The Broadcasting Standards Authority has once again declined a complaint I lodged against TV One news for an item screened about the Australian carbon tax.

In it the news reader said “Australia is following NZ’s lead on reducing pollution by unveiling a new carbon tax scheme “

My complaint was that the term polluters and pollution are an inaccurate description of carbon emissions and someone who emits them. The most obvious reason of course being that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that carbon is in fact a theoretical unit, it is not real and therefore can not pollute anything. I also said it was insulting and offensive to emitters and used by people due either to ignorance or the desire to insult and offend. News readers I said should not be in either category.

Anyway the BSA state that “it is common and acceptable for news reports to employ informal or simplified language of this nature in order to convey matters of science to the average viewer in a manner that will be easily understood. We do not consider that the scientific differences between pollution and emissions would have misled viewers.”

There is so much wrong with this decision it is difficult to know where to start so I won’t other than to say misleading viewers is not acceptable and the BSA excuse about simplified terminology is nonsense. In general terms the BSA which is supposed to maintain standards of accuracy amongst others is in fact part of a society that is condoning the distorting of truth.

I find this unacceptable and I will continue to complain whenever I hear this term used by a news reader.  Bad things happen when good people do nothing. If we do nothing the children of today will know nothing other than CO2 is a pollutant and a cow belching is a polluter. If we want a society that respects honesty and truth and detests propaganda we must complain each and every time the term is used by news readers. Politicians can be as ignorant and as offensive as they like so you can’t complain when they say it but you can when news readers state it as a matter of fact, and I encourage you to do it.

Paul Henry got nailed for using the term retarded which is an accurate description of someone who is mentally slow according to the dictionary. The BSA nailed him because they said it was offensive. Polluter is an offensive term but they don’t give a damn about that. They are very selective and nothing more than a puppet of the PC mentality.  They are not upholding standards; they are assisting with the lowering of our broadcasting standards by allowing CO2 to be called a pollutant. Paul Henry called their decision against him “a ridiculous decision by ridiculous people”; I think he said it well.

We are on a slippery slope when we allow this sort of misinformation to go unchallenged. As I blogged recently Tim Groser in Durban told the world our emissions had reduced when in fact they have increased. The BSA might say he is using simplified language when he described our increasing emissions as decreasing. I say can it be anything other than dishonest to describe something that is increasing as “decreasing”?  And should a NZ Government Minister be doing that?

The Treasury in the budget this year said that under Kyoto NZ had agreed to reduce our net average emissions to 1990 levels. This is not true; we agreed to increase our net average emissions to no more than our 1990 gross emission level. They are deliberately misleading the people of NZ in the 2011 Budget by saying Kyoto is about reducing emissions when it is in fact only about limiting the increase. This is the NZ Treasury and this is the NZ Budget, deception should not be a part of either yet they do it. I have complained to them but so far to no avail. I might revisit it in the New Year.

I will sign off now for Christmas. New members continue to join every day. I intend taking a couple of weeks off to work on my orchard and take a break for few days. There is much to do when I get back including getting some pressure onto this Government not to sign up to a second round Kyoto if it includes harmless biological emissions.

Merry Christmas everyone, Paul Henry said it best and I think we have to realise that there are a lot of ridiculous people making ridiculous decisions; especially in the area of livestock emissions. They will be far from my mind this holiday season. I will be able to do this because I believe that ridiculous people will always be found out in the end. Let’s take comfort in that and drink to that!  Merry Christmas.

Talk about shoot yourself in the foot. Groser is supposed to be negotiating for NZ not against us.

Details are still skethchy and I hope I have got this wrong but if what I have read is true I can’t think of  a worse outcome for NZ and I can’t think why Groser would do this to NZ.

With our emissions increasing and forestry offsetting starting in 2013 I can see this costing us all a lot of money. The ETS is bad enough but at least most of that money stays in NZ. This deal Groser may have agreed to will see money going from the hands of a NZer to overseas interests.

