John Raine, Michael Kelly, Bryan Leyland and David Lillis: A RESPONSE TO DAME ANNE SALMOND ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate Change Alarmism Versus Moderation

Dame Anne Salmond (Newsroom, 11th September 2025) [1], argues that New Zealand must ignore the recommendations from David Seymour (Act) and Shane Jones (NZ First) that New Zealand should re-negotiate its commitments under the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement. She draws attention to the risk to international trade agreements if New Zealand departs from existing obligations. However, Professor Salmond appears to be guided only by the mainstream politicised narrative on climate change.

Others who publish in Newsroom have adopted a similar position. For example, Kevin Trenberth [2] also seems to ascribe all climate change to anthropogenic causes, saying that the composition of the atmosphere has changed and is warming as a result of humans increasing carbon dioxide by over 50 percent since about 1900. Kevin Trenberth states, “Scientists like to present the facts, and the data to back them up. Our data paint a dismal future, unless we work collectively to avoid it.” There is wide disagreement over climate change data and for this reason alone it is important that both climate alarmist and more moderate views are heard.

The authors of the present commentary submitted a response to Newsroom on 14^th September 2025, but this article has neither been acknowledged nor published. Climate Change has been politicised, and it is of huge concern when evidence that runs contrary to an apocalyptic narrative is suppressed. Far too frequently, prominent atmospheric physicists and other researchers into climate change and its effects have been cancelled for disagreeing with the mainstream “worst case” narrative, and their statements labelled as disinformation, rather than scientists keeping an open mind in the face of evidence as opposed to cherry-picking data or adhering to computer models whose predictive capability has been shown to be inaccurate.

A review of their published pieces on climate change indicates that Newsroom does not want to enable a more balanced discussion on this critically important issue, even though The Press Council says that newspapers must provide balance. The Press Council states that fairness and impartiality are essential principles that ensure balanced and objective reporting. Thus, journalists should strive to present all sides of any narrative, giving voice to diverse perspectives and avoiding bias or prejudice. Fair and impartial reporting fosters informed public debate and allows readers to form their own opinions on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. By maintaining fairness and impartiality, journalists uphold the principles of democracy and promote a healthy media ecosystem. We would welcome a comment from Newsroom on this issue.

The Climate Change Debate Must Remain Open

Let us agree at the outset that the world’s climate is changing and always has changed. We are likely in a long-term global warming period which will proceed with or without human influences. However, we must not attribute uncritically all climate change to human activity when the evidence indicates that the effect of human activities on the climate is likely small.

The 23^rd July 2025 USA Department of Energy (DoE) Report, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” [3], authored by five eminent scientists, brought back some balance into the climate change debate, but generated outrage from many in the climate science community. This report offers a strong and reasoned counterfactual to the climate catastrophising and “the science is settled” thinking that has dominated the United Nations-led climate discussion and media for many years. The DoE report is far more moderate in its findings, and underlines the fact that science is never settled.

In a recent article [4], it was noted that CO₂ is necessary for plant life, and therefore to human life. The USA DoE Report also emphasises that, “Elevated concentrations of CO₂ directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity.”  

Moreover, anthropogenic CO₂ contributes less than 5% of the long-term CO₂ in the atmosphere. Global warming from an improbable doubling of CO₂ would produce further greening of the Earth, including increased agricultural productivity, while very unlikely to cause a further temperature increase beyond 0.5 – 1.8°C, and probably towards the lower end of this range.

Coe et al. [5] noted that water (H₂O) and CO₂ are the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases and found that temperature sensitivity to rising CO₂ levels falls exponentially with further increases in CO₂. In particular, they noted from their modelling that: “Climate sensitivity to future increases (a doubling) in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50°C, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are almost undetectable at 0.06°C and 0.08°C respectively.”

On this basis, we should not damage our animal farming industry through methane control measures. 

Drop Net Zero 2050

It is prudent to manage CO₂ resulting from human activities, but extreme Net Zero emissions policies and slavish adherence to earlier commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement are not justified when we seek to maintain our primary industries and in planning our energy future. Raine and Leyland [6] have addressed the latter and noted that “green” energy options such as wind and solar power are ultimately high cost as they always require high-inertia turbine-powered back up from high energy density systems, whether gas, coal, geothermal or hydropower (when the lakes allow). Some CO₂ producing electricity generation will be necessary for New Zealand for some time to come and we should not damage our economy by rejecting these options.

