It’s real when an All Black does it

Written By: - Date published: 1:33 pm, March 10th, 2013 - 118 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, Media - Tags: ,

Climate change is rewriting the rules of the planet. Here in NZ we are being warned of “the end for farming as we know it“. There have been any number of warnings and calls to action, most recently from “Wise Response”, and Otago based initiative featuring “100 prominent New Zelanders”. Like the other groups before them, Wise Response didn’t seem to make a ripple in the shallow pool of blather that is the media in NZ. That is, until…

an-all-black-coach

Yes folks, that was top of the page in yesterday’s (online) Herald. 100 prominent New Zealanders warning about the most serious threat we have ever faced – meh. It’s only newsworthy, it’s only real, when someone associated with the All Blacks does it. Sigh.

118 comments on “It’s real when an All Black does it ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    10 March 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Hard to ignore it being based in the Waikato now where his parents are, good on him, one of the few members of the AB club who says what he thinks now and then.

    Never a healthy position in the rugby world, cost him the coaching job in the early 2000’s.

    • Morrissey 1.1
      10 March 2013 at 7:46 pm

      …one of the few members of the AB club who says what he thinks…

      We’ll see how independent and honest Smith really is when he comes out and admits that the All Blacks probably won the 2011 Rugby World Cup final because of the outrageously partial referee.

      • tc 1.1.1
        11 March 2013 at 8:13 am

        I did say ‘now and then ‘ steady on he still has to make a living in the game and besides that ref saved us 4 more years of naval gazing misery so give him a knighthood I say.

        • felixviper 1.1.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 10:45 am

          Saved us 4 years of being sad about rugby and helped National win another term to fuck our country permanently.

          Yay.

  2. Rogue Trooper 2
    10 March 2013 at 1:57 pm

    “And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying “Come and See”. and I saw and behold a white horse!…There’s a man goin’ ’round takin’ names, And he decides who to free and who to blame. Everybody won’t be treated all the same…The hairs on your arm will stand up, at the Terror in each sip and in each sup…

    goin into Penalty Time now Rugby heads.

    • GregJ 2.1
      10 March 2013 at 5:43 pm

      “Will you partake of that last offered cup?
      Or disappear into the potter’s ground
      When the Man comes around…
      The whirlwind is in the thorn tree
      It’s hard for thee to kick against the pricks”

      Amen Brothers and Sisters.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    10 March 2013 at 1:57 pm

    A damning comment on the poor state of the NZ Herald and the mainstream media.

  4. geoff 4
    10 March 2013 at 2:42 pm

    It’s only newsworthy, it’s only real, when someone associated with the All Blacks does it. Sigh.

    NZ mainstream is rugby so basically, yeah.
    Hopefully now the issue will get some traction.

  5. Bill 5
    10 March 2013 at 2:53 pm

    I definately saw TV1 news cameras at the ‘Wise Response’ launch last Saturday. But since I no longer watch TV news, I’ve no idea whether it made the news agenda or not.

    Meanwhile, in a heirarchical society we’re encouraged to afford importance to people the heirarchies give prominance to. I don’t like that and think it’s infantile shit that we all play a part in creating. But given that that’s how it is, I ‘m confused as to why you’re critical of just one instance of these systems operating as they ought to.

    Would you have been okay if one of the prominant artists associated with ‘Wise Response’ had received similar coverage? If the answer is ‘yes’ than why are you not okay with Wayne Smith receiving the coverage he has?

    And further, which carrier of the message do you think most liable to have the greater impact on the reading audience?

    The word is getting out there. That’s a good thing. The structures information has to filter through are shit and more often than not serve to prevent information flow. But still the word is getting out there. So, yeah…

    • r0b 5.1
      10 March 2013 at 8:56 pm

      I ‘m confused as to why you’re critical of just one instance

      I’m critical of plenty of instances, I just don’t post about all of them.

      of these systems operating as they ought to.

      Operating as they do, I don’t think it’s how things ought to be at all.

      Would you have been okay if one of the prominant artists associated with ‘Wise Response’ had received similar coverage?

      Yes – kinda. I’d prefer that the group had received that coverage, or even better, the issues that they were concerned with.

