Monday, 1 May 2006

NZ global warming sceptics coalesce

Readers may like to know about a new organisation just announced which is "aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming." Called the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, it includes many well-known NZ climate scientists.

"Many scientists and economists are concerned that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an effective monopoly on public announcements on this matter, and its statements go largely unchallenged - or go largely unchallenged in a format that will carry weight with governments, the media or the general public," said Owen McShane, the organisation's front-man.
Hence, a new 'sceptical consensus' has developed that, before the next IPCC report is published in February next year, there should be a panel, or panels, of experts who have established themselves as 'auditors' of the IPCC, both here in New Zealand and abroad.

Those of us involved in forming this coalition believe that now is the time for individual countries like New Zealand to assemble their own national expert panels, so that these panels can form larger groupings with like minded-panels from other countries so as to be ready to deal with the reports to be published by the IPCC next year. Their aim should not be to repeat, or parallel, the work of the IPCC, but to audit its reports, and to let the members of the IPCC know that such auditors are waiting in the wings.
The coalition has registered a website domain name,, which it expects to have running within a day or two...

Read the full press release here.

UPDATE: Full press release now available at Scoop.
UPDATE (May 2, 2006): Greenpeace have attacked the messenger, calling the new group lackeys of big business and saying, “The scientific community is united, the debate is over.” Well, clearly the 'scientific community' is not united, and as Owen McShane explained this morning on Radio New Zealand the recent Climate Conference in Wellington that attempted to suggest it is by excluding those who oppose the 'conventional wisdom' is what motivated this group of scientists to take a stand. "The debate is over," says Greenpeace. Well, no it isn't.

LINKS: Climate Science Coalition (website "running within a day or two." Bookmark it now.)
Scientists group to refute global warming claims - Scoop

TAGS: Environment, Global_Warming, Politics-NZ


  1. If the result is a balanced, objective and informed debate, then good on them for doing this.

  2. As I say above, the website is expected to be live "in a day or two." :-)

  3. This should be good.More of this type of organised resistance is needed on a number of issues.

  4. Thge scoop link goes to the wrong place

  5. I love the reaction of Pete Hodson: "These people present a viewpoint that is now diminishing as fast as the Arctic ice-cap," he said.

    Anyone willing to take a bet that within the next 12 months we will see an article that the Arctic ice-cap isn't melting after all?

  6. wow. this greenpeace press release is just appalling. i for one agree that anthropogenic climate change is for real (although i’m no climate scientist), and i agree with the greens co-leader saying yesterday that the new coalition is a good thing for dialogue and debate.

    out comes greenpeace with prime fodder for just about every critic you could poke a stick at (liberal, conservative, beyond, and between). its sad that this tone of rhetoric prevails from an organisation who could contribute valuably (and have done so in the past).

    fact: the majority of climate scientists agree that human induced climate change is real.
    non-fact: the debate is over.

    the greens struggled last election because they were unable to communicate broadly. They got my vote as i happen to think they have a good handle on the most important issues for present AND future generations of kiwis. greenpeace have a handle on some important issues; i used to think climate change was one of them. political (and yes it is political) comment of this nature is irrelevant and non-constructive. sad really.

  7. Guv: (Greens) got my vote .. think they have a good handle on issues for present/future generations of kiwis ..

    They have an old *socialist* handle on issues, Guv. Today's Greens are just yesterday's Marxists, or the children of yesterday's Marxists, in different coloured cardies.

    In short, they are tired old proponents of big govt. They have the right to speak for themselves ... but they do not have the right to presume to speak for me, or any other individual.

  8. sus: i think you mean criticisms of them are old socialist criticisms.

    you may also mean that they propose regulation to fix market inefficiencies. thats not necessarily big govt.

    i also think "marxists" and "big govt" may well be a contradiction in terms.

  9. Hi Guv

    "that they propose regulation to fix market inefficiencies - that's not necessarily big govt."

    That's exactly what it is. 'Market inefficiencies' invariably occur because govts insist upon interfering, causing an artificial market. There's your contradiction in terms.

    'Marxists' and all totalitarians (who are just variations on the theme) are proponents of big govt.

    Libertarians believe in small govt; the smaller the better. And with that lies our belief in capitalism, ie, the free market - which is simply the concept of supply meeting demand.

    Our website explains all:


  10. sus: morning! didn't intend to start a political debate. but...
    marxism and communism are not the same thing - yet small/no government (as we know it) was a focus of each. ussr and chinese communism were totalitarian examples of the application of communist thought, not communist (or maxist) thought. its taking liberty (!) to suggest the greens want the same crappy lifes for us as existed for most under those regimes.
    the free open market is a fantastic thing (literally). if it could exist i would be very happy.
    humans are short sighted - engaging with the market in self interest. i know this is an old "green" argument, but the market is horrible at allocating use of commons (eg. atmosphere). unfortunately its the market that generally produces lifes wants, and the (supra-market) commons that generally provide lifes needs. unregulated, the market is destined to provide what we want by sacrificing what we need. its that simple (for me at least).

  11. "humans are short sighted - engaging with the market in self interest."



  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  13. james: love your work. as you've chosen to annotate a part comment i'll return the favour:



  14. Guv, I'm struggling to follow you.

    You're technically correct when you say that marxism and communism aren't (exactly) the same, but Jeez .. like I said, they're variations on a theme. In other words, there's bugger all difference. Why? Because the state holds the cards, leaving individuals with little, if any, freedom. *That's* the material point.

    Ditto fascism and to a lesser degree, socialism - including much Green party policy.

    "The market is destined to provide what we want by sacrificing what we need." ???

    What? If left free from interference, the market will meet demand. If there's no demand, there'll be no supply.

    It really is that simple. Complications/distortions occur with govt interference.

    James is right. But you've just struck me back from holiday, so I'm unusually polite at present - which even I'm finding a bit nauseating.

    I suspect it will wear off very soon! :)

  15. as marx concieved communism there would be no need for government. marx was good at theory. but he couldn't put it into practice.

    as examples of communism, ussr and china were/are bad interpretations of marxist theory.

    in my commons analogy needs/wants are (generally) opposed. carbon markets are an eg of regulation for commons. when markets didn't exist for emissions there was little (timely) chance of supply recognising demand.

    the current glass recycling environment in NZ is another eg. of commons not being effectively "valued" (search "glass recycle" on my blog).

    commons and non-commons are inherently linked. short sighted self interest is an un-sustainable market trait that (unfortunately) needs regulating in order to preserve the commons. a significant reason is that the 3,5,10 year payback/years purchase/discount period associated with most noon-commons investment situations does not gel with the much longer horizons required to maintain equlibrium for the commons.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.