It would seem that overseas scientists are not alone in "embroidering facts" to suit their agenda.

Last week TV1 - with great fanfare - ran a "news story" that an iceberg had been spotted off the coast of Stewart Island. The "glaciologist" "using satellite technology" claimed that it was "proof" that Antarctica was crumbling.

Anyway, the upshot is that a helicopter was sent out to investigate and it was found to be AN UNDERWATER REEF!

Guess what? TV1 have ignored this information and not reported it. Perhaps they are hoping that nobody will actually notice their "mistake" and continue to run round in circles shouting "the sky is falling, and we must pay the UN bucketloads of money to stop it happening".

Here's the link: Radio New Zealand News : Stories : 2009 : 11 : 24 : Good reef! It wasn't an iceberg after all

The big news everywhere is the IPCC scientists' emails scandal. It is on every news source throughout the world, but not here in NZ. Our obsequious news media continues to "dumb the news right down" and only follow their master - the government's - narrow agenda.

I don't know about TV news, which I rarely pay attention to, but I did spot an article on this on Stuff.co.nz.

It is a real shame to see scientists do this. Although I consider myself a skeptic, I am not a climate change "skeptic" - a terrible misuse of the word, as there is ample evidence for climate change and indeed ample evidence of it being caused by mankind. However this evidence is complicated. It's appropriate to defer your opinion to that of experts in such a situation - to take the climate scientists at their word. You might think that the experts could be lying - a grand conspiracy. But given the thousands of climate scientists such a conspiracy would have to involve - who are almost all in perfect agreement about the fact of climate change, although they argue over certain details - such a conspiracy is ridiculously unlikely.

But despite this, people are all to ready to mistrust experts, and the media has done a lot to show "both sides of the story", despite only one side - the scientists side - being supported by fact.

The scientists who sent these e-mails appear to have engaged not in a grand conspiracy to lie, but a smaller conspiracy to convey the data in a way that is easier for non-experts to understand. This wouldn't be such a problem if it weren't that they were doing so under their work not as private advocates, but as members of the IPCC.

Scientists should be allowed to both report scientific facts and advocate their views to the public, but by mixing the two together, they have made the IPCC look like a non-scientific entity, and jeopardized the message they were trying to get across.

I'm afraid that the IPCC not only "looks like" a non-scientific entity, it IS a non-scientific entity. The IPCC is made up mainly of BUREAUCRATS, publicity merchants and a few PSEUDO-scientists.

Promoting the irrational idea of anthropogenic global warming mean that they have lost any right they ever had to be called "scientists". In truth they should be held criminally liable for their part in scheming to steal zillions of dollars from the people of the world.

If you have any doubt at all that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is utterly preposterous, have a browse at:

NJIT solar physicists report paradox: Less sunlight, but temps rise

I have absolutely no doubt at all that global warming DOES, of course, exist. There is ample evidence of this, evidence to say that the planet - every planet in fact - goes through CYCLIC CHANGES. There is evidence to say that global warming occurred centuries ago. When Julius Caesar first came to Britain he found evidence that grapes used to be grown in the south of England, something that couldn't possibly happen today. Now what activity of mankind would be responsible for this - centuries ago of course?

We even have global warming on Mars:

Geotimes - January - Mars Climate Change

Do read the article and ponder how mankind could possibly cause this to happen. All these flatulent cows in NZ being so bad that it affected Mars, perhaps?

You seem to believe that a majority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by mankind (anthropogenic). I haven't actually read anything credible that says this at all, but I did come across this article entitled "World's largest scientific group REJECTING man-made climate fears"

Marc Morano -- World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!

However, going back to our (VERY TINY, in fact miniscule, so much in fact that any "changes" mankind were to make would make no difference whatsoever). We're certainly not the first irresponsible generation. All of Europe used to covered in trees until the massive great ship building of the 15th and 16th centuries occurred. But, imagine the problems that would occur in Europe today if it was still covered in trees.