      If the answer is ‘yes’ than why are you not okay with Wayne Smith receiving the coverage he has?

      Because it is further confirmation that we as a country are much more interested in rugby than we are in the future, which I find somewhat depressing.

      which carrier of the message do you think most liable to have the greater impact on the reading audience?

      In my ideal world we would focus on the message itself, without needing to obsess about the messenger.

      • felixviper 5.1.1
        10 March 2013 at 9:25 pm

        Point of order, Mr Speaker. The last sentence in no way addressed the question asked.

        • r0b 5.1.1.1
          10 March 2013 at 9:49 pm

          It absolutely “addressed” the question. The speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answer…

          Or, non-facetiously, yes, it is likely that this AB coach will have a greater impact than any of the scientists or other leading figures in the group. Which is part of what is wrong here. We should take science advice from scientists, not sports coaches.

          • Bill 5.1.1.1.1
            10 March 2013 at 10:33 pm

            Is it ironic then, that the scientists are looking for politicians to step up to the plate?.No. Because it’s not about the science any more. It’s about doing something. And it’s a media game which means it’s about getting people on-side. Don’t want them to actually do anything right enough – just lend their voice to convincing ‘our betters’ to do something and then for them to tell us to do whatever something it is they come up for us to do. Or maybe it’s not that at all. Maybe it’s just about getting ‘our betters’ to compile a report, write a paper or scribble out a wish list. Actually…that’s all that’s being asked. And so the job of us – the ‘great unwashed’ ( and against the wishes of both liberal and illiberal elites) – is going to be to push the envelope once they have been kind enough to unwittingly bring enough of the rest of us, the ‘great unwashed’ on-side…

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.1.2
            11 March 2013 at 9:17 am

            I remember you criticising Lucy Lawless on the same basis.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.1.2.1
              11 March 2013 at 9:18 am

              and Billy Bragg

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                11 March 2013 at 9:19 am

                and Will Self.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  11 March 2013 at 9:25 am

                  and Bloggers. Just shut the fuck up and leave it to the scientists, would you?

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    11 March 2013 at 9:33 am

                    Thanks for pointing that out, Gormy. I note that the scientists are demanding that the politicians take action.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      11 March 2013 at 9:41 am

                      I wish the politicians would leave it to the scientists. I mean, the scientists aren’t telling the All Blacks how to scrummage, are they?

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      11 March 2013 at 9:52 am

                      No, the scientists are telling the politicians to stop the pumping of gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. You are the one saying we should listen to them.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      11 March 2013 at 10:14 am

                      Yes I seem to be, don’t I. Meanwhile, r0b seems to think that no-one is allowed an opinion outside his or her area of expertise.

                    • One Tāne Huna …
                      11 March 2013 at 10:26 am

                      I think your perceptions may be leading you astray.

                    • felixviper …
                      11 March 2013 at 10:26 am

                      No, r0b isn’t saying that at all.

                      He’s saying that it’s a damn shame that so many of us don’t take any notice until a celebrity speaks out, when obviously if we were all being rational we would simply have listened to the experts in the first instance.

                      It’s not a complex argument to follow, Ole. Most of it is in the title.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      11 March 2013 at 12:58 pm

                      OK. Got a citation showing people are paying attention to Wayne Smith on the subject of climate change, or that no-one is paying attention to it other than when an All Black is commenting on it?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 March 2013 at 1:22 pm

                      The cite for the paying attention/not paying attention is in the post, specifically the bit where it refers to the front page article in the Herald. Why are you not understanding this, Gormless?

      • Bill 5.1.2
        10 March 2013 at 10:15 pm

        So if Anton Oliver (one of the original 100 signatories) had been ‘singled out’ by the msm and used to convey concern about parliamentary inaction on climate change, then you would have been ‘kinda’ okay with that.

        I agree it would be an altogether better state of affairs if messages and issues were independent of messengers. But in a heirarchical system of information gathering and dissemination, embedded as it is within or alongside multiple other top/down structures that variously encourage recognition of the individual over any idea or thought , that simply ain’t going to happen. (You think a bery good idea you propose will gain prominence over tosh spurted by a politician? Of course not!)

        And ‘Wise Response’ have adopted and reinforced the very same organisational structures and traits – an organising committee and the use of household names or prominant personages/personalities to carry their message.

