proposed Copenhagen agreement, according to Lord Christopher Monkton, (former advisor to Margaret Thatcher,) who has read the draft copy of the agreement, is the signing over of our sovereignty to the UN. Do you really think this is an acceptable cost to achieve absolutely nothing.

From my reading the general scientific consensus is that climate change is a natural phenomenon controlled by factors over which humans have no control and never will. Science is systematically disproving the whole basis of the UN’s climate change policy and it is time that all politicians realised this and put an end to this current madness. NZ could be the leader in this simply by repealing it’s ETS bill and embracing what a lot of people are now realising, this current obsession is nothing more than a giant scam perpetrated by people with ulterior motives.

I hope you will consider what I have written, and will research the matter further, before it is too late to change the current path you have embarked our nation on.

Below is some suggested reading in order of increasing scope of data;

For a quick overview

The Skeptics Handbook by Joanne Nova email

Nature not Human Activity Rules the Climate Science and Environmental Policy Project by S. Fred Singer. This report is generated from the conclusions of scientist from the US and Europe who have attended UN climate conferences. It’s conclusions are based on UN data plus other scientific data which the UN fails to utilize( eg satellite measurements and many other sources)

For more in-depth reading which utilize hundreds of research papers the following are a good place to start; both these books are available from Howling at the Moon publishers or book shops.

Air Con by Ian Wishart

Heaven+ earth by Ian Plimer

Professor Ian Plimer from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences , The University of Adelaide, is Australia’s best known scientist.

If you want some balance then read Poles Apart by Gareth Morgan which apart from some interesting bits basically supports the UN position.

 Alan N