Climate Chains: Follow The Science, Not Emotion, Says NZ Farmer

Cow on alpine meadow in New Zealand


NZIER estimate the cost of Zero Carbon 2050 at $85b per year, about 28% of current GDP. This is economic suicide over New Zealand producing 1/588th of global man made greenhouse gases. It will be worse if the primary sector is ruined.

On 10 October, I wrote to all New Zealand Members of Parliament to express my concern about the Zero Carbon Bill currently before the House. To their credit, the government yesterday opted to exempt agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme for the immediate future, and to instead work with environmentalists, farmers, iwi and other stakeholders to manage climate change.

However, my concerns remain regarding the scientific foundation on which man made climate change is built, and for remaining policy that will impact every New Zealander into the future. Taxes, premiums on products and services to account for carbon footprints, subsidising forestry initiatives that potentially destroy farmland perpetually along with rural communities, and even having an ETS, are some of these.

Please read the letter to MPs below, do your own research, and have your say on this critical issue. Regardless of our differing opinions, let’s find some common ground in that we both want a safe, sustainable future for all.

And if you think this article needs to be read and debated widely, please share it.

You can see ex Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore speak about Climate Change here.


10 October 2019


An Open Letter to New Zealand Members of Parliament.

Dear Members of Parliament,

Zero Carbon Bill

I am writing to express my concern about the Zero Carbon Bill currently before the House. Since the late 1990’s considerable controversy has surrounded the data and methodology upon which United Nations IPCC makes its case for “man made” global warming.

The “Climategate” scandal first broke in 2009 (and 2011) with thousands of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, suggesting an intent by climate scientists doing research on behalf of IPCC to manipulate climate data. There are reports of: adding recorded temperatures to proxy data(tree rings etc) to show an increase in average global temperatures, “hiding the decline” in temperatures in the 1960’s, lost or destroyed data, not archiving data, hiding the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, “adjusting” temperatures. [1], [2] etc.

As far as I am aware, the scientists with the key data sets behind the IPCC reports have refused to release all their data and calculations to this day. Given the claimed “emergency” one would reasonably expect cooperation from the IPCC and the climate scientists involved. Dr Michael Mann, who produced the “hockey stick” graph the IPCC used, has recently had a defamation lawsuit against Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Colombia, dismissed with full legal costs awarded to Ball. The court decision reportedly stemmed from the fact that Mann refused to turn over “R2 regression numbers” under discovery.[3] Dr Mann’s graph, and Tim Ball’s graph based on openly available data, are shown below.


It is widely acknowledged the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current global average temperatures, but occurred with NO man-made greenhouse gases. Damningly, this is acknowledged, and the warm period and Little Ice Age are documented, in an earlier IPCC Assessment Report.[4] I believe the IPCC have altered or tried to take down that earlier report.

Further, ‘…more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate related disciplines, including more than 9000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition announcing their belief that “… there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future , cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”[5] There are many other scientists globally who concur.[6] Greenpeace co-founder  Patrick Moore is less gracious -“It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe… It is a complete hoax and scam.” [7] The “97% global warming consensus” also appears fictitious. [8]

In June 2019, Finnish scientists published research entitled “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change” – J Kauppinen and P Malmi, on Cornell University’s arXiv website.  Kaupinnen, with some 160 research papers to his name, worked as an expert reviewer on United Nations IPCC AR5  report. It appears he raised concerns with the IPCC about climate models that were not satisfied, hence the research.

Their research states, “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models… we have to recognize that anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.  …low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”. They conclude, “… A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide” in the IPCC AR5 models. [9] Ultimately the sun via galactic cosmic rays influences cloud cover and humidity, that is, climate.

Natural climate change is not new science. See also; “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” – Robinson, Robinson and Soon. [10] ; “Greenhouse Gases – A More Realistic View” Jock Allison and Thomas P. Sheahan,[11]; former NASA Climate Scientist, Dr Roy; and  New Zealander, former Judge Anthony Willy’s “What climate catastrophe?” [12],  and many more.

As a sworn Member of Parliament, I believe it is your legal and moral responsibility to form good legislation based on fact and correct analysis. It is my expectation that you will insist the UN IPCC and associated climate scientists fully disclose their data and analysis, and you will subject it to open, rigorous, independent scrutiny. In the absence of this, I implore you not to proceed with proposed emissions reduction targets.

A re-assessment of the NIWA Seven-station Series (a doctoral thesis based on 7 weather stations?)  and how it may have influenced Government policy and informed the UN IPCC on warming, as opposed to raw temperature data over some 238 weather stations showing little change in NZ average temperatures over 150 years[13], may also prove worthwhile.

It is not my intention to malign any climate scientist, but to pass on what I have found. I am no scientist, and am happy to be proven wrong. So let’s see the UN IPCC information and have an open debate.

In my view, if climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon, we are about to engage in a catastrophic misallocation of resources to mitigate falsely claimed anthropogenic warming. Those resources being better directed at strategies to manage natural climate phenomena. We will also encumber every New Zealander for future generations with an untenable economic burden, and become party to a likely distorted derivative trade in the “ethereal” commodity – carbon credits. This may further disadvantage ordinary Kiwis. We are seeing agricultural land being bought with sometimes foreign capital, to be planted in trees, carbon credits claimed, and perhaps tree establishment grants, to subsidise the conversion. [14] All this to potentially offset an offshore carbon footprint, an option not afforded New Zealand farmers, and destroying rural jobs and communities to boot. Really?

Doug Edmeades informs us NZIER estimate the cost of Zero Carbon 2050 at $85b per year, [15] about 28% of current GDP. This is economic suicide over New Zealand producing 1/588th of global man made greenhouse gases. It will be worse if the primary sector is ruined.

To me, it is also a great disappointment to see a Prime Minister and government that promised to govern with “empathy”, along with our media and educators, burden impressionable school children with the anxiety and hopelessness of a “climate catastrophe”.  They also go well beyond the remit of the Paris Climate Accord to place the agriculture sector under enormous strain. So much for the mental health initiative.

On a warmer note, as the sun enters an 11 year Grand Solar Minimum[16], characterized by colder (and sometimes hotter) temperatures and unstable weather events, a little ‘home made’ gas may be of slight benefit. If someone dangles this off the end of the well documented “Great Pause” [17] data, where temperatures remained practically flat for over 18 years from 1997- 2015 , things may well look remarkably ordinary, or even cold.


Opinion: The entire content of this letter is the opinion of the author, based on reference and other material. In a world where we have never been so informed, so quickly, it seems ever more difficult to get to the facts of the matter. I cannot attest to the absolute accuracy of this letter and reference material. I encourage you to search widely and form your own view.

Let’s do this – properly. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.

God defend New Zealand.

S Collins.



e  & o. e.                                                              Please read the reference material
















[15] Rural News – Zero Debate on Climate Change 10 Sept 2019.