*FROM PAGE 6
No matter how well-meaning the correspondents, for most of us the information is untestable or too specialised to fully understand.
Arguing the science with nonscientists spreads confusion, raises anxiety and provokes inaction.
The TCDC has considered its process regarding communities at risk from increased storm damage, sea level rise, and attendant erosion issues.
This is a good thing, albeit overdue, and the team empowered to develop it are to be commended. Still unknown is when prospective purchasers and developers will be alerted to potential inundation danger.
Even now, they could be directed towards available known data and failure to do so risks future financial claims unnecessarily diverting ratepayer money into private hands.
Perhaps council remains tentative regards timing and review processes because of potential rating implications from devalued property, homeowner resistance, developer pressure, or elected members’ own uncertainty regarding the science.
However, residents remain uninformed about risk, unsettled by global events, and uneasy whether the position taken by insurance companies will affect property prices.
Proactive steps now, involving all interested parties, could help meet council with ideas relevant to strengthening our economy, attracting investment and active residents, benefiting everyone.
New Zealand, choosing to accept science’s concerns regarding CO2 emissions, joined the global conversation. Scientists will continue to debate, test and bring concerns to the attention of politicians and political staff, appointed to draw conclusions on our behalf.
Society addresses such concerns through political choices and daily behaviour.
Opinions do not change science, and neither do policies prove it. Informed Coromandel communities must decide pragmatically how the precautionary principle can extend opportunity in this bellwether district.
Mark Skelding Thames
maintains his denial of the cause and consequences of the Earth’s spiralling climate crisis.
If he has, contrary to the views of the scientific community, developed a novel theory that CO2 emissions are not the prime cause of the observed rapid rise in the Earth’s heat budget, then he should submit this for peer review and publication.
It would be a fascinating read. But he will face a formidable task: He will not only have to explain why our rapidly rising CO2 concentration would not cause the well understood and observed increase of the greenhouse effect but also, from where else the significant amount of heat energy has come from that is melting our glaciers and warming our oceans and the atmosphere.
All this during decades in which the solar activity has in fact slightly declined as Alistair well knows himself.
The rising CO2 concentrations are not helpful for producing food either.
Research has repeatedly shown that food grown under higher CO2 concentrations is lower on proteins and other essential elements.
Plus, CO2 is definitely not the limiting factor for humanities food production: water and fertilising soil minerals are, as our farmers too well know! Alastair is sadly mistaken about all this and he should reconsider his views based on the actual evidence and the scientific literature before him instead of reciting ideas from fringe blog sites or the propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.
Thomas Everth, Whitianga