NZ Greens, specious claims and Parliament

Mr Kennedy Graham  MP, PhD

Green List MP

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

            cc        Rt. Hon  Lockwood Smith  MP, PhD

              Hon Amy Adams  MP, Minister for the Environment

              Hon Simon Bridges  MP

              Ms Jan Wright, PhD, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

              Rupert  C. E. Wyndham

              Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

              As the spirit moves

 Friday 21 September 2012                      

Dear Mr Graham.

Yesterday, in the Parliament, presumably on behalf of your (Green) party, you put a series of questions on the ETS, Climate Change, and other matters to Hon Simon Bridges who was answering on behalf of the Minister for the Environment.   You also tabled several documents, and sought to table others, all apparently relating to ETS/Climate Change and related matters.  

It was your attempt to table statements by a Professor Wadhams (declined) that finally gave rise to several members of this group suggesting that we  write to you and to  the other addressees.  Mr Wadhams, you see, is a well-known climate alarmist whose opinions rarely  stand objective scrutiny.    He (Wadhams) has recently had some publicity on the BBC, publicity that gave rise to a most entertaining  discourse that you would do well to study, absorb, and follow.    A copy of that email thread and a copy of Rupert Wyndham’s letters to Paxman of the BBC and to the Bishop of Exeter is attached.   We  hope these will improve your understanding of the whole AGW/CC/issue. (Click here to view)

There are also other important matters (covered in this note to you and to others ) that we want to mention, namely:

• Dr, PhD or Phil.D   1.     The discredited practice of many who seek to add weight to their views by continually referring to themselves as “Dr” when they are, in fact, just a PhD  or ( in the case of Oxford) a Phil.D, in a specific , often esoteric  (and irrelevant),  area of expertise.       If the user of “PhD” is writing or speaking on matters directly relating to their PhD dissertation, we raise no objection.  But to continually use  that “title” suggests an attempt at self-aggrandisement that is unbecoming, especially of Members of the Parliament.

• Dr, PhD or Phil.D    2.   If you and others  are to be addressed as “Dr”, might not every holder of an academic qualification demand, with equal right,  to have their BA, MA, BSc, MSc, LLB, MBA etc. scrolls given similar recognition ?   Moreover, what about  a much  rarer qualification ?  One such  might well be:    “Chief Judge,  BS & Spin,  Wai-kick-a-moo-cow ,  A & P  Show, 2012”.    That would be just as relevant, would it not?   Ad hominem?  Yes, and for that we apologise.   But let us have no more of  the  equally offensive ”denier” label/epithet applied to scientists of world renown.

• A Layman’s Guide to Climate Change Issues.   Since your dissertation appears to be far removed from matters relating to climate change (yes, there is no argument that the climate has changed, often,  and will change again ), it has been suggested  that you, Ms Wright, and other Government/Parliamentary folk   speaking on Climate Change would benefit immeasurably from a clear, concise and accurate document that asks and answers the most FAQs in relation to climate change..   You will find this document set out as an authoritative Appendix  to our January 2012 commentary "Demolishing our  Political Comfort Zone”.   

• Reply to a Climate Extremist.       The excellent commentary by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley is also available at:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/reply_to.pdf

    This is somewhat more technical than that written by Rupert Wyndham.   It is, however, easy to understand and, as someone once (disparagingly) said: “... even  by a ...... [person] ... with a Standard 4 education”.     We commend this excellent document to you in  the belief that it will fill a void in your knowledge.