So governments have said "Oh, panic, the oceans are rising and we will all drown and those who survive drowning will be burnt to a crisp, or there's this mad American chemtrail spraying causing it all and all these farting cows, but never fear - give us bucketloads of money and we will fix it for you. And incredibly there are still those who fall for this scam and start committing their grandchildrens' money.

The NZ attitide towards this is unbelievable. It would seem that mostly the "rules" are there simply to justify the existance of bureaucrats and true, caring "greenies" have been duped into believing that they are "doing the right thing" by helping to "push people around" and take their money for governments, bureaucrats and assorted other power-freaks.

Purely control-freak bureaucrats, exploiting the junk science that is often spouted by naive "greenies" are stealing our park lands and reserves, taking our trees and selling them to other nations and taxing all forms of food production to pay for a UN army, all in the name of "environmentalism" and "emmissions trading".

If the average "greenie" would grow just one brain cell they might realise that if governments were just a little bit honest in what they claim and "environmental" legislation was even a little bit to do with the "environment" and not greed and control-freakery, they would be pushing for solar power and even (using tax payers' money) to subsidise it so that everybody can have solar panels. But, no, instead they seem far more interested in making silly laws about not smoking in public places and setting up sneaky little traps to try and get as much money as possible out of "violators" - now how's that going to help? Or they are only interested in destroying the economy of entire communities because "an elderly male lesser-spotted dingbat might have been seen in the area" and "it is the natural habitat of the rare, myopic, wide-mouthed snail - allegedly, that is".

(I am "on a roll" here, so I'm going to have a go at the ALLEGED- environmental movement in NZ now)

Our government makes all sorts of weirdo laws (like, you can't log - in, say, "point b" - because you might disturb the slaters) and then they send other employees to lay poison throughout the entire bush, poison which tends to kill everything in its path. Our government pay lip-service to "protecting native bird life" and yet (as they did a few years ago) aerial sprays entire cities with a highly-poisonous substance making people sick right, left and centre, allegedly to "eradicate a painted-apple-moth". Now that is hardly very environmentally friendly, is it?

I have just realised how late it is (time goes really fast when you are having fun debating stuff, doesn't it?) So I'll end with a thought for anyone who thinks that the government (any government we've had) genuinely cares about "the planet". That can be summed up in two words:

1080 poison!

Sigh.

I was worried I was going to get this kind of reply. I'm going to try to deal with all of this now, and unless you bring up something particularly compelling to dismiss any of this, I probably won't bother replying again.

To begin with, while I empathise with some concerns about the IPCC - there has certainly been plenty of accusation that there's too much politics, not enough science in the IPCC - including by scientists who contribute to its final reports. So there is some truth to your suggestion that the IPCC is a non-scientific entity. After all, one of it's tasks is to suggest policy on climate change, something that I think you'd agree should involve a large number of experts from diverse fields, not just climate scientists.

But to suggest that the basic tenets - that climate change exists, is getting worse, and that recent human industrial activities are likely a major factor - are unscientific is completely bogus.

Despite the fact you can find dissenting opinions among scientists, a considerable number of major relevant scientific organizations (e.g. those dealing with climate sciences) take the official stance that climate change is real and human activity is probably a major cause of recent changes. The Wikipedia entry in the link above has summary information and links to original sources. A handful of cherry picked anomalies do not make the data espoused by this organizations "preposterous", they simply indicate the complexity of the field.

I will deal briefly with two of your examples:

First, climate change on Mars. I do not see how detecting this has anything to do say about the causes of climate change on Earth. No one claimed mankinds activity caused this, and suggesting so is a rather underhanded tactic.

Secondly, and much more relevantly, is your link to articles about the controversy at the American Chemical Society. It's important to note that while this group still maintains official support of the opinion that climate change is influenced by human activity, some of it's members are campaigning to change that. Whether these members are a majority is unsure, as is whether any of those dissenters are climate scientists or chemists without expertise in the area. Given the well known opinion of all major climate science organisations, I'd bet that most of the dissenters are chemists working in a different area.

This point is extremely important. I do not know if the majority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by man. Scientists area a diverse bunch. But I don't see what an engineer, or a biologist, would have to say on the issue. They may be able to better evaluate the data than a non-scientist, but if we're going to trust someone to interpret the data, why not go directly to the most expert, the climate scientists? And if I can refer you to the Wikipedia article again, the climate scientists are in agreement.

