IMHO anyone who thinks that climate science is settled isn't worth listening to. Neither is any current political opinion on the matter.

Lets ask John Key if he believes in Climate Change or if he doesn't. In 2005 he said he did not, know he says he does. Next year when the public is concerned about a different matter he will probably change his mind again.

Yep, I was totally puzzled at the lead story last night. It's bad enough that this ridiculous beat up over nothing ran at all, but to place it ahead of other important stories (the Emma Agnew case for one) is astonishing. I've never been one to buy into the whole conspiracy over certain media outlets / journalists being blatantly left or right wing (as someone humourously wrote on here last month, 'political bias is in the eye of the beholder') but come on, that story was a joke. Talk about clutching at straws.

Yeah, go on Slippery. Another straw for you to clutch at, eh?

No, SlipperyJohn, let's ask what you think. Or are you just a political shill?

There is a big difference is believing in Climate Change and what the cause of that climate change is. There was Global Warming only 1,000 years ago, crops were grown in Greenland, vineyards in England etc. There has always been climate change, what the actual cause of it is is another question. Is it an independent or dependant variable.

So what is the big deal? Can we control the variable that are causing Global Warming or not, if it has happened without large amounts of fossil fuels being burnt in the past, what caused it?

It is fair to have the debate without all the emotion. It does not need to be a new religion. There is too much emotion and not enough objectivity in what is a complex debate.

Unfortunately Colin it's become too PC to say you don't believe in global warming, for every 'expert' that puts up a thesis on it happening there is a cpl that debunk it and vice versa, as you rightly state, it seems it's a topic that you keep to yourself if you disbelieve.....seems strange you can't openly say you don't believe in it for fear of being harrassed publically, and yet not so long ago MPs were happy to say they have/have not been to a strip club, seems they can be open about that but my god don't tell anyone your a non believer!....sad really.

Besides David Parker's portfolio is another waste of a minister's salary, same as women's affairs, only there because it's un-PC not to have one...(although Jum will disagree with the women's affairs part, wonder if she can tell us all what they have realistically achieved in the few years it's been around).

Actually come to think of it, the most links I've seen posted in blogs was on the subject of global warming, please everyone don't all start posting links to the 'one piece' of irrefutable evidence you have read that shows it's true/bunkum.

How can you tell that the world has gone 'global warming crazy'? A failed US politician gets a Nobel Prize for a 'movie' about it, he didn't make the movie, he just voiced it and went round the world promoting it, perhaps we should all give Nobel Prizes to rock bands and movie stars when they release a new album/movie?

Collin there can't be anything of real interest going on at Parliament if you have to resort to printing this useless tripe. So what if individual MPs have alternative viewpoints - don't we all?

If anybody is interested read this alternative scientific viewpoint about global warming by David Archibald - you can download it here. http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=150

BTW his science has been validated by NASA although NASA "denies" its possible implications on climate.

You don't think it undermines National's credibility on climate change issues when two of their spokespeople who will be responsible for formulating and implementing policy in that area (transport and finance, the former being responsible for 19% of emissions, the latter covering the ETS) are pimping denial? Or that this is just the latest in a long line of such <a HREF="http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/09/climate-change-denialism-still-alive.html&quot; rel="nofollow">blurts</A> from <a HREF="http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=866&quot; rel="nofollow">senior National figures</A> (including <a HREF="http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=24&quot; rel="nofollow">John Key himself</A>)?

Against the backdrop of a party that just three years ago was running on a platform of doing nothing and <a HREF="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&amp;amp;objectid=10332018&quot; rel="nofollow">withdrawing from Kyoto</A>, IMHO it suggests that there's no acceptance, no commitment, and a continued desire to stick their head in the sand.