"The end of the climate myth"
Here's engineer Brian Leyland's piece in yesterday's Dom Post arguing that sunspots spell the end of the climate myth. Leyland is unequivocal:
Government policies on greenhouse gases, carbon trading and promoting renewable energy are based on the beliefs that the world is warming due to man-made greenhouse gases; that promoting renewable energy will make a substantial difference to New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions; and that if New Zealand reduces its greenhouse gas emissions it would affect the world climate. All these beliefs are not true.
The evidence is unequivocal. Measurable, let alone dangerous, manmade global warming is not happening, and is not likely to happen in the future.
Yet with the evidence against it and the economy already in peril, this new government is still relentlessly pursuing its own version of the Emissions Trading Scam -- a manmade response to global warming that will put a handbrake on growth as effective as anything Keith Locke could do.
Which means you, dear readers, need to send every member of the new National, ACT and United caucuses (the last now meets in a telephone booth on Molesworth St) a strongly worded message telling them not to support any ETS if they ever want your vote again. And send them with your covering letter Christopher Monckton's 'Open Letter to John McCain' - the best, most concise, most up-to-date summary of both the peer-reviewed science on the climate myth and the economic damage that will result from responding to the myth.
Perhaps you could recommend a more rational response, one that will allay their fears that our trading partners must see us doing something, and at the same time call the bluff of warmist zealots. Something along the lines, I'd suggest, of a carbon tax linked to real global temperatures. You might call it a Kyoto Plan with a difference...
UPDATE: I love the way Leyland deals with the "consensus" argument:
It is often claimed that because a "consensus" of scientists agree that manmade global warming is happening, it must be true. This is nonsense for two reasons. The first is that many distinguished scientists strongly disagree. So, by definition, there is no consensus.
But even if a consensus did exist, it would make no difference to the real world. For instance, it would not be hard to find a consensus of reverends who firmly believe the world was created a few thousand years ago. But the existence of this consensus would not stop evolution in its tracks.
Labels: Global Warming