From here on in, I don't really know how to deal with your post. Some of it smacks of typical "conspiracy theory" paranoia. I certainly agree that bureaucrats aren't always acting with the interests of the public, or the environment, chief in mind. But this is not some grand conspiracy. While the scientific argument is at least a one-sided debate, the debate over policy to deal with climate change is less clear-cut.

And in some places, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Solar power is a no-brainer. But some of your examples are obscure. Banning smoking is surely more about making our living environment more pleasant than about climate change.

In one paragraph you decry the destruction of economic opportunity to protect endangered species. The possibility of such species having value to the ecosystem or local community is discounted. You conveniently ignore the side of the argument that does not support your anti-green, anti-government viewpoint. In the next paragraph, you reverse your position on the importance of the economy when you decry the spraying for the painted-apple-moth. This kind of inconsistency betrays a pre-formed opinion that will turn any environmental effort, whether failed or successful, into an argument for "your side". It would be better to approach such measures level-headedly, and most importantly, while I agree you should remain skeptical of political moves, trust the science.

Yes, so why is it that "climate gate" seems to be quite significant in international media. Here in NZ, it seems to have gotten lost in the pacific ocean obviously coming via sea mail as our Prime Minister Jets across to Kopenhagan to ensure he is at the head of the que with ETS in hand to get his "golden handshake". They seem to be under urgency to get it all signed and sealed...... before we all burn to a krisp or fall into the sea or more likely before the truth really comes out?

The idea of man-made climate change is not preposterous. The fact that not everything is understood about the climate – as your first link suggests – does not make the vast amount of data that is available bunk. Your second link – regarding climate change on Mars – has of course nothing to do with the legitimacy of claims about climate change on Earth. And your third link, to the “World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears” is also misleading. In fact, while some members of the American Chemical Society have been actively campaigning to get the ACS to change its official stance, there is no evidence they represent a majority. The ACS official stance remains strongly in support of the evidence for man-made climate change.

I would also like to clarify that I do not know if the majority of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. Scientists are a diverse bunch. But a biologist, or a physicist for that matter, is not an expert on climate science. They might be trusted to understand the science better than a lawyer or a plumber, but the experts we should be listening to are climate scientists themselves. And there is ample evidence the vast majority of climate scientists believe that man is likely a major cause of the current warming trend. Take for example this Wikipedia article on Scientific opinions on climate change, and this excellent survey of scientists opinions that shows just how complete the consensus is - in fact, 97% of scientists who actively publish on the subject of climate science.

The rest of your argument descends rather dramatically into nonsense. Okay, solar panel subsidies would be amazing, I grant you that. But in one paragraph you attack environmentalists for “destroying the economy of entire communities” by trying to protect critically endangered species, and in the next paragraph, you attack the government for trying to protect a major, well-established economic activity by spraying for the painted apple moth. It seems whichever side an environmental action is on, in your view it’s part of some vast conspiracy. Throwing around the word “allegedly” doesn’t make your argument strong, it makes it seem like you’ve been listening to paranoid, deluded losers too much.

Having said this, I certainly agree bureaucracy isn't always in the interests of getting things done. Our government is not only showing too little commitment to combating climate change, it seems to be caving to pressure to accept schemes that have been warped and politicized until they are ineffective at actually doing anything about climate change, but suit the fickle wants of the international community. Unfortunately that is the world we live in. Whatever the solution to this problem is, it’s not denying the science and trying to smear the scientists.

The solution isn’t obvious, but the problem is. For an excellent, concise, and easy to understand article on some recent evidence for climate change, I recommend this article from the Economist

A point I consistently find myself happening across when reading/watching various news sources on climate change is, yes climate change may not be a solid science, but what is the net harm of reducing pollution and deforestation?

Surely preventing excess methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from being poured into our atmosphere is a noble cause? I think most people would agree that limiting industries ability to pollute in various ways is, overall, a good thing.