With a government not actually  formed yet is it appropriate for Groser who is effectively only acting for a caretaker government to sign away NZ’s future prosperity with a deal that no one in NZ has given him authority to do?

However our very own Tim Groser is leading a sickening display in Durban all by himself.

Tim Groser in Durban

“Having accepted a responsibility target under the Kyoto Protocol CP1 we are on track to meet our commitments and no matter what the outcome here in Durban New Zealand’s mitigation efforts will continue post-2012.”

The only reason we accepted this target is because it was a cheat target. Our net and gross emissions are way up on 1990 and increasing each year, but because we set our target using gross emissions and we meet it with net emissions we are sweet. In other words we report NZ’s emissions status including emissions and forestry removals during the commitment period but we ignore all the forestry removals in 1990 to make it look like we are achieving something even though we are not.

“New Zealand faces a real challenge with half of our emissions coming from agriculture but we have implemented an all sectors and all gases emissions trading system which is a first for a developed country and we are already seeing the benefits of reduced domestic emission levels.”

Bullshit! Groser is effectively lying to the world here. The reduced emission levels he talks about are not real reductions as our emissions continue to track up each year.  Our domestic emission levels have not reduced at all they are just lower than what was projected.  If there is any industry where you can call increasing emissions reduced emissions it is the global warming industry. An industry with almost no integrity at all. Even these so called reduced emissions have everything to do with bad projections and nothing to do with the ETS as Groser claims. This from the MOE explaining why our emissions are below projected levels.

The largest change was to projected emissions from agriculture. This is because the methodology used to calculate agricultural emissions for the national greenhouse gas inventory has changed.  An improved methodology based from the latest science research shows emissions from New Zealand livestock excreta is lower than previously estimated.

It has nothing to do with the ETS as Tim claims. Groser is one of our smarter Ministers and for him to spin this bullshit to the world is disappointing and embarrassing. Our livestock might be producing less effluent but our Government is making up for that by producing more.

“We need to be able to go back to our own people,, whether we live in France or New Zealand,  and say we aren’t the only people doing something. You will not carry public opinion if the debate is ‘you are the only idiots doing anything.’”

Is Tim Groser admitting we are the only idiots doing something?

New Zealand is calling for a “Kyoto plus” deal in which the U.S., China, India and other big greenhouse-gas emitters give stronger assurances that they will live up to their voluntary pledges to curb emissions by 2020, Groser, said in an interview in Durban.

Countries that are considering whether to stay in Kyoto need such guarantees to politically justify a decision to remain in the pact, Groser said.

If Tim Groser is saying he is happy for NZ to sign up to a second round Kyoto which will have binding obligations as long as other countries promise to meet voluntary targets then he needs to get a new job. It was a National Government that signed up to Kyoto in the first place, are they going to repeat the folly?

Hard to take Groser seriously here, while what he is saying to please the world is untrue for the reasons I have said I also believe when he talks of wanting another Kyoto he is being disingenuous. This is because NZ has amended the ETS legislation to allow offsetting from 2013, which means when a forest is cut down it can be replanted somewhere else.

The credits earned by offset forest are not valid under Kyoto, the rest of the world do not see these as genuine carbon credits so they can not be used to offset any post Kyoto liability. NZ would not allow offsetting if it believed it was going to have to meet future international liabilities so I think Groser is being dishonest with the people of NZ and the world.

Update just through from Durban

Groser might have just got us in a whole lot of trouble because the latest is that the USA has surprisingly agreed to come into an agreement which is a road map towards binding targets. There is a suggestion that Kyoto might be extended because of this which means NZ is in trouble because we will have to pay. This is because our net emissions have already increased to 1990 gross emission level so from 2013 or 2014 as they continue to track upwards we will be facing a deficit which will be increased when offset foresty plantings start.We will have to start buying international units from other countries.

Tim Groser has said he is happy for NZ to meet binding targets as long as other countries try to meet voluntary targets. These binding targets will cost us money, the voluntary targets will cost other countries nothing. The day $1 is paid offshore to meet our Kyoto liability is the day this Government has gone a step too far in this idiocy. Let it be a day they are never forgiven for.