        I honestly don’t understand why you would be expecting a msm to react in a way other than the way they have to ‘Wise Response’. (Meanwhile, your post that is critical of fairfax’s handling of ‘Wise Response’ links to another article from fairfax that offers straight up info…but it seems the link is intended as a counterpoise – as an example of what (presumably) fairfax are ignoring or trivilaising through their use of Smith.)

        Our systems of information are crap. That we are encouraged to elevate the individual or the personality is crap too. But that said, I remain confused about the point you were trying to make and will simply say that Ad (comment 12) has made the most obvious, accurate and heartening point given the realities and nature of the systems we live with.

  6. logie97 6
    10 March 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Shouldn’t be too long before the likes of Leighton Smith and Larry Williams (those doyens of current affairs) manage to haul together a few front row forwards to form a counter group.

  7. Nick K 7
    10 March 2013 at 3:54 pm

    No one is interested because people have realised “global warming” is a crock of shit.

    [RL: Hit and run trolling. Not welcome, don’t repeat.]

    • NickS 7.1
      10 March 2013 at 4:04 pm

      It’s been too long, chew toy time :3

      So, why exactly is it a “crock of shit” then?

    • Colonial Viper 7.2
      10 March 2013 at 4:04 pm

      a lead member of the ‘flat earth is the centre of the universe’ club.

  8. Populuxe1 8
    10 March 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Oooh, sarky sneering about rugby. How unusual.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      10 March 2013 at 4:05 pm

      that’s the point. None of this is about rugby. But in order for it to be newsworthy, it apparently HAS to be about the rugby.

      • Bill 8.1.1
        10 March 2013 at 4:54 pm

        I’ve never been a follower of rugby. And the name Wayne Smith means nothing to me – rings no bells or whatever. But the name Anton Oliver on the other hand….and he is/was one of the original 100 signatories. So, yeah…this whole line of argument that stuff is reported only because of an association with the All Blacks. It’s not quite on the ball if you’ll excuse the pun.

        • Tony 8.1.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 8:57 am

          The thing is Anton Oliver has been largely discarded by the MSM now as he is seen as a lefty, liberal weirdo type exception to the rule rugby player. Wayne Smith on the other hand is from an older generation and more importantly, your average rugby head respects All Blacks coaches. So this is why Wayne Smith stood out and was picked up by the Herald.

  9. TighyRighty 9
    10 March 2013 at 4:28 pm

    Well, actually it’s even less real now. Any time a sceptic says something it’s shouted down by the warmists as they may not be a scientist and its not peer reviewed. What the fuck do any of these people know of the science? Own argument fail

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      10 March 2013 at 4:36 pm

      Another member of the ‘flat earth is the centre of the universe society’

      hat the fuck do any of these people know of the science? Own argument fail

      Regardless, it makes economic and moral sense to limit wasteful fossil fuel use and unnecessary energy expenditure.

    • NickS 9.2
      10 March 2013 at 4:47 pm

      🙄

      Yes, because no one here knows anything about absorbance spectra of CO2 and how that behaviour leads unto it acting as a greenhouse gas, nor anything about the basics of modelling climate and detecting statistically significant signals from time series data. Nope, no one at all…

      And we so totes can’t just look on google for various papers and blog posts from climate scientists that so totes don’t reveal the likes of you to be completely ignorant morons and douche-canoes those understanding of science is so utterly wrongzors.

      :smug:

      • Poission 9.2.1
        10 March 2013 at 9:15 pm

        because no one here knows anything about absorbance spectra of CO2

        Why don’t you explain it ,a simple abstract of less then 250 words would suffice.

        • One Tāne Huna 9.2.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 7:37 am

          Why, is 250 words all you can manage?

          • Poission 9.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2013 at 9:22 am

            There is sufficient information in the leading statement to reduce to a lot less.For the purposes of a less rigorous statement expansion to a paragraph or so should suffice.

    • Bill 9.3
      10 March 2013 at 4:56 pm

      If ‘these people’ is a reference to the scientists among the 100 intial signatories….nah, fck – can’t be bothered wasting my time on pratish TightyRighty’s.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      10 March 2013 at 5:45 pm

      What the fuck do any of these people know of the science?

