While it is common knowledge that Denmark recently played host to the international Climate Conference, most people are only dimly aware of just what went on - or that, despite a massive turnout of representatives from different governments and organisations, the entire affair was largely unsuccessful.

Although 20,000 is the figure quoted most often, this doesn't include the large number of journalists and demonstrators who were there as well. In fact the Danes, determined to be good hosts, provided generous facilities in Copenhagen's Bella Centre - but the centre holds only 15,000 people and 35,000 had asked to attend.

Some people realised immediately that the sheer numbers in attendance would be impediment serious decision-making: despite being invited, Federated Farmers President Don Nicolson decided to save the planet one airfare at a time - by eschewing the summit he saved around 6.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide (according to carbonfootprint.com). He said:

"There's no point pretending the opening stanza of Copenhagen will be anything but a massive photo opportunity."

Prime Minister John Key had the right instincts and didn't intend to go - but came under intense pressure. Many were predicting that the summit would turn out to be an expensive damp squib and New Zealand's delegation was modest compared to Australia's 114.

In the end no binding agreements were made - although it had been widely anticipated that wealthy countries would pledge to make an 80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions with 1990 levels being the base rate.

At the time, I was horrified at the thought that New Zealand would sign up to such an agreement. As the greenhouse effect is also caused by gases other than carbon dioxide, we must also consider the methane emitted by sheep and cattle. To dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions, we would have to drastically reduce our livestock numbers - devastating our economy. If other countries followed suit there would be a huge shortage of meat, wool and dairy products - a disaster of the first order.

Fortunately, this didn't happen as the Chinese refused to commit to any reduction - although they did agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in relative terms: if production went up they would increase emissions by less than the increase in production.

Although roundly denounced for "ruining" the Copenhagen agreement, little consideration has been given to the possibility that the Chinese acted on principle - if they are unconvinced by the scientific argument for global warming, their attitude is perfectly reasonable.

In reality, everyone believes in climate change and it is generally accepted that it has been both much colder and much warmer in the past. Geologists generally believe we're enjoying an 'interglacial period' with the implication that another ice age is coming.

None of this knowledge helps predict what will happen in the next 100 years and it should be noted that the Copenhagen summit occurred just after British scientists were found to have been "massaging data" to make it fit with their previously stated views.

I readily confess that I don't know what will happen to world temperatures in the future - and I suspect many 'experts' don't know either. So far, ACT has seen no observational-based evidence of any warming trend in New Zealand that warrants grounds for concern. NIWA itself - which has made alarmist temperature projections based on data from unproven global climate change models - has accepted that our warming might be only two-thirds of any global temperature increases.

New Zealand would be better informed by an agency that focuses on assessing risks from trends in actual observational data. Knowledge gained from those assessments should then be used to revisit the guidance given to local authorities about likely future climate changes.

Copenhagen may be hailed as a failure, but I believe New Zealand was fortunate that no agreements were made. It would be foolhardy indeed to rush into decisions and make promises on the back of dubious information drawn from questionable science.

If we are to take any action on climate change and global warming it should be in the form of further research on biological and chemical methods to reduce agricultural emissions as - barring scientific breakthroughs - reducing these while maintaining production levels would be difficult. Determining the facts and plotting the most appropriate path - if any - should come before implementing any ill-thought out measure that could devastate our economy and dramatically reduce our standard of living.

Lest We Forget - The Infamous Under-Arm Bowl
Even today, few have forgotten the day of the infamous under-arm bowl.

While New Zealand and Australia have always shared a (usually) good-natured rivalry, Trans-Tasman sporting relations were pushed to breaking point on February 1 1981 when Australian cricketer Trevor Chappell bowled under-arm at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

It was the final delivery of the limited-overs international, and New Zealand needed to score a six in order to tie the match. Australian captain Greg Chappell was taking no chances and ordered brother Trevor to bowl under-arm - a move that, while legal, was widely considered to be against the spirit of the game.

New Zealand lost, and the day went down in the history books of both nations with politicians on both sides wading into the controversy. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon described it as an act of cowardice, labelling it "the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket." Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser agreed, calling it "contrary to the traditions of the game."

ENDS