"Solar Water Heating Is Brilliant For Wellington ! " Yeah? The Burning Hot Debate! For the Affirmative we will hear: Brian Cox Representing The Solar Industries Association http://www.solarindustries.org.nz/index.asp “Solar water heating systems are a smart investment and can be installed in new buildings, in your current building with connection to your existing hot water heating system, or with a complete replacement high efficiency hot water cylinder. Solar systems are inexpensive to install, provide free energy once installed, and reduce overall water heating costs. …” For the Negative we will hear: Gary Moller Representing The Cynical Consumer www.rustypanels.co.nz “Gary Moller is the creator and owner of www.rustypanels.co.nz which documents his research into solar water heating systems. It includes numerous examples of faulty installations in Wellington and elsewhere. … “ “Gary Moller thought he was doing the right thing by installing a domestic solar water heating system (SWH). Four years and four replacement SWH later, he concluded that these devices were doing nothing for the environment other than creating expensive landfill material.” … "Out of sight - Out of mind" - a cynic's slogan for the SWH industry.” Who Is Right? Who Is Wrong? Come To The Debate Judge For Yourself I Hope To See You There! Date: Thursday 21 October, 5.30. p.m. - 6.30. p.m. Location: Wellington City Council I see even President Obama is planning to install Solar Water Heating in the White House: "UNITED STATES: The most famous house in the United States is going solar. The White House soon will have solar panels to supply the first family’s hot water and some of its electricity, the US Department of Energy announced yesterday." "White House to Showcase Solar Power". Dominion Post Thursday October 7, page B1. He is a little bit behind the Mayor of Nelson in the promotion of solar hot water. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-YHvkQn5l0. Never mind these things can take time, even for Presidents. There will be time for your questions, agreements, disagreements and opinions. Wellington City Council has kindly agreed to provide a venue. I would like to get an idea of numbers so that they are not overwhelmed by vast numbers of people for the space available. So if you plan to be at the debate please send me a reply at the email address below. Some Web Site Links: http://www.ecobob.co.nz/Forum/ForumPosts/7340/Solar-Water-Heating-Is-Brilliant-for-Wellington-Debate.aspx?ShowForumPostId=7340 http://www.celsias.com/projects/ I look forward to seeing you at the debate! Cheers Des Kenny Phone: 04 - 476 9499 Mobile: 027 508 0904 Email: om@objective-methods.com

It is certain extraordinary that people still framed the problem for and against the belief of climate change by looking at the evidence locally for "global warming". The scientific studies that showed the first results of rising temperatures (global warming) now attributed to climate change across the planet had primarily been conducted in the northern continent mass on the other half of the equator. Of course those studies would have reported that climate incident as a global warming because the event is detected in that geographic location. New Zealand is geographically located away from those sites and the same study would have different results based on our weather and climate systems. Why make a direct link that there should be a "global warming" in climate change? The southern hemisphere experiences a whole different set of weather, ocean and atmospheric systems and so these are a whole set of variables that would have a whole set of consequences on our weather and seasons that could very well look different from the north. Australasian and pacific research outcomes on climate change is what people ought to look at and based their arguments on. By all means, show the source of your facts but please do make the appropriate comparisons by looking at the context of the chosen information and relationship you are making. If anyone addresses the issue as global warming, it seems they would be discussing the climate change in the northern hemisphere perspective where the viewpoints are on the case of the climate and environment on the North America and North European continental. So if you picking "warming' for the basis of the argument and expect NZ to show the same syptoms. You are right we are not experiencing global warming in the same sense cos our glaciers are not anywhere near the Artic. Try this: Climate Change 101: An Educational Resource published by Victoria University of Wellington for more relevant facts.