      Enough to read and believe the research papers done by climatologists rather than bought and paid for opinion pieces by lord Monkton that have been proved wrong.

    • Morrissey 9.5
      10 March 2013 at 7:41 pm

      Any time a sceptic says something

      You mean to say “denier”. The word “sceptic” implies someone who is informed.

      You obviously are anything but informed.

      • TightyRighty 9.5.1
        11 March 2013 at 8:56 am

        The science isn’t settled. If the science was settled every time the great and good learned at the pinnacle reached consensus on something, women would still be viewed as the inferior sex. So we can’t question anything that consensus has been reached on? Your’s is very much an up to the minute discriminatory view. Back in the day you would have loved slavery, women in the kitchen, people of lower classes using the trade entrance. Disgusting isn’t it, people having their own informed thoughts?

        • Colonial Weka 9.5.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 9:15 am

          “So we can’t question anything that consensus has been reached on?”

          Sure you can. You just haven’t said anything interesting of relevant on that. All you are doing is arguing a false argument that you should be allowed to argue (ironic really). Looks like pure distraction to me.

          • TightyRighty 9.5.1.1.1
            11 March 2013 at 9:21 am

            I don’t believe that global warming exists, more and more data is coming out that I am right. I also don’t believe that climate change is human induced. But i’m not a scientist so my views don’t really count do they? so why should wayne smiths? All of a sudden i’m going to fall over all dewy eyed for the latest cause celebre? when the progressives of the 70’s were more worried about global cooling and are now worried about global warming? seems to me like the short term scaremongering approach is fast running into the wall of truth when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel by getting rugby figureheads involved.

            • One Tāne Huna 9.5.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2013 at 9:30 am

              So something that doesn’t exist isn’t anthropogenic. Headdesk.

              Where is the extra energy absorbed by all the extra dipolar molecules we are adding to the atmosphere going, then?

              Show us your data.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.5.1.1.1.2
              11 March 2013 at 9:50 am

              I don’t believe that global warming exists, more and more data is coming out that I am right.

              Only on Planet Key, in the real world the data tells us it’s worse that first thought.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.5.1.1.1.3
              11 March 2013 at 9:52 am

              …when the progressives of the 70′s were more worried about global cooling and are now worried about global warming?

              And you’ve been told before that the cooling hysteria of the 1970s was solely due to the MSM over reporting a single report against a background of reports all warning of global warming.

            • Colonial Weka 9.5.1.1.1.4
              11 March 2013 at 10:03 am

              “I don’t believe that global warming exists, more and more data is coming out that I am right. I also don’t believe that climate change is human induced”

              IMO you shouldn’t be allowed to post on this on ts. All it does is derail conversation. There is a difference between wanting to look at/challenge some of the ways CC scientists study and publish findings, and wholesale denial.

              The amount of energy on ts that goes into ‘debating’ whether CC is real or not prevents us debating what we can actually do about it. This was very evident on Bill’s posts before Christmas, which appeared to be designed to get people to take action, but instead it were largely just more talk fests 🙁

            • Colonial Weka 9.5.1.1.1.5
              11 March 2013 at 10:07 am

              “All of a sudden i’m going to fall over all dewy eyed for the latest cause celebre? when the progressives of the 70′s were more worried about global cooling and are now worried about global warming? seems to me like the short term scaremongering approach is fast running into the wall of truth when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel by getting rugby figureheads involved.”

              This is out and out tr*lling. Go read the Wise Response website and press releases and then come back here and try pretending that this is about celebrity. The list is packed with scientists, and the purpose of the group isn’t solely CC, it’s many things, hence the wide range of people involved.

              Some lay people are quite capable of making informed decisions about what they believe. I’m sorry you don’t seem to be one of them, but all I can see you doing here is derailing the conversation yet again.

              • TightyRighty …
                11 March 2013 at 3:56 pm

                I’ve made many informed decisions, almost all of which have played out according to my expectations at the time of decision making. you portray me not making the same decision as you as stupidity as there is “consensus” from experts who back your part. I on the other hand won’t have my opinions dictated to by popular culture, especially when equally valid experts have pointed out flaws in the claims OR when the original claimants admit there is a problem with their hypothesis.

