It gives me great pleasure to publicise the following Press Notice from Rodney Hide of the ACT Party. For many years the only Parliamentarian prepared to support the view that emissions of carbon dioxide are not responsible for Global Warming was Ken Shirley of the ACT Party.  He did me the honour of launching my book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique  of Climate Change 2001" in December 2002  in Parliament Buildings. Since Ken Shirley was defeated in the last election we have had no Parliamentary contact, although the ACT Party has been sufficiently sympathetic to host some of our meetings. Recently, Professor Bob Carter addressed an ACT regional conference. Rodney Hide was the chairman of the lecture I gave to the Libertarian Conference in Rotorua a few years ago. He has now stated his views very firmly in the following Press Notice, in the debate on the Emissions Trading Bill. They go much further than the current declared policy of the Party on "Climate Change" which, according to their "20 Point Plan", is *  "Climate change. Adopt saner policies. Low carbon tax better than carbon trading"* I hope that this speech indicates a change by the ACT Party to an outright opposition to all the burdens that are at present being imposed on us by what Rodney now agrees is a hoax Climate Change (Emissions Trading And Renewable Preference) Bill Rodney Hide MP Tuesday, 2 September 2008 Speech to Parliament; Tuesday, September 2 2008 I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science. It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle. Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear—that is the point of it - and it will drive up the costs of basic goods and services for New Zealanders probably by at least $500 or $600 a year. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and put farmers off their farms.  It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business.  It will put farmers off their farms.  And it will do all this for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world. Yes, it is bad that we are rushing this legislation through in the dying days of a teetering regime, propped up by a *Minister of Foreign Affairs who is under investigation for serious and complex fraud. That is bad, but it is the impact that this legislation and this policy will have on New Zealanders that is so truly shocking. All we have in this is a computer model. That is notoriously difficult, because the answers are written in the assumptions. Let me give members just one example. The problem for the first two Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now. Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis - the hockey stick - that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times. Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered this: any numbers fed into that model would produce the hockey stick. We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the hockey stick that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it. The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypothesis, and the testing of these against the facts. That is not what has happened in the basic science here. That is bad enough, but what is worse is the policy rationale underpinning this legislation. The Minister would come before the select committee and talk about a "cap and trade" but, when asked, would say: "Yes, there is no cap."  We are creating a market in hot air, without any quantified amount. ENDS Authorised by Nick Kearney, 137 Beach Haven Road, Auc

Next Post Previous Post