The National-Act-New Zealand First coalition government so far intends to abide by Paris Climate Agreement and pursue Net Zero Carbon 2050, in spite of the fact that New Zealand’s 2023 gross CO₂ emissions were less than 0.09% of the global CO₂ emissions.

Nothing that New Zealand does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can possibly have any measurable effect on global temperatures. This fact alone makes Net Zero 2050 unnecessary for New Zealand, but there is also the crippling cost to the economy. The analyses of Kelly [7,8] show the massive cost (over $530 Bn for New Zealand) and complete impracticality of achieving Net Zero. Whether on a cost or global emissions basis, it would be economic folly for our government to persist with a Net Zero 2050 goal.

Happer, Koonin and Lindzen [9] note, in their wide-ranging California Court evidence paper on climate change, that there are large uncertainties around the anthropogenic influence on climate, that human influences on the climate constitute a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows, and that available evidence gives no indication that extreme weather events in recent times are more frequent or serious than at other times in recorded history.

It is unfortunate that Professor Salmond and many others have confused normal extreme weather events in New Zealand with human-caused climate change.  With the Earth warming we will see greater evapo-transpiration and more heavy rainfall events, but we must be careful about judging the extent to which these events result from anthropogenic climate change. In this context it should also be noted that sea level rises due to global warming are well below those predicted by the IPCC reports.

Final Word

Professor Salmond rightly notes that climate change has been politicised, but the most extreme politicisation has come from those who are presenting an apocalyptic view of our future if we do not adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement and do not chase Net Zero Carbon. Decisions for the economic and environmental future of New Zealand must be based on the most comprehensive and most current science, and not on United Nations-led policy demands around mitigation of climate change. Many countries are already reconsidering their emissions reductions targets and energy policies simply in the interests of economic survival.  New Zealand must chart a moderate emissions management path that neither jeopardises our international trade nor cripples our economy with an unnecessary and economically damaging emissions policy.

………………………………………………………………..

John Raine is an Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and a former researcher in alternative and renewable energy systems. He formerly worked in the UK engine and vehicle test plant industry.

Michael Kelly is Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology in the University of Cambridge UK, Chairman of the Renewable Energy Foundation (UK) and a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK)

Bryan Leyland is a semi-retired Electrical and Mechanical consulting engineer specialising in power systems. He has experience in almost every form of generation from nuclear power to wave power.

David Lillis is a retired researcher and statistician who has worked for the New Zealand government in research evaluation and science policy. He writes extensively on science and education and on New Zealand’s wider innovation system.

References

1.         Dame Anne Salmond, “Climate Sabotage”, Newsroom, 11^th September, 2025. https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/11/anne-salmond-climate-sabotage/ 

2.         Kevin Trenberth, “You can lead people to data, but you can’t make them think”, Newsroom, 25^th September, 2025.  https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/09/25/you-can-lead-people-to-data-but-you-cant-make-them-think/

3.         John Christy, Ph.D., Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”, Report of the Climate Working Group to U.S. Energy Secretary Christopher Wright, USA Department of Energy, July 23, 2025

4.         John Raine, “Balancing the Climate Narrative – The Science is Not Settled, Breaking Views NZ 11^th August 2025. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/08/john-raine-balancing-climate-narrative.html

5.         David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb. “The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures.” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 2, 2021, pp. 29-40. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12, August 23, 2021

6.         John Raine and Bryan Leyland, “A Realistic Energy Future”, Bassett Brash and Hide, 24^th August 2025. https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/john-raine-and-bryan-leyland-a-realistic-energy-future (also in Breaking Views NZ 25^th August 2025

7.         Michael Kelly, “Achieving Net Zero: A report from a putative delivery agency”. Note 30 The Global Warming Policy Foundation © Copyright 2022, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, UK.

8.         Michael Kelly, “An Assessment of the NZ Resources Needed for Carbon Zero”, a presentation to Engineering New Zealand, 1 December 2020, Auckland.

9.         William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, Richard S. Lindzen, Tutorial Submission on Global Warming and Climate Change to United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. C 17-06011 WHA, Case No. C 17-06012 WHA. Hearing Date: March 21, 2018.