Ms Hunt - your shallow feel-good imploring to take action is based on totally unproven theories. Why is it that since 1998, despite extra atmospheric CO2 concentration, there has been no increase in global temperatures? Could it be that something more influential to the planetary climate is at play? If so, any attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is pure wasteful folly. You may want to run around and take action, but climate modelling and climatology is in its infancy - we do not yet know to what extent we are warming (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/#more-26173), nor do we have definitive answers about the extent to which factors other than GHG emissions affect our climate. You may want to "trust each other and look for appropriate solutions", but unfortunately you alarmists have consistently breached trust and respect (again I would cite the NIWA debacle as a case in point, but you could look at Al Gore's factually corrupt rubbish which he refuses to debate, or Climategate emails, or many other examples). Appropriate solutions will not be found as long as the factors at play are misunderstood or exaggerated, or as long as the wild projections of impending doom and calamity continue to be refuted by contemporary observations (for example, this hurricane & typhoon season is the quietest in 33 years - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/global-tropical-cyclone-activity-is-at-33-year-lows/ ). If you want to save energy or develop new forms of energy which are kinder to the environment, that's fine by me. I'll happily pay a little extra for such technologies. However, if you want to impose a new tax on me with the silly notion of somehow saving the planet, then you better come up with some compelling evidence. So far there is none. No wonder the debate is tiring you.

Dear madam The mangroves of Ohiwa harbour (the worlds most southerly @38 degrees south) are tiny little scraggly things rarely more than 2 feet high. Compared with the mangroves of the Bay of Islands they are miniature. Bay of Island temperatures are not what I would call greatly different to Bay of Plenty temps, but the difference in size of the mangroves is astounding. If the difference in size is an indication of temperature, then the Ohiwa mangroves would surely be one of the most sensitive proxies of warming known to humankind. In the 50 years I have lived in the western BoP area I cannot say that the Ohiwa mangroves have increased in size. They are still the tiny scraggly things that they have always been. I wonder if any botany dept. at any university has been recording them? The mangroves of Northland and the BoP are the same species. The land use surrounding them is similar. They are washed by the same ocean. The only difference that I can see is the latitude and more northerly should be a little warmer. If the Ohiwa mangroves do not show any increase in size over the last 50 or 60 years then where is the warming?

You say "I feel that regardless of whether we can agree on the cause of climate change, we should unite to mitigate and adapt to the looming effects."

That is poor logic. If you don't know what causes climate change, then any actions taken could well make it worse. Your 'mitigations' may well turn out to be 'contributions'.

So what exactly is climate change? Doesn't the climate always change and if we are to believe the surface temp data published by gov agencies like NIWA then temp increase is well within natural variability. It has according to official records increased about 1c during the last 150 years in keeping with the slowly rising temps since the little ice age of the 1500 to 1700s. Then again if you are to doubt the accuracy of official record keeping as with the outcome of legislative probe into NIWAs manipulation of it's data set, then you could be excused for believing there is absolutely no problem at all. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/#comments Incidentally, similar manipulations of national temp datasets controlled by USA, UK, Australian and other government agencies are being exposed on a regular basis. I feel sorry for the poor idiots that have been take-in by this fraud and consequently are hell bent on saving the world by insisting we produce less CO2.

I too am heartily sick of this debate. The fanatics wanting to shut down the world economy and enforce a fascist dictatorship with the farcical aim to save the planet from a trace gas which is essential to all life on earth, simply beggars belief.Your own body is made up of more than 20% carbon atoms and you breathe out 100 times more CO2 each day than you breathe in, amazing when you consider the average CO2 concentration in a room is 1,000 parts per million. And yes all this is well known to the scientific community who are luxuriating in grant monies stumped up by poor old muggins, the taxpayer. Go to www.wattsupwiththat.com the most visited clearinghouse of correct science on the planet.

I agree. I too am tired of people who are still wanting to discuss evidence when the proof is staring them in the face. And I feel the climate change problem has gone past the point where legislative policies or regulatory actions are going to reverse or even keep on top of the consequences of climate change to our atmosphere and environment. Would the truth be told that we are now in a situation where every environmentally-conscious effort at any level is eroded by the sheer magnitude of emissions of greenhouse and other detrimental gases produced by human activities?

Something else needs to happen. I doubt there is sufficient time for reforestation and the planting of trees to counter or stem the rapid growth of climate change pollutants into our atmosphere. Is not the reality of our local and global situation a case of "one step forward and two steps back"?

There is sufficient evidence and enough global studies conducted by UNEP and FOA that the global shift in agriculture to produce plantfood for animal consumption and in turn support the agriculture of livestock farming to produce meat, leather and dairy products. And for whom? For the growing affluent population all over the world in the developing and the developed world that can afford these food choices. So the demand for such foods is driving this widespread cause of greenhouse and toxic emissions? Think about it. This is not news to the scientific community or New Zealand.