This is great because it is giving us an opportunity to get our message about these emissions out there. Act has a fairly strong rural influence on the list and on the Board so they are pushing Brash on this issue.

This is what he said at the Party launch

Indeed, there’s a strong argument that biological emissions don’t add to greenhouse gases at all: every unit of carbon emitted by pastures, crops and animals was first absorbed from the atmosphere.

As far as I know he is the only party leader saying this

I did send Claire an email asking her where did she think the carbon came from, and suggested a school science book might help her  and I also told her that the billions of dollars Norman claims are being spent on subsidies to emitters don’t exist, and that he was basing his economic policy on cancelling these non existent subsidies.

I haven’t heard back.

The interesting thing is that lots of the comments she got on the website agreed with Brash, which means our message is getting out there. Brash might be the only part leader to have studied this subject but the others might have to look at it now which will be good for our cause.

To see article and comments click here

We have had more success getting mainstream with a radio interview I did with Larry Williams on Newstalk ZB.

The focus was on election spending and Larry was interviewing me about Labour’s claim that it is going to get $800m from farmers to fund its R & D policy.

The problem with the ETS is that few understand it, including most journalists, and that is why the journalists don’t challenge Phil Goff on his claim. I explained to Larry and the listeners that when farmers have to pay for their emissions they will have to buy things called NZ Units from someone like a forester. The forester is given these NZ Units by the Govt on the basis of one NZU for every tonne of CO2 they are supposed to have sequestered. The foresters will get the $800m off the farmers, it does not go to the Government.

The Govt gives out these NZ Units at no cost to them or the taxpayer. There is no limit to how many they give out, as the ETS is a cap and trade scheme without the cap. If they want more NZ Units they just go to the photocopier and print more.

What most people don’t seem to understand is that until livestock emissions are brought into the ETS there is no cost to these emissions, so farmers are not being subsidised by the taxpayer. It is like saying that from 2015 every time someone crosses the road they will have to pay a $1 to the Govt as a tax. Until 2015 no one has to pay anything, the fact that no one is paying now does not constitute a subsidy because the liability does not exist yet.

I wasn’t able to explain our main argument about the harmless nature of livestock emissions because that was not the focus of the interview, but Larry did read pre interview a 2500 word outline I wrote explaining everything from the mechanism of the ETS, Kyoto, the harmless nature of bio emissions and more. So I am hopeful he will contact me in future about these issues if they come up.

Not normal to comment on general politics as I am sure we have all political party’s supported by our membership, but I will have a go without upsetting everyone.

Labour and the Greens have virtually declared war on farmers with Goff’s ETS scheme expected to cost farmers 30 to 50 % of net income and the Labour Green lots’ water policy another $50000 per year I believe.

National has signalled it may delay agriculture’s entry of bio emissions into the ETS further. This is nonsense, they should be removed. Farmers need certainty like any business, Nick Smith said this when justifying leaving agriculture in the ETS, yet now he has switched from promoting certainty to promoting uncertainty for 3 more years at least. If he is too scared to remove bio emissions now with National high in the polls, can you imagine how scared they will be when the next review occurs in 2014 and National is seeking an unlikely 3^rd term, scary stuff.

That is why what we are doing is so important, if National survive this election we have 3 years to change their mind and get livestock emissions entry to the ETS not delayed but removed. Our study will help that. Once Labour get back in, and they will one day, our job will be harder. Having said that I still find it incredulous that National is so timid on this, they know what we say about the science is right. Leighton Smith said on his radio the other day that any Nelson voters who voted for Nick Smith were not welcome as his listeners. It was a little tongue in cheek but underlining it was an honest feeling that Smith has and is doing NZ incredible harm. Mind you why is his boss letting him?

I received a phone call from Feilding, apparently  the new National candidate there is on record rubbishing the ETS for the scam that it is. Any farmers in the area might want to go to the next candidates meeting and ask him some curly questions.