Sure, the various scientific reports that have filtered down to the public may be fraudulent. Sure, the data collected, analysed and summarized by the IPCC may be faulty or incomplete. Sure, all the anecdotal evidence of the increasing amounts of retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, stronger and longer droughts, etc, etc, may be proven incorrect. But what is the harm in taking preventive action against this possibility - slow economic growth? my, heaven forbid!

It is important to remember that over the 20th century mankind's net population increased exponentially, from 1.6 Billion to 6.7 Billion. Our ability to use the worlds resources has developed into a mad consumerist lust that has already washed over America and Europe and is now lapping against the shores of over 2 billion people (China and India). Nearly 7 billion people must be having SOME kind of impact on our small planet. (If not climate change, then at least the depletion of finite resources?)

Agian, switching to green technology and mannerism (mass recycling etc) may come with some economic burden. But New Zealanders, and most westerners, now live in the lap of luxury! I think we can skip the occasionally latte', PS3, or new cellphone in exchange for helping the planet.

Naturally though, any major collaborative work such as combating climate change will always have scandal associated with it. Thousands (if not millions) of people are working on this, so naturally some (if not many) will be attempting to serve their own interests. It is merely human nature surfacing through. This has of course manifested itself in the recent scandals mentioned in the first post.

On the news I heard (the opinion) that NZ's climate change pledge doesn't matter, because we 'only' contribute 0.8% of emissions. Thats a hell of a lot considering we only make up around 0.0005% of the world's population.

I get the feeling that Bruce feels the government is out to vacuum the pockets of the 'common man', perhaps. I think rattling on about a George Orwellian 1984 type future is getting a bit old nowadays. I think it is a little more appropriate to compare modern society to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (a good read).

By the way, Solar Power is a good start, but its not a magical Deus Ex Machina that can solve the world's ecological problems.

Oh, and a few questions;

Since when is trying to limit smoking a 'silly law'?

What is so terrible about preserving (overall) ecological diversity?

So, you think Europe being stripped of it's (former) forest's is beneficial?

You appear to be quite protective of our primary industries, so don't you think it was worth protecting the apple industry agianst a potentially economically devestating moth?

As an end note, I support the type of semi-dystopian society's potentially envisioned under Helen's rule because, frankly, I lost faith in society's ability to do virtually anything right without government intervention a while ago now.
(e.g. NZ's drug problems, drinking problems, domestic violence problems, racial inequality problems etc, etc and etc ad infinitum.)

Oh, don't take any of this too seriously. I certainly can't say I have wisdom of years on my side in this department.

Well yeah, definitely, climate change IS a solid science. There can be absolutely no doubt that the climate is changing. Changing quite drastically actually. What IS most definitely in dispute is ANTHOPOGENIC climate change/global warming, i.e. "man-made" climate change.

I brought up the fact that Europe used to be covered in trees and Julius Caesar found evidence that grapes used to be grown in the south of England, and that there is evidence of global warming on Mars (and other planets as well) to illustrate the point that these changes are cyclic and have nothing to do with man. I think it is terribly arrogant of man to assume that he can control the climate.

Skiff said ".... but what is the net harm of reducing pollution and deforestation?" The answer is that there is absolutely no harm at all. But you must realise that "reducing pollution and deforestation" has absolutely nothing at all to do with the IPCC or the "Cophenhagen" agenda. The environmental movement, which is laudible and always has been a good thing, has been hijacked by this bunch of lunatics and scammers who see it as a way of robbing the poor to pay the rich.

Skiff, you also mention the fraudulent data and "fudging" of evidence by IPCC "scientists" and seem to think it is "harmless", well I'll go further than this and say I think there should be accountability culminating in jail time for these "scientists". Something like "conspiring to defraud the public of large amounts of money", maybe?

I am pretty confident that there will be no agreement in Copenhagen. Mainly because you will never get agreement with the three main "polluters", China, India and America. They all believe that they should be on an "equal footing" with each other, but that is not on the European's agenda.

