Category: Climate Change
Earlier this month a briefing paper for US government officials and environmental leaders on ways to “re-frame” the global warming debate in order to build stronger public support for climate change legislation, found its way into the hands of the New York Times.[1] Re-framing is a technique used by politicians to make radical ideas more palatable to the public by replacing controversial expressions with language that evokes empathy, cooperation, and a sense of interconnectedness.[2] The concept is largely based on the work of George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at Berkley University and well known adviser to the environmental movement, who believes that if you control the language of a debate then you control the way that people think.
In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report was released, and I was listed as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate.
Many people have been shocked to learn that the Department of Conservation has received more than $8 million dollars in cash payments from state energy companies, in return for withdrawing their opposition to projects with significant environmental effects.[1] While not unlawful, under the Resource Management Act – referred to be some as the Ransom Management Act - such payouts have the look, feel and smell of “back-handers”.
The drive for renewable energy in the form of windpower, marine power and the like, is driven by a belief that man-made greenhouse gases will cause dangerous global warming and that large-scale adoption of these technologies will “fight climate change”. To this end, thousands of MW of heavily subsidized wind power capacity are being added worldwide each year.
Zombie science, defn: Science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. - Dr Bruce M. Charlton.[1]
The New Zealand government is discussing various forms of a “global warming” tax to pay for an alleged, looming Kyoto liability. What they apparently have not informed the public is that this rationale, or rather excuse, for new taxation is actually something that does not and does not need to exist.
The 2009 International Climate Change Conference, hosted by the Chicago-based free market think tank the Heartland Institute, was held in New York last week. It drew together over 700 attendees including world-leading climate scientists, legislators, researchers, policy-makers, and media representatives in order to share new research and fresh insights into the climate change controversy.[1]
When preparing my today's remarks, I took into my hands - looking for an inspiration - my last year's speech here, at the Heartland Institute's Conference. It did not help much. It is evident that the climate change debate has not made any detectable progress and that the much needed, long overdue exchange of views has not yet started. All we see and hear are uninspiring monologues.
With the economic crisis delivering more bad news each day, we must keep reminding ourselves that change brings opportunity. The return of frugality and thrift is good for discount businesses, the slump in the New Zealand dollar is giving exporters a real boost, low interest rates are assisting those with debt to repay their loans, and global uncertainties are encouraging New Zealanders overseas to return home.
The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee inquiry into the emissions trading scheme will be mainly concerned with examining the potential impact of envisaged climate change mitigation measures on the New Zealand economy and the future well-being of New Zealand citizens, as well as the likely effect of any ‘breaking-ranks’ on our diplomatic and trade relations. But it cannot avoid also addressing the extent to which the underlying scientific assessments are in doubt.
Loading ...