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  11 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

                  “Experts”.

                  Name them. Link to their work. Put up or shut up.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 March 2013 at 7:56 pm

                  …especially when equally valid experts have pointed out flaws in the claims OR when the original claimants admit there is a problem with their hypothesis.

                  Except that such things don’t exist as far as anthropogenic climate goes. All contrary papers have been dismissed as barking up the wrong tree. If you were as informed as you think then you’d know that.

        • One Tāne Huna 9.5.1.2
          11 March 2013 at 9:27 am

          TightyRighty what are you talking about?

          “Science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy. Instead, we know things with varying degrees of confidence”. Gavin Schmidt.

          Strike one.

          “…we can’t question anything…”

          All science does is question.

          Strike two.

          What exactly is your question, though? Please don’t tell me is one of those old chestnuts.

          Gonna hit the ball this time?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.5.1.3
          11 March 2013 at 9:46 am

          The science isn’t settled.

          It’s close enough that we should be taking action. As I’ve said before, the IPCC 4 report had it at 90% probability and that’s been proven, in the years since, to be far to conservative.

          Chomsky: Corporations and the Richest Americans Viscerally Oppose Common Good

          There is indeed a controversy: on one side, the overwhelming majority of scientists, all of the world’s major National Academies of Science, the professional science journals, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): all agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, and that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with very severe effects on the possibility of decent human survival.

          It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues.

          True, it is not unanimous. Media reports commonly present a controversy between the overwhelming scientific consensus on one side, and skeptics on the other, including some quite respected scientists who caution that much is unknown – which means that things might not be as bad as thought or they might be worse: only the first alternative is brought up. Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who regard the regular reports of the IPCC as much too conservative: the Climate Change group at my own university, MIT, for example. And they have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately. But they are scarcely part of the public debate, though very prominent in the scientific literature.

          Disgusting isn’t it, people having their own informed thoughts?

          But that’s just it, the deniers aren’t informed and they seem to be doing their damndest to remain uninformed.

    • Murray Olsen 9.6
      10 March 2013 at 9:08 pm

      They apparently know enough to see that Monckton is not a reliable scientific source and that the experts have made their predictions, which should be given some credence. In other words, that science is done by scientists and when the predictions are so bleak, we should all be worried. Not a fail at all, just a demonstration that not all Kiwis are as stupid as you and your WhaleSpew mates.

      • TightyRighty 9.6.1
        11 March 2013 at 8:58 am

        What about the scientists who haven’t reached consensus with the likes of Al Gore (science degree where?) and Hansen? the ones who are still questioning and trying to find the truth? does wayne smith et al know more than them?

        Are we stupid for questioning what we are told to believe? Yes, how dare I be sceptical, how dare I have an independent thought. And you attack pete george for being stupid. Poor little lemming.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.6.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 9:56 am

          What about the scientists who haven’t reached consensus with the likes of Al Gore (science degree where?) and Hansen? the ones who are still questioning and trying to find the truth?

          What about them? they’re there, they’re doing their job. The scientific consensus and the supporting data doesn’t support them or, in quite a few cases, outright disproves what they say.

          Are we stupid for questioning what we are told to believe?

          At this point, as far as climate change is concerned, yes.

          • TightyRighty 9.6.1.1.1
            11 March 2013 at 10:05 am

            You are sounding awfully similar to the catholic church Draco.

            “consensus”, such a funny term. Always makes me remember when everyone thought the 80’s were the best years ever. We can now look back and be certain the consensus was wrong. Same with a flat earth, earth as the centre of the universe, women aren’t intelligent enough to vote, women are the inferior sex, men can’t multi task, men can’t look after children…….you get my point.

            Truth as a result of a majority belief is not truth.

            • One Tāne Huna 9.6.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2013 at 10:20 am

              Where is all the extra energy going, Tighty? You know, the extra energy when we add gaseous dipolar molecules to the atmosphere, thus releasing them into Earth’s magnetic field?

              Hmm. A dipole in a magnetic field. What does that do again? Where’s the extra energy going, Tighty? NASA says it’s warming the planet. What’s your hypothesis?