NZ First want to dump the ETS. This is a bit rich considering it was only because of the support they gave to Helen Clark in the dying days of her government, that we got an ETS. I think it was a trade Peters did so as not to get fired for lying.

The Conservatives want to dump the ETS and so does ACT. ACT is the only one of these two likely to be able to achieve anything, thanks to a cup of tea in Epsom. I have been feeding Don Nicholson information, he is their Primary Industry spokesman, and he and the other farmers on the list (including me) are pretty determined to get bio emissions removed from the ETS permanently.

Having said all that, we don’t only want a political resolution, we want a scientific one to achieve the certainty that no political party will play cat and mouse with farm bio emissions ever again. The fund raising is going well. Lots of interest.

Administration is stretched to the max so please let me know if you have experienced any difficulties with receipts or invoices.

More GREAT NEWS, we are now MAINSTREAM. I have had an opinion piece published in the Dominion Post today. (Tuesday 1 November) It is about livestock emissions of course. I am rapt, I have spent eighteen months trying to get our message to the urban population so that we can show them how misled they have been by our politicians, both National and Labour. Seriously I know this might sound sad to you but I have put so much effort into getting this result I am elated. It might even warrant a drink to celebrate.

The article has attracted one comment so far from someone called Katherine

Finally an article that clearly explains agriculture and biological emissions. Could the ETS review panel respond as to why they avoided this important consideration?

Have a read of the article and please, please make a comment (favourable naturally), the more comments I get the more chance they will print more of my stuff.

Click here to read the rest of the article

Tim Groser is no fool he must know that under one scenario the bath is filling up and under the other the water level is constant, and that current Govt policy is based on the belief that the bath is filling up under both scenarios and is wrong.
He says this which is hopeful although lacking detail.
“NZ remains committed to meeting its international climate change obligations and advocates for an appropriate approach to agricultural emissions in the next agreement. The metrics applied to value the emissions from agriculture is one part of that approach”
Does this mean he is saying that the current approach is not appropriate?
Tim Groser is smart and has some integrity and now that he knows there is a problem with the way methane is treated he has realised that the current approach is not appropriate we can put the acid on him not to accept any new treaties that do not have an appropriate response to agricultural emissions . Just have to find out what he has in mind.

The panel addressed the three main concerns over livestock emissions this way.
The concern that these emissions were harmless and did not cause an increase in the concentration of any greenhouse gas was ignored by the panel. Too hard for them to counter I believe.

The panel tried to address the concern that NZ was the only country including biological emissions in an ETS by saying that such concerns “ignore the point that these emissions are covered by the target for which New Zealand is accountable”. This comment does not address the issue of us being alone in the world on this and a bit of a laughing stock amongst our international competitors. It also ignores the fact that other countries have international targets too. The panel’s comment also ignores the fact we have no international liability for emissions past 2012, just targets which are conditional, non binding, and with no financial penalty component. To quote Mr Key’s favourite saying they are aspirational. To say they represent a financial liability, as the panel does, is not credible.

The panel also tried to address the concern that farmers have no means to abate emissions by rubbishing this notion; farmers have heaps of options according to the panel. Many submitters submitted on this, most with vested interests, biochar sellers and forestry interests and researchers who make their fortunes researching livestock emission mitigation; amongst them.

Options for farmers to abate their emissions according to the panel are;
Nitrogen inhibitors, these are available if you live somewhere cold and wet, are a dairy farmer and not organic. In other words for most of us they are not an option …..’but could be in the future’ according to the ever hopeful panel. I bet they are not!

It is an upside down world when all of a sudden it is ‘clean and green’ to spray chemicals all over the farm, puffing out fossil fuel exhaust whilst you do it. One thing I haven’t been able to rationalise is that if these inhibitors reduce nitrogen loss and therefore increase grass growth, won’t farmers increase stock numbers or animal intakes to eat the extra grass and won’t that then increase the urine problem? If anyone can help me with that please let me know.