• In his responses to you yesterday the  Hon Simon Bridges emphasised the damage being caused by your  opposition to New Zealand jobs by continually opposing almost every development project.    No doubt this is driven by your adherence to your “green Jobs”  policy.   Mr Graham, do you not know that in Spain, for example, every “green job”  created cost 2.2 other jobs, thereby increasing (at last count) their unemployment rate to more than 25%.    Is that the future you advocate for New Zealand  Mr Graham ?     In  this respect,  we draw your attention to the observations we made in “Demolishing” last January.   Please refer in particular to pages  6, 13, 14 and 15 etc for further details on employment and on the ETS.    Those  comments are equally applicable to you, Ms Wright, and to all the folk in your office who use specious AGW/CC claims to justify funding.   You would do better, Ms Wright, to worry more about a proper balance  between employment/social development  in New Zealand and Gaia, rather than parroting/perpetuating the views of grey organisations (WW Fund, Greenpeace et al) and other groups that depend on the specious climate change claims for funding and their employment.

• Finally Mr Graham and Ms Wright, if you are up to date with climate news, you will be aware that Christopher Monckton has accepted an invitation to again visit New Zealand, under the aegis of Climate Realists.    His visit  early next year is being funded by donations made by individuals.   There is no “big oil” or taxpayer funding  involved.      On his last visit the Greens and various Government agencies declined to debate  climate change matters with him (after initially agreeing)  on the grounds that he is not a “climate scientist”.   Good Lord.  And pray tell what is  Pachauri of IPCC ?

We trust that you will spend some of the money that taxpayers provide to fund your activities to contest his viewpoint – face to face.   Come to think of it,  you could better spend a chunk of your budget by meeting  Climate Realist’s costs rather than attending some esoteric international gathering.

KFCH,  for.....

Outside the Beltway Group 

New Zealand

OTB is an informal,  not for profit group,  comprising individuals living and working outside of central Wellington (The Beltway),  New Zealand, and associates in  Australia, Britain, Switzerland, and the United States.  Group members have  extensive practical experience in accounting, business, economics, farming, Government administration, journalism, Local Government and in New Zealand politics.  

Contact information:           outsidethebeltway@clear.net.nz

Kennedy Graham replies:

Dear Sir, or Madam,

Forgive the formal appellation, but I only have your initials and do not know who you are or where you reside.

Thank you for your note. I shall respond to the substantive points you raise.

Correction: the question was not put to the Minster for the Environment, but to the Minister for Climate Change.

I acknowledge that Prof. Wadhams has expressed deep concern over the recent scientific findings. He is not alone.  Some other scientists are less alarmed.  I deal in direct discussion with them as well.  I chose to cite Prof. Wadhams in this question because (a) the findings are recent, and (b) I apply the Precautionary Principle with some stringency since the planet is at stake, whatever the validity the scientific findings will prove to have over time.  I thank you for your e-mail thread which I shall reflect upon.

I have never referred to myself in verbal discourse, ever, as ‘Dr’.  To do so would be bizarre.  Members of the NZ Parliament with PhDs are referred to as ‘Dr’ by way of protocol, just as current and former cabinet members are referred to as ‘Hon.’.   We have, for example, the ‘Hon. Dr Nick Smith’.  While I have a healthy satisfaction at acquiring the PhD, once upon a time through sweat and toil, I do not get carried away by it. Nor, I suggest, need you.

Thank you for ‘A Layman’s Guide to Climate Change Issues’, and the other papers you mention.  I shall read these, as well.

The Green Party seeks to maintain high employment while making a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy.  We invest considerable intellectual effort into finding ways of realising that goal.  The answer is not to retain jobs in the fossil fuel industry which is driving dangerous climate change, but to assist business and the labour force in the transition.   My questioning presumed that, while the Associate Minister’s answers focused on the Government’s concern with employment – a legitimate concern in itself. But realistic solutions will not be found by trading one off the other.

I am aware of Christopher Monckton’s work and do not find his position credible. In this I am in good company.  Many people oppose any debate with Lord Monckton on the grounds that the intellectual merit of a discussion would suffer.  I have no comment to make on that judgement.

Sincerely,

Ken Graham

Rupert Wyndham replies:

"Many people oppose any debate with Lord Monckton on the grounds that the intellectual merit of a discussion would suffer. I have no comment to make on that judgement."