1 July 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Open letter to Jeanette Fitzsimons MP and co-leaders of the Green Party from a Christchurch Coalition member

(Joe Fone has been corresponding with Ms Fitzsimons about Greens claims of man-made global warming).

Dear Jeanette,
Thank you for your reply. I would be most grateful for answers from you or your successors as co-leaders to the following questions .

Considering the massive implications the current 'global warming/climate change' issue has for the welfare of the country and, most of all, the lower income group, I think it is vitally important for the Greens to consider the uncertainties associated with the hypothesis (of human-induced climate change) and the consequences of being wrong. If this hypothesis is indeed wrong, which I believe it is, the cost and damage to the country of imposing any form of carbon taxes will be high and completely futile.

In your last reply to me (of Friday 26 June), you asked 'why don't I read the IPCC report instead of asking you', and that you "didn't invent global warming". This is a strange thing to say. Why SHOULDN'T anyone ask you? You are the people who are determined to push through the ETS Bill and impose taxes on everyone for their carbon emissions because you believe that not doing so will put the planet at risk. If you set yourselves up as devoted adherents of the anthropogenic global warming cause and portray yourselves as experts on 'planet-saving' ideals, you cannot duck for cover the moment someone asks for specific evidence to support your statements. Falling back on the IPCC is a classic cop out because it implies you have no in-depth knowledge or understanding of the very issue you are so passionate about. You spend tax payer dollars trying to convince everyone to listen to your views, yet you can’t explain why apart from saying it’s because someone else said so. This the classic "appeal to authority”: ‘The IPCC say it’s true, ipso facto it necessarily IS true, even though we don’t understand why’. At least that’s the impression I get from your reply. No offence, but that suggests to me the Greens don't know what they’re talking about.

Secondly, even though I agree you didn't "invent global warming", someone definitely invented the concept of 'man-made' global warming. There are plenty of candidates for that dubious distinction. 'Global warming' per se, is quite natural so perhaps you meant, "We didn't invent MAN-MADE global warming". The fact that 'global warming' in general terms is a natural phenomenon stands to reason because it would be absurd to believe the planet's temperature profile is by nature rock-steady and forever unchanging, as though locked into some very specific temperature - so specific indeed, anything greater than plus or minus 0.6oC is completely unnatural and quite dangerous. Such an oddity would suggest a “digital” universe where nothing changes without artificial intervention. Yet to suppose global warming is unnatural and purely the consequence of mankind's meddling, as you seem to believe, is also to hold to this self-evidently ludicrous idea. Is that what the Greens believe? That nothing changes in Nature unless mankind forces it to? Is Nature digital? No. So why imply that it is?

You also said, "the evidence has emerged from decades of good science". Firstly, evidence for what exactly? Evidence for global warming itself, or MAN-MADE global warming specifically? If you meant the former, then naturally I agree. But that of course would be stating the obvious. Yes, it is a true statement, but it has no significance. However, if you meant “the evidence for MAN-MADE global warming has emerged from decades of good science”, then I take issue with you on the “good science” part. How do you know it is “good science” if we have already established the Greens in general appear not to know what they are talking about? It could be complete tosh and you would be none the wiser because you rely completely and utterly on what the IPCC tells you.

I put it to you then that the only reason you believe it to be “good science” is because it happens to align with your agenda, ie., the assumption that our “collective CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming” happens to coincide with your belief that economic growth is incompatible with the environment. I suggest that is precisely why you steadfastly ignore any and all evidence or arguments AGAINST the man-made global warming hypothesis.

At the very least, you know many strong arguments against the hypothesis exist, but I suspect you don’t want to know about them. That attitude reflects a blind conviction and a closed mind. Hence your comment, "if you won’t believe the IPCC, why would you listen to us?" Is it about belief then? Nothing about science. If it was about science and wanting to know the truth of the matter, the Greens would be comfortable listening to – and debating with - the sceptical scientists. Is that not a reasonable contention?

Finally, you said “there is too much to do to get the world on a sustainable track to waste time on people who won’t listen.” Excuse me, but who is not listening? Are you listening to the sceptical arguments? I think not. But in any case, what on earth has “sustainability” got to do with global warming? I thought your argument was all about our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, heating up the atmosphere and leading to a ‘tipping point’ where everything will burn from a runaway greenhouse effect? What has sustainability of resources got to do with that? Answer: nothing. This is simply a tactic to muddy the waters and confuse the issue because the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is fraught with problems and inconsistencies; they must surely know it is the result of bad science, wild speculation, weak assumptions and outright lies. It doesn’t make any logical sense.

But that appears not to matter to the Greens because it is a blind conviction and has nothing to do with truth in the first place.

Joe Fone
Christchurch

ENDS

© Scoop Media