There are no options for farmers to abate methane but the panel believed we would have a vaccine to do this in just 10 to 15 years. I bet we don’t!

Forestry was given as one option for farmers to reduce net emissions but this is nonsense because farm forestry does not reduce a farmer’s net emissions and liability under the ETS. All it does is provide the farmer the opportunity to make money selling carbon credits to reduce the financial impact of the ETS. That is if they want to take on the considerable risks inherent in carbon trading. Every emitter including a motorist has the option of buying land and planting trees, this is not exclusive to farmers.

Another option put forward by the panel is to adopt best practice farming methods to increase the efficiency of production. Basically this means lifting per animal performance. The more product per animal, the less methane produced per kg product. Farmers are continually increasing per animal production anyway and as they do this, their absolute emissions will increase, as will their financial liability from the ETS, but their emissions per kg product and thus their ETS cost per kg product will decrease. Having to pay for livestock emissions will spur farmers on to further increase production to pay for it, thus the effect of this abatement option will be to increase NZ’s total emissions. How increasing emissions helps NZ meet a target of reducing emissions I am not sure, the panel was silent on this.

This last option is the only viable one really but for any abatement to work the point of obligation must be at farm gate level not processor level. The panel strongly recommend this. The panel quite rightly points out that the only way incentives to reduce emissions work is if the obligation is at the farm. Under the current scheme the liability is at processor level so everyone pays the same emission factor regardless of whether they splash DCD about or what their per animal production is.

I believe it is inherently unfair and pointless to have the obligation at processor level and completely unworkable to have it at farmer and lifestyle block owner level. That sums up the ETS really, pointless and unfair. By strongly recommending change, the panel concurs with me on that it seems. The scheme as it exists is only workable because it is pointless and achieves nothing. Any effort to make it meaningful, such as farm gate obligation, will make it unworkable. For that reason I support this recommendation.

The panel did not comment on the lack of environmental integrity in forestry generated carbon credits, namely the fact that soil carbon loss and forestry nitrous oxide emissions are ignored. There is nothing they could say about that really without undermining the importance of forestry to the ETS, and they would not want to do that.

In fact they say that ‘forestry is the key reason why NZ is expected to meet its Kyoto target’ but they are wrong. The only reason NZ is meeting its target is because the target is set using gross emissions, and we are meeting it with net emissions (gross emissions less forestry removals). We had forests in 1990 too but everyone seems to forget this. The panel also got it completely wrong when they say in a table that our 1990 net emissions were 61 million tonnes. They were in fact only 38 million tonnes.

This last error sums up the ETS review really, a half baked glaze over of the intricacies of the ETS to try and affirm that it is working, when it is not. The panel was not objective, stretching credibility beyond what is reasonable in an attempt to justify NZ being the only country in the world to include harmless biological emissions in this crazy scheme.

Farmers have much to fear from this review because the panel debunked Nick Smith’s contention that farmers can’t abate their emissions. Smith is right, the panel is wrong but this is politics, right and wrong are irrelevant. Smith can no longer use this as an excuse to delay agriculture’s entry without undermining the panel. If he does this, the panel might regret being his lap dog.

The problem with doing this is that this will give an unfair financial benefit to Australian farmers at the expense of our own. It would be akin to asking the All Blacks to take on the Wallabies with their rugby boot laces tied together. This is because under the carbon farming initiative Australian farmers do not pay for their livestock biological emissions. These are emissions of greenhouse gas which originate from the atmosphere and are just returning to it. They do not increase the atmospheric concentration of any greenhouse gas. The New Zealand farmer however under the ETS will have to pay for their biological emissions.

The Australian farmer gets off free on that and what is more can generate carbon credits by reducing emissions or avoiding an emission. For example a stand of mature bush, which does not sequester carbon, generates no credits for the New Zealand farmer, but Australian farmers can earn credits for not cutting it down because this avoids an emission.

