Climate change debate deserves widest discussion

After a stay in Waikiki as well as Chicago and Amsterdam, we are now in Manchester and have been to see the 'Illumination' of Blackpool. The sea of light in these places is amazing and the attempts to diminish it is nowhere to be found. All attractions are lit up to generate interest by tourists and locals alike. When Christchurch turned its lights off to 'save' the world, we had a chuckle. The population density of N.Z. is 15 per km2 and in the Netherlands it's 465 per km2. When this is brought into focus and we consider that coal is exported to China and fossil fuels are forbidden by the wise men in control of this tiny country, doesn't it occur to the voters at large, that we are being hoodwinked? Thirty percent of the world is covered by land and a mere handful of people are using the fossil fuels, but to blame CO2 for the increase in temperature is stretching credibility. We are, and always have, exhaling CO2 which through photosynthesis is producing oxygen. Every time we are at 35000 feet the outside temperature of the atmosphere is minus 45 to minus 50 degrees Celsius. If the increase of temperature was going to have an impact through CO2 at that level, it would be noticeable, but for years, this has been the same. When we are asked to contribute Carbon Tax, it is for no other reason than to make life much more difficult financially as well as ensuring we are being fooled by the Minister of Climate Change, who in his words claims: 'We can't change the weather but we can change the climate!' If the country with such a small influence on the world is going to make life that difficult for its population, then it is time for a change.

That a climate change storm has preceded a calm and rational scientific discussion, is a phenomonen which ought to have caused the "enlightened left" to pause and to ask some important questions. Why did the IPCC adopt the "Hockey Stick" graph and intially attempt to defend it, even though its advisors knew that it was grossly misleading. Why are so many scientists critical of the IPCC's processes and outcomes? Why did Al Gore's movie misrepresent and exaggerate facts and try to engender fear? Why have advisors to and supporters of the IPCC defended his misrepresentations and exaggerations? Why do advisors to and supporters of the IPCC mount such vicious personal attacks on scientists who question the IPCC's views? What has consensus among a signficant body of scientists got to do with who is actually right? Why do so many politicians and environmental activists assert so emphaticially that dangerous anthropogenic global warming "is real and is happening", even though it is merely an hypothesis? Why do advisors to and supporters of the IPCC try to shut down debate and discussion on the science and at the same time implore democratic Governments around the world to spend billions of scarce taxpayers' resources on reducing man made CO2 emissions? Why are profit focussed multi nationals, not famous for having green consciences, embracing and propogating the views of the IPCC and investing so heavily in the economic markets which its views have spawned? Is it a worry that the average voter believes, without any understanding, that man made CO2 emissions are dangerously warming the planet? Should the international community spend billions and billions of dollars on the faith of this theory instead of using such precious wealth to provide food, water and sanitation to millions of impoverished people who will almost certainly die without it? Or is that too idealistic for enlightened environmentalists?

I thank Geoff for his response. However, it is interesting to note that his early belief in the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis has gone from “fully accepting” in the original opinion piece to “reasonably convinced” in the response to my post pointing out that almost no-one was “fully accepting” at that stage. Further, he has established that his work on perceptions of global warming was conducted in the 1990s and thereby the claim to have been working in the field in the 1980s is invalid.
It could be argued that these points are pedantic and do not weaken his arguments. However, one should look back on the intent of the paragraph – to outline the strength of his epiphany to global warming sceptic. Presenting himself as working on the Greenhouse effect in the 1980s rather than 1990s emphasises that Geoff has a long history in the field – and by association a depth of knowledge. Similarly, claiming to be “fully accepting” of the Greenhouse Effect (rather than “reasonably convinced”) leads us to wonder what enormous weight of evidence led to his miraculous conversion. These are not issues that should have escaped a Professor of Media Studies.
I am not claiming that Geoff has done anything inappropriate. The point is this is a piece of journalistic writing and should not be misconstrued as science. Science is tedious, precise and often requires considerable prior knowledge to be understood properly. It does not lend itself to good storytelling in opinion columns.

Rob Burton is quite correct. I have checked my records and the contract to undertake the public perception work that I referred to was agreed with the then Ministry for the Environment in 1990 and conducted at that time.
As I recall, I was reasonably convinced that the 'Greenhouse Effect' was something that could well eventuate, which is why Professor Fitzharris and I decided that it would be worth examining the state of public awareness at the time.
Rob believes that 'model predictions were correct at a basic level', but very many people do not. While I repeat that I am not qualified to make an absolute determination in either direction, I am certainly bright enough to see that there are still many questions to be answered in this matter.

I have difficulties with the statement made by Dr Kearsley that:
"In my own case, I for many years fully accepted the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Greenhouse Effect hypothesis. In the 1980s, for example, I worked on the accuracy of popular perceptions of Global Warming; at that stage, many people believed its main effect was to induce melanomas."
This is not entirely true. The research Dr Kearsley is talking about must have been conducted in the early 1990s because the questionnaire was based on the one I used in 1990 (in Auckland and Dunedin) for my Masters thesis in Geography "Public Perceptions of the Greenhouse Effect". Further, I was asked to work on analysing the data in 1992 - which would have been years after its collection if the study were conducted in the 1980s.
Yes, there was enormous confusion over role of global warming in causing melanomas - but this was largely because (as I state in my thesis) the ozone hole had received massive publicity between 1986 and 1988 - with the publicity only diminishing after the signing of the Montreal Protocol. It is therefore perfectly understandable that the public were unable to disentangle these issues in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
However, what I find most intersting is that following the review by my supervisors (Dr Kearsley & Dr Fitzharris) in early 1992 I was informed that I should not submit my MSc thesis unless I made it clear that the Greenhouse Effect was only a theory. This indicates to me that, contrary to his statement, at that time Dr Kearsley did not "fully accept" the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.
Indeed, if he had have “fully accepted” it, he would have been pretty much alone. At that stage the climate models were relatively poor, our understanding of carbon sinks and climate feedbacks was limited and there was no conclusive evidence to link model predictions with events on the ground. In the intervening two decades the vast improvement in our understanding of global warming and tangible evidence that model predictions were correct at a basic level (e.g. greatest warming in the higher latitudes) appears to have had the effect of changing Dr Kearsley’s opinions in the opposite direction!
A final point I would like to make is that, admitting ignorance of the issue “I freely admit that I am not qualified” should not, in any way, enhance our belief in his analysis.