Open Letter To A Member Of The NZ Green Party

OPEN LETTER to Lizzie Gillett, member of the NZ Green Party

(Please note, I have written and sent this open letter as a private individual and completely independently of the New Zealand Science Coalition).

Dear Lizzie,

I suspect you will read the first sentence of this email - maybe get as far as the end of the first paragraph - and then bin it. But since you guys expect everyone else to listen to your message, I expect you to read this email. That’s fair I think. So please read on...

I have just read your piece in today’s The Press lift-out (‘Good Living’, Thurs 20th Aug) promoting your new movie “Age of Stupid”. It apparently opens in cinemas today so I’ll give it a wide berth considering it is yet another hysterical alarmist rant on climate change. I did however watch Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie when it came out, but because of the ridiculous exaggerations and bad science throughout, I found it more amusing than sobering so I thought it should be reclassified as a tragie-comedy rather than a documentary.

Anyway, the reason for my email is to challenge you on a few points you mentioned in the Press article. So I will begin by asking you these questions:

1). What is the “climate crisis” we are allegedly in the midst of? What “crisis”? I don’t see one. Is the planet too hot? Too cold? What is it exactly? The word “crisis” is very strong so I would like some explanation as to what you mean by it. Nothing seems out of the ordinary to me except that global temperatures are actually trending DOWNWARD, not upward! So what is this “crisis” you speak of?

2). What do you mean by “runaway climate change”? Do you mean that “tipping point” so many global warming alarmists bang on about? When you say “runaway climate change”, I guess you mean “when the atmosphere tips over into a thermal runaway and the planet launches into some kind of horrendous out-of-control heat spiral from which there is no return and everything boils or fries and the Earth ends up exactly like Venus”. Is that what you mean? If you don’t mean that, what DO you mean?

But speaking of that “tipping point”, it seems odd to me that the IPCC’s much vaunted computer models are supposedly clever enough to predict what the climate will look like 100 years from now, based on our carbon dioxide emissions, but they can’t seem to predict at what point this “tipping point” is supposed to occur. Why not? I mean there’s a hell of lot hanging on this Lizzie, like our future economic welfare and prosperity, so why can’t they crunch the numbers and spit out precisely WHEN this “tipping point” will occur; what atmospheric CO2 level in ppm will kick it off and what 'global average' temperature is involved? Yes I know, the last point is silly. I mean what does anyone mean by “average temperature”? The idea is absurd and makes no sense. But hey I’m merely using the same terms you guys use so you should know what that means without even thinking about it. The fact that there is no such thing as “average global temperature” is beside the point here because you guys seem to be quite comfortable using the IPCC’s “Hockey Stick” graph (the one invented by Michael Mann and his back-slapping mates) and taking that as the One True Representation of earth’s temperature profile... “BEHOLD! The temperature shoots up like a mad thing on speed and before you know it, the planet is a staggeringly hot 0.6oC above ‘normal’!” Wow!! No wonder you're all worried. How can anyone survive a temperature increase of 0.6oC over a century? But if I might raise one small point here: Do you realise there is a vastly greater difference between local temperatures in, say the Falkland Islands and North Africa and yet people seem happy enough in both places? Do you know that? The difference is TENS of degrees Lizzie so what the hell is the big deal about 0.6oC?

3). Who decided 350ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is “safe for humans”? Where did that number come from and on what basis? Are you aware Lizzie that the earth has repeatedly experienced much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere without any trouble whatsoever? Are you aware that concentrations of 1000ppm are not unusual for the earth and that such levels have occurred when temperatures have been higher AND lower? Are you aware that commercial greenhouses routinely operate at around 1000ppm without any ill-effects? What’s the big deal with CO2? We need MORE, not less! Carbon dioxide is lovely fabulous stuff because it enhances plant growth. Is that a bad thing or something? I’m confused. I thought you greenies liked plants. So why are you so keen on suffocating them by reducing their life-giving fertilizer as though carbon dioxide is some filthy noxious gas? Plants love the stuff so get over it!

Now this brings me to another small point: What is the actual empirical evidence that mankind’s CO2 emissions are driving the earth’s climate system anyway and resulting in “dangerous global warming”? Ok I admit it, that’s actually a large point! The thing is Lizzie, no one seems to be able to point to any such evidence. All they seem to manage, including the scientists on this bandwagon, is to point to the IPCC’s computer models or Mann’s unmasked hockey stick graph or just keep repeating the same old cliche as though it’s true simply because it’s being repeated over and over again by the media or Al Gore or Keisha Castle-Hughes, or some pointless washed up celebrity who recently found some magical meaning to the universe because they had nothing substantial going on in their lives.

So what and where is the actual evidence for all this global warming hysteria? I want to know.

Are these questions too hard for you?

So Lizzie, it seems to me your movie should be renamed "The Age of Gullible" because that would make more sense to me.

Regards, Joe Fone Christchurch

ENDS

© Scoop Media