There has been a lot of publicity this week about the hypocricy of the attendees of the Copenhagen meeting. Have a look at this article, it is a real eye opener.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - Telegraph

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

However, Skiff, I really am wondering if you are living in the same world as, at least I, am, when you say :"...But New Zealanders, and most westerners, now live in the lap of luxury! I think we can skip the occasionally latte', PS3, or new cellphone in exchange for helping the planet".

I can quite honestly say that I don't "live in the lap of luxury", I work for $13.95 an hour, never even consider buying lattes or PS3s and have never had a cellphone. I think I am more of an average NZer than you think. And if this ludicrous ETS scheme goes through (which fortunately I rather doubt) I will be paying "through the nose" as will all the people I know with young families who struggle on the minimum wage, it will take the food out of their children's mouths, just so that "leading politicians" can bask in luxury and cause all the pollution that they want, with impunity.

These incredibly greedy people will quite happily cause pensioners to die of cold during the winter because they will not be able to afford the extortionate price that - under this scheme - electricity will go up to, and cause children to go without enough food because their parents have to pay for the increased cost of petrol, electricity - well just about anything really, so that they can have caviar wedges and operate their private planes and maintain their luxurious lifestyles. And you seem to think that that is "human nature" (paragraph 6 of your post). God, I hope it is not really "human nature".

So now, Skiff, I'll get to your questions:

"Since when is trying to limit smoking a 'silly law'?" I am not saying this out of a personal sense of grievance as I am a NON SMOKER. However, I think any law to force someone else to do/not to do something that has nothing to do with you, is very silly. Evil might be a better word.

"What is so terrible about preserving (overall) ecological diversity?" Nothing at all, of course, is wrong with that. I am just saying that it has nothing at all to do with the "anthropogenic global warming scam".

"So, you think Europe being stripped of it's (former) forest's is beneficial?" No, of course I don't think that. I meant that if it was still covered in forest, like it was, then there would be no roads, fewer buildings and less farmland. Forest is great, but we've got to be practical.

As an end note. I'm sorry if I have come across as insulting to you, I just think we always need to debate things, I don't intend to be mean. The difference is, where you said " ....frankly, I lost faith in society's ability to do virtually anything right without government intervention a while ago now. I see "government intervention" as the problem. No matter how bad things in NZ get, government will always manage to make them worse. There are only two reasons government employees ever do anything that they do. The two reasons are money and power. Money and power for themselves. Politicians don't care about people, they only care about justifying their own existance and staying in parliament after the next election so that they can continue to get an "over the top" "salary" and have "parliamentary services" pay for everything for them. And government employees don't care about people either, they only care about justifying their own existance (as well) and spending other peoples' money (taxpayers money) on their personal agendas, and getting paid their overinflated "salaries".

When you've been told so may lies over a lifetime (from governments) cynicism comes naturally, in fact it would seem odd not to be cynical.

Oh, sorry, I forgot another of your questions:

"You appear to be quite protective of our primary industries, so don't you think it was worth protecting the apple industry agianst a potentially economically devestating moth?"
I lived in Auckland in 2002 when the min. of Ag & Fisheries was doing the "painted apple moth spraying" (the spray was Foray 48b) and believe me it had nothing whatsoever to do with the painted apple moth. If they had genuinely wanted to eradicate this moth there are more far less toxic methods they could have chosen.

I got the impression that it was all about some top bureaucrat in the ministry office "getting all excited" over the power to order helicopters to spray poison over Auckland. And the incredible thing is that so many people complied with this lunacy as well.

It was a case of "government decides to spray poison over Auckland and doesn't think there will be significant protests, there are significant protests, but government can't back down and admit that they were wrong. People will get sick - and they did - but there were no consequences for government and any costs were met by the public trough of taxpayer money, and the bureaucracy of the ministry of Ag. & Fish. could still "cream their jeans" over the power.

You didn't really think it was about the "painted apple moth" did you?

I'd just like to register my support for stingray.
Bruce, in this case you may have lost the point about the UN, the IPCC and climate change.
There is a negligible possibility that climate change is not human-caused. It is not a big conspiracy. There are much worse ways to 'rob the poor to pay the rich'.
And how many people got sick during the spraying for the painted apple moth?