Soil carbon is also available for the Australian farmer to claim credits if they undertake an activity which increases it because that is sequestering carbon. In addition they can earn credits for not undertaking an activity, such as cultivation, because it is avoiding an emission, namely soil carbon loss. None of these options are available to the New Zealand farmer.

It is beyond comprehension that New Zealand business would buy credits from an Australian farmer for doing exactly the same thing their New Zealand counterpart is doing but under our ETS the kiwi farmer is not able to receive credits. A scheme that allows New Zealand business to pay an Aussie farmer for not cutting down his bush, while kiwi farmers get nothing is not just a bad scheme, it is quite frankly unpatriotic.

What really hurts is that a New Zealand livestock farmer with stands of mature bush will have to pay for the purchase of credits that could have come from an Australian livestock farmer with stands of mature bush. Both farmers doing exactly the same thing environmentally, but under our ETS the New Zealand farmer is deemed to be an emitter needing to purchase carbon credits and under the carbon farming initiative the Australian farmer is deemed to be saving the planet in some way and able to sell carbon credits.

The problem is that these carbon credits are not all created equal. Many of them are created using smoke and mirror trickery or environmentally fraudulent carbon accounting. Even the credits that New Zealand has at its disposal because it is in credit under the Kyoto Protocol are only available because of a carbon accounting system which, if used for money, would see people locked up for fraud. New Zealand’s emissions are well up on 1990 levels and we should be in a deficit situation. But this deficit is converted into a healthy credit by ignoring all forestry removals in 1990, thus artificially inflating our 1990 position. Forestry removals are included when calculating our emissions in our commitment period of 2008 to 2012. So our gross emissions are up significantly, our net emissions are up significantly but when our net emissions for 2008 to 2012 are compared to our gross emissions of 1990 we are in credit. There is no environmental integrity or honesty in doing this but that is what the rules are, so we have credits we can sell.

That is the problem with these carbon credits; I am sure some of them genuinely result from the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but so many of them do not. Even credits created in New Zealand by the forestry industry are of dubious environmental integrity. This is because the amount of carbon they are supposed to remove from the atmosphere is inflated because all forestry emissions of nitrous oxide are ignored and the massive losses in soil carbon that result when land is converted from pasture to forestry are also ignored. The result is that in these situations close to one third of the carbon dioxide our foresters are paid to remove from the atmosphere is not removed.

At least in the situation above it is a New Zealand forester who is ripping off the New Zealand motorist. Adopting a scheme whereby Australian farmers can rip off New Zealand farmers and motorists by selling us carbon credits of dubious integrity is pretty disgusting. New Zealand business may be salivating at the prospect of trading in these things, but there is no honour in this.

At the executive meeting we had recently we decided to not ask for members to renew their subscription, while they are yearly subs we are not set up administratively to renewing these. So your membership will continue without renewal required. With the exception of the new members we do invite you to do two things;

In lieu of renewing your sub, make an additional donation, go to the website and click on donate and go from there. Do not join up again please. To make any difference we need resources, everything I do is voluntary but we do incur costs keeping the website going and of course we want to build funds to get the data we need.

The other thing we ask all of you to do is that you encourage your neighbours and friends and brothers and sisters etc to support us, if you want me to email you any promotional material that you can print out or forward on just let me know.The bigger  we get the less they can ignore us.

link to the website is at the bottom

A little from a lot and we will be unstoppable. I do feel the wind is changing on the issue of livestock emissions just a little bit and we really need to be ready to drive our message home.

I will send you details of how to view our financial accounts shortly.

Lord Monckton is in town, I am not sure what his position is on livestock emissions, I know he is sceptical about global warming, he is a great speaker and has been brought over here by Climate Realists (NZ) in association with the NZ Climate Science Coalition

I don’t publiciise all the sceptic promotional material because our focus is livestock emissions not global warming sceptism. For many there is an overlap of course but to me it is entirely consistent to believe in global warming and still maintain that livestock emissions are nothing to do with it. That is one reason I do not venture into general GW sceptism. On the issue of global warming I am sceptical myself because I have not seen the evidence to convince me. I have seen the evidence to convince me that livestock are not responsible for any GW that might be happeneing. That is why I focus on that. Bring down that pillar and the temple will collapse. Monckton will be interesting though, and in my heart of hearts I do prefer listening to sceptics than alarmists.

