Act thinks the IPCC is scaremongering

65 comments on “Act thinks the IPCC is scaremongering ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   1 April 2014 at 10:54 am

   Don’t worry about ACT, their thinking has already been debunked as absolute codswallop and as such all subsequent thinking of theirs must be discounted to the point of non-existence. Evidence includes;

   the mantra of pricing everything, including health & safety. