Many scientists are now speaking out against global warming.

One notable example is Dr John R. Christy, (Director, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama), who was the lead author (2001) of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was also joint winner of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore for his work on global warming but he refused to accept the prize because he no longer believes humans are causing it to any significant degree.

Another is James Hanson, a NASA scientist, who started this whole thing off in the late 80's

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era", PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

And then there is this from the UN itself:

"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

If I was John Key, I would be doing nothing.

"Also large developed countries like Australia and USA are not too keen to sign up for reductions."

American Clean Energy & Security Act, anybody?

What do Keisha Castle-Hughes and Lucy Lawless know about climate science? do they even know what a scientific argument is or how to find one?

If so then they sure know a lot more than the other well intentioned but ignorantant greenie types. And this is not getting started on the arrogant and greedy who are aiming to profit from all the carbon credit rubbish.

The IPCC report shows that natural cycles of sun spot activity and related temperature variability are not significant enough to have caused the recent spike in global warming. Recent rapid GHG and global average temperature increases, the IPCC notes, do not correlate with increases in natural phenomena such as organic methane, volcanic venting or solar activity (e.g., the 11-year sunspot cycles). On the contrary, human activities such as increasing fossil fuel use, have generated over 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes and solar flares. Rapid increases in global methane and nitrous oxide, similarly, are mostly due to agriculture and deforestation.

The predictable effects of global warming include more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods and hurricanes. They are already happening, as predicted. Category 4 and 5 hurricanes for example have increased 75% since 1970. Mountain glaciers are thinning, snow cover is retreating earlier in the spring, permafrost is melting, sea ice in the Arctic is shrinking faster than expected, and the seas are rising faster, at about 3 millimetres/year (mm/yr). From 1980 to 2008 the Arctic ice pack shrunk from 14 mn km2 to 13.2 mn km2, a worryingly high 6% decrease in only a quarter century. And the rate of shrinkage may be increasing. At this rate it will likely disappear in a few centuries, causing a significant rise in sea levels. Indeed, the last time the polar ice regions were significantly warmer for an extended time period the seas rose 4 to 6 meters (9 to 12 feet). The extreme skeptic’s claims that some parts of the Arctic or Antarctic ice packs may not be shrinking or may even be growing do not undermine the case made in the IPCC report, namely, that on the whole both ice packs are melting and shrinking, and at a fast, worrying rate.

This is a summary of the reports of the 2007 international panel on climate change. The panel is comprised of 750 of the world's leading scientists in this field. The consensus is clear. It is incorrect to say that the science is still inconclusive. Note that the scientist's that contribute information and studies to the panel do not receive any additional salary or income from doing so and that the burden of preparation of work for submission in this way is high. The reports of the IPCC are therefore as unbiased as humanly possible and, on a year to year basis reflect the changing view of scientists on the issue. cheers, Wasan

Well said Phil. There is no conclusive proof that the climate is changing nor that humans/C02 are to blame. It's a popular bandwagon to jump on now (especially for celebs, great free publicity) but I agree, let's get the science right first. It's a MASSIVE plunge to take to reduce emissions if we are not certain that our emissions are having a negative impact. I am amazed at how many billions of dollars of UN, World Bank and NGO funding has been diverted from alleviating real poverty to campaigns to reduce CO2 emissions in order to solve an unproven problem. People are dying over an unproven theory.

Phil - the point is more what it will cost us and the rest of the world if we and other nations do NOT reduce our emissions by the 40 per cent that scientists tell us we must. Regarding the clarity of the science, you'll never see complete consensus -- there are still scientists who claim there's no proof that smoking is harmful to your health. But every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying man made global warming is here and real and dangerous, even though, being scientists they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere. Don't believe the industry fed pseudo scientists who claim otherwise.

From what I have read and heard on the climate issue the science is not clear at all, there is not a majority agreement amongst scientists regarding the facts and figures. I say we need more discussion about the facts. To reduce emissions by 40% will cost the country a huge amount of resources and money and is not to be taken lightly. Also large developed countries like Australia and USA are not too keen to sign up for reductions. NZ's carbon output is only a tiny fraction compared with these large countries, so if we make reductions and they do not then our reductions will not make any difference to the global climate but the NZ citizens will be paying more money. So I say make reductions if necessary but lets not rush into things before careful consideration of all the points of view.