              • TightyRighty …
                11 March 2013 at 3:12 pm

                I keep repeating i’m not a scientist. But yelling at me about dipolar molecules in the atmosphere isn’t going to make me believe that climate change is human induced? It’s far too ego-centric a theory for my liking. And as one by one the proponents of theory get proven wrong on salient points, or admit that there hypothesis may not be correct, I decide to stop and wait before throwing myself in with the media and the “progressive” elements in society.

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  11 March 2013 at 4:42 pm

                  “one by one the proponents of theory get proven wrong on salient points”

                  Says who? Link or fuck off, tr0ll.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.6.1.1.1.2
              11 March 2013 at 10:31 am

              Truth as a result of a majority belief is not truth.

              That happens to be true in politics as John Keys’ popularity proves but in science it’s the opposite. When the majority of scientists studying something in different, but well tested, ways come to the same conclusion then we can be certain that that conclusion happens to be the correct one.

              It is the difference between belief and fact. John Keys popularity is a belief, anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

              • TightyRighty …
                11 March 2013 at 3:14 pm

                No it’s not. Climate change is definitely a fact, anthropogenic causes of it are looking increasingly shaky, especially as an unproven hypothesis.Why else change the name from global warming to climate change halfway through the battle?

                • One Tāne Huna …
                  11 March 2013 at 4:01 pm

                  [citation needed]

                  And what’s this utter bullshit about “unproven”? If you can’t demonstrate at least a tiny bit of a clue about the scientific method why should anyone pay you the slightest bit of attention?

                  Science deals in probabilities, not proof, you ignoramus.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 March 2013 at 7:59 pm

                  No it’s not. Climate change is definitely a fact, anthropogenic causes of it are looking increasingly shaky, especially as an unproven hypothesis.

                  When it’s better than 90% proved then I think we lay persons can call it fact. And nothing that’s happened over the last few years has done anything to change that increasing probability of the climatologists being right and the deniers wrong.

                  Why else change the name from global warming to climate change halfway through the battle?

                  Didn’t happen – look to the stupid MSM misreporting again.

    • Tony 9.7
      11 March 2013 at 8:59 am

      Warmists?! That’s hilarious. By that do you mean, people? Very few deny climate change, those that do are the ones that should be given a title.

    • Macro 9.8
      11 March 2013 at 11:53 am

      If you bother to go and read who the signatories are; you would find that a very large proportion of them know quite a lot about science – obviously far more than you do.

      • Tony 9.8.1
        31 March 2013 at 2:45 am

        Really? Sheesh. They’re mercenaries mate – sold out scientists. Kind of interesting to have contact with an actual climate change denier though! I thought they were like Big Foot, just a myth…

        NICE TO MEET YOU!

  10. alex 10
    10 March 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Well, at least someone in the rugby community has an environmental conscience. Good on Smith for getting behind this campaign, because as you all point out, now the attention and heat will go on him. The other prominent New Zealanders aren’t really taking much of a risk, given that media attention wouldn’t have materialised.

    (The above comment is in no way an excuse for the shabby media coverage of climate change)

    • RedLogix 10.1
      10 March 2013 at 5:22 pm

      +1.

      Nicely put. As frustrating as the whole charade has been, I’ll take any damn thing at this stage.

  11. infused 11
    10 March 2013 at 5:58 pm

    yawn

    [RL: I’m going with QoT’s concise explanation here. Two week ban.]

    • felixviper 11.1
      10 March 2013 at 6:39 pm

      “yawn” as in “yawn there is no climate change” or “yawn” as in “yawn I didn’t understand the post and it made me sleepy”?

      • QoT 11.1.1
        10 March 2013 at 6:48 pm

        Surely “yawn” as in “yawn I want you to stop talking about this so I’m going to be all contradictory and make the effort to post a comment about how much I don’t care in order to shame you into not talking about this.”

        • Jenny Kirk 11.1.1.1
          10 March 2013 at 8:44 pm

          how about just “yawn – I’m bored with all of this,” but does this warrant a ban for life ? ?

          [RL: hs asked for six weeks … I was feeling generous so I gave him all he could possibly want and more.]

    • higherstandard 11.2
      10 March 2013 at 7:44 pm

      yawnity yawn yawn.