Here is his scehdule. I also believe he will be on Radio ZB with Leighton Smith on Thurdsay August 4th if you want to tune your tractors to that or listen to it on the internet either live or you can get week on demand too so you can listen to it later at a more convenient time.

Whangarei- Saturday 6th August

Meeting with Lord Christopher Monckton

venue: Northland Events Centre, Okara Drive, Whangarei

time: 2.00pm

cost: $20

hosted by: Farmers of New Zealand

If this meeting is not suitable here are the details of the others:

Auckland- Thursday 4th August

Discussion- Professor  Geoff Austin talks to Lord Christopher Monckton

Is the Climate Change Debate over?

Global climate change is seen by many as the world’s biggest threat. Most scientists, environmentalists and bureaucrats say emission of man-made greenhouse gases will cause spiralling temperatures, ice melting and sea level rises. To these people the science is conclusive and there is no need for further debate.

However, some people including climate scientists, are not so sure. They accept that climate is changing but they question whether this is natural or man-made, what the mechanisms are and what the effects will be.

The public sees both messages and is often confused or disengaged.  As PR and communications practitioners we are often the interface between our organisations and the public on this issue. We need to understand what we are being asked to communicate.

This PRINZ event will take the form of a discussion of man-made global warming issues between climate change skeptic Viscount Christopher Monckton, a British hereditary peer, journalist and businessman and University of Auckland atmospheric physicist Professor Geoff Austin.

Prof Austin will put to Lord Monckton some of the arguments that there is a human component to warming and there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion from the floor.

venue: Lecture theatre AF116  AUT Akoranga Campus , Akoranga Drive, Takapuna, Auckland

time: gather at 5pm for a 5.45pm start, event ends 7.15pm

cost: $50.00 +gst  ($57.50)

hosted by: Public Relations Institute of NZ

tickets: available through PRINZ website: http://www.prinz.org.nz/tools/events/list.aspx?SECT=Events

refreshments: Canapes and welcoming drink, followed by cash bar

parking: Ample metered parking is available nearby

Wellington- Friday 5th August

Lecture: Lord Christopher Monckton

Is Global Climate Change another Y2K?

PRINZ Central Region has arranged for leading climate change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, to address members at a special lunch-time event.

Don’t miss this thought-provoking presentation!!

Readers of Flat Earth (www.flatearthnews.net) will be familiar with media-generated hysteria over issues like the fizzer that was Y2K, the evils of heroin (read the book!), pandemics like SARS and Avian Flu, and of course, the hype around Climate Change.

Are these issues real or are they generated by vested interests? Why do “respected commentators” repeat these alarmist messages? Why do we, as a profession, promote them, and why does the media grab them with alacrity and reproduce them?

Global climate change is seen by many as the world’s biggest threat. But is it real? Or are we subject to bureaucratically-manipulated groupthink? How has the science behind climate change been formulated and communicated?

Leading climate change skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton – British peer, journalist, businessman and entertaining public speaker – has a thought-provoking view, both about climate change and about how the message is being hijacked.

Lord Monckton’s presentation is a case study reminder of the duty of professional communicators to investigate the facts behind what we are being asked to communicate. As a professional communicator, you mustn’t miss this challenging presentation.

Refreshments: BYO lunch. Tea and coffee provided

venue: Nau Mai Room, Te Puni Kokiri, 143 Lambton Quay Wellington

time: 12.15pm – 1.30pm

cost:: $10+gst members, $15+gst non-members

hosted by: Public Relations Institute of NZ

sponsored by: Four Winds Communications

To obtain tickets for this event use this link:

http://www.prinz.org.nz/tools/events/details.aspx?SECT=Events&ID=8092