It’s sad and pathetic.

Furthermore, it’s a total and purposeful effort to shut down debate on a topic which has not been decided. Just because you can decide for yourselves that CC has happened, it does not mean that we have a universal consensus on CC consensus on CC among scientists, politicians and (heaven forbid) celebrities is not certain, in fact it’s the opposite. There is a direct contrast between the two pools of thought. Just because you herald to belong to one of them does not make what you say to be true, and all who disagree with you “deniers”. This is CC, not the belief in God.

Whilst there are undoubtedly some scientists (and celebrities) who claim that Anthropogenic CC is occurring, but there are also scientists who claim it’s not true. So, what’s your point?

Just because someone has decided to agree in CC, does not mean the rest of the world has to follow suit. In fact, purely because there is disagreement in the scientific community means that we should be careful about how we proceed.

And putting aside the fact that both Smith and Williamson are Nats, whose opinion should the New Zealand public trust more in Parliament, in regards to CC: the Member who is an ex-academic (in art and law); or the Member who graduated with a PhD in agricultural science (whose very doctorate paper was on the carbon cycle)?

I know who I’d trust more. But then, how could I possibly decide that? After all, it’s far more important to score a political point on a sanctimonious blog than to pursue and ratify the truth.

According to the Gospel of “The Standard”, politics will always trump the truth.

This article is very good

“Wow, there’s some defensive posturing here. What’s so hard to understand from the full quote? John Key is suspicious of climate change and isn’t even sure it’s a problem. That sounds like classic denialism to me.”

Tane, you know as well as I do that Key is just playing politics with this one. Just the same as Clark did with smacking and “haters and wreckers”, not to mention “cancerous and corrosive”.

I don’t blame you for taking Key to task over this one, but let’s see you do a piece on Clark’s electioneering before we trust you with being pragmatic.

“Technically John Key said “Kyoto is a complete and utter hoax” – but it amounts to the same thing. The guy has absolutely no credibility when it comes to climate change. Like his astonishing pontificating on the “under class” (which National created with its benefit cuts and union busting in the 1990s) it’s all smoke screen to fool those out in punter land.”

Well.

Tecnically roger nome said “Your money has more spending power in New Zealand vs Australia”. The guy has absolutely no credibility when it comes to understanding spending power. Like his astonishing pontificating on the “average wage” (which he forgets to apply small things like, you know, tax rates to) it’s all a smoke screen to fool those out in punter land.

How’s the recognising that tax rates affect ones disposable income going there, roger? Still having problems with that?

And that is why YOU FAIL.

But lets use your logic, ok, climate change is as bad as the holocaust. What would you say about a country or political party that signs up to a scheme to prevent the holocaust that nobody really thinks is going to work? They sign up, make a whole bunch of promises they have no intention of keeping, say all the nice things, but then does little to stop the holocaust it is certain is coming.

Wouldnt they be enabling the holocaust by wasting precious time and making empty promises? It is even worse than denying the problem*, because at least the deniers dont think it is a problem. The enablers “know” it is, and yet they dont do anything worthwhile about it.

Surely that makes them culpable for the eventual holocaust?

So does that make it fair to call Labour holocaust enablers or even perpetrators?

* lets not forget, holocaust deniers are denying something that is supposed to have happened (their terms), whereas “climate change deniers” deny something that has yet to happen, and, which any reasonable person would accept, may not happen (which is their point).

Also, no chemical reaction is unnatural.

I also am forming a suspicion that Our Dear Leader will now do what seems to have been unthinkable up till now and bypass the RMA to do more Hydroelectric. That too would do wonders for our ability to meet Kyoto targets. She’ll probably be able to get to look decisive in the face of a crisis, rather than be pinged as the source of the problem up till now.

One consolation in the event of this is that the Greens will be torn apart over whether to support or oppose it.

And the only things NZ leads the world in regarding the Kyoto Protocol are: 1) the amount by which we will miss our targets and 2) empty political rhetoric.

Let’s see what people say about what Our Dear Leader is saying NOW about Kyoto, in 10 years time.

Clue: Performance under Kyoto will be in direct proportion to a nation’s WEALTH. NZ’s performance will fall somewhere between France and China, and probably behind Brazil.

Keep this on file and pull it out and look at it once a year, and see if you look like you’re the one who gets the laugh.

djp – can you tell the difference between when a chemical reaction might be natural and/or good and when the smae reaction might be unnatrual and/or bad?

Does the calcium in milk counteract the leeching?

btw did you know that calcium leeching that some scientists predict will happen to coral happens to our bones when we drink milk. Apparently animal protein is acidic (its made up of amino acids after all).

Matthew do you practice at playing dumb or are you just naturally gifted?

Saying that he did is a deliberate lie.

You arent going to convert anyone to your cause by blatantly lying.

If you need to lie to make your point, your point isnt worth the shit it is smeared on the wall with.