      Can I get six weeks ?

      [RL: You’re of no value any more …permanent ban. Don’t come back.]

      • Murray Olsen 11.2.1
        10 March 2013 at 9:17 pm

        I support this action. We don’t need moronic trolls who contribute nothing of value. For the most part, the discussion on this blog is reasonable and informed, even when contributors don’t agree with me. People like hs belong with their vicious slobbering mates on other blogs, where “Must be a dud root” is seen as an intellectual contribution. Or even worse, with Pete George.

        • TightyRighty 11.2.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 8:52 am

          You may not be a troll here, but you contribute nothing of value except sycophantic cheering and the occasional obnoxious rant. take a long look in the mirror and honestly ask yourself if what you contribute is intelligent, especially compared with Pete George. He can at least construct an argument, which is why he is hated on left wing blogs.

          • lprent 11.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2013 at 9:00 am

            …Pete George. He can at least construct an argument, which is why he is hated on left wing blogs.

            That is exactly what he does not do. What he usually does is carp around the edges saying “but if you consider”. He doesn’t construct any argument – he just acts as a simple minded critic. The primary reason appears to be because he usually doesn’t understand what he is looking at and prefers to embrace the ideas of others rather than looking to see for himself.

            See my daily blog post for an example. He looked at the authors here, picked up some moronic stupidity from Whaleoil, and used it to fit his prejudices. When I confronted him with his self-evident stupidity and his own pompous words about how he’d correct errors in his post…. yeah right.

            The guy has about all of cunning of a Baldrick plan.

            • TightyRighty 11.2.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2013 at 9:23 am

              He may not be the most cunning, but he can construct an argument. Just because you don’t like his sources his bulldog tenacity. Didn’t you ban him because he managed to keep to his lines despite the best efforts of twats like mcflock to distract him?

              • bad12 …
                11 March 2013 at 9:45 am

                Methinks it was the other way round, that one got the kick for continually ‘flaming’ Open Mike and dragging any post it’s little pea brain decided to off topic in a continuous bout of ‘me me me’,

                Over a 6 week period it’s comment stream was just a repetition ad nauseum of a school of ‘thought’ thinner than a hairs breadth…

  12. Ad 12
    10 March 2013 at 7:03 pm

    This 100 signatories is the death of the “Greenpeace/Hippie/Foolish Greens/hessian-condom-wearing/dorky catastrophist” slating of climate change that plenty of Whaleoil and Kiwiblog fans can snicker along to.

    Check down that list.These are solid bourgeoisie and haute-bourgeoisie New Zealanders.

    It’s not the only list like this. There’s the Pure Advantage people. The Good Magazine readers. It’s normalising the green core of New Zealand further and further.

    Rugby leadership is absolutely vital if this green core is going to shift the discussion about climate change into something not even National can ignore. They are at the core of New Zealand’s self-identity (particularly as reified through the MSM).

    Smith fronting up for climate change is as important as John Kirwan fronting up for mental illness.
    Feel the earth tilt, people, and salute them!

  13. RedBaronCV 13
    10 March 2013 at 7:53 pm

    If it takes Anton Oliver to get some people to listen to climate change problems then more power to him. He’s supported other like causes.

    Anyway supporting this beats the hell out of Graham Henry supporting Veitch

  14. Murray Olsen 14
    10 March 2013 at 9:23 pm

    Rugby players and coaches will also be affected by a heating planet. I’m happy to see them voicing their concerns about one of the most urgent challenges we face. If it takes them to make the issue real, why weren’t we working on them before?
    As a comment on our cringing media though – fair enough. The reporting was about an ex All Black coach and could have been on the social pages, but Caracas was not built in a day.

    • Macro 14.1
      11 March 2013 at 12:02 pm

      I wonder if it will have any effect on professional rugby players perpetual globe trotting?
      CO2 released into the upper atmosphere from aircraft has a large impact on Global Warming, it takes a long time for it to be sequestered into an ocean for instance.

  15. Jenny 15
    10 March 2013 at 11:18 pm

    Fonterra Cooks the Climate

    Fonterra is the third biggest single consumer of coal after Huntly Power Station and Glenbrook Steel Mill.

    The Dairy industry as a whole, is the biggest user of coal in NZ

    Trend setter, Fonterra plans to dig a brand new open cast coal mine, just south of Auckland.

    Though having owned the land for nearly 20 years, Fonterra were unable to mine it for it’s known coal reserves. Fonterra found they were unable to meet the tight Auckland Regional compliance regulations.

    But it seems, there is more than one way to skin a cat. (or a climate).

    In the creation of the Super City the Southern Auckland boundary which contained Mangatangi, (including the Mangatangi reservoir, the biggest in the country, providing the bulk of Auckland’s drinking water), was moved North.

    Who knew?

    Mangatangi, including the Mangatangi Reservoir, the Upper Mangatawhiri Reservoir and the proposed mine, are all now, in the newly created borough of North East Waikato, part of the Waikato Region where consents are easier to obtain, and compliance regulations far looser than under Auckland Regional governance.

    The prevailing winds are from the West, the Mangatangi Reservoir, in particular, is almost directly down wind of the open cast mine. Coal dust is notorious for being contaminated with heavy metal residues.

    Are the local residents of Mangatangi/Mangatawhiri concerned?

    Yes, they are.

    Should you be too?

    Yes you should.

    Anti-climate change pressure group Auckland Coal Action has teamed up with local residents of Mangatangi and Mangatawhiri to oppose Fonterra’s plans for the new open cast coal mine at Mangatangi.

    They are calling for as many people as possible to make submissions to the Waikato Regional Council.

    You can help.

    Details on how to make a submission are here:

    http://aucklandcoalaction.org/2013/02/28/submissions-on-proposed-new-coal-mine-at-mangatangimangatawhiri/

    Numbers Count.

    If you make a submission, ask for the right to speak to it.

    Remember; NUMBERS COUNT!

    Protect Auckland’s drinking water from coal dust contamination!

    Become a climate change hero!

    Be able to look your grandchildren in the eye!

    Fill in a submission form!

    Address the council!

    This is your chance!

    Have your say!

  16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16
    11 March 2013 at 8:21 am

    Yeah, you never see anything about global warming in the news.

    • Tony 16.1
      11 March 2013 at 8:47 am

      A fire there, a flood there, sure if that’s what you mean? Disasters make news. However there is generally very little science behind it and even less discourse surrounding the environment and the effect industry is having upon it – most of all in our beloved dumbed down little nation.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1.1
        11 March 2013 at 9:11 am

        Nonsense. There is screeching about the end of the world being neigh all over the shop.

        Pop “climate change” into the NZ Herald search engine if you do not believe me.

        • bad12 16.1.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 9:23 am

          Gormless, just a small correction for your ongoing education, the world is not as you put it the bray of a donkey, that’s more you, nor the whinny of a horse as in neigh,

          The word you appear to have sought and failed to find is ‘nigh’…

  17. Craig Glen viper 17
    11 March 2013 at 8:28 am

    Good on Wayne Smith I have always liked him as he is a thinker same with Anton Oliver what they say is usually well thought out sepecially in Olivers case.

    • vto 17.1
      11 March 2013 at 9:53 am

      Yes well I am waiting to see what Anna Guy’s view is on climate change before I form an opinion.

      • Craig Glen viper 17.1.1
        11 March 2013 at 11:52 am

        Arghh ok yup see how my post read after your post vto Im not saying their view on the matter has made me believe in what is obvious Global warming, but touche.

        • vto 17.1.1.1
          11 March 2013 at 4:34 pm

          Heh, wasn’t poking the borax at you cgv, was aimed at the vacuousness of celebrity.

          And doesn’t that really sum it up? I mean, seriously, celebrity this celebrity that – what a bunch of airheads with pretty bloinde bits.

  18. ordinary_bloke 18
    11 March 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Did I get something wrong ?

    I thought rugby was just a game.

  19. NZRisks 19
    11 March 2013 at 9:10 pm

    I am sure it will become “real” when you are on it too, Anthony. I have added my name.

  20. NZRisks 20
    11 March 2013 at 9:12 pm

    I am sure it will become “real” when you are on it too, Anthony. I have added my name.

    Am told this has appeared “twice” which maybe reflects the speed of your site? I pressed the Submit Comment button twice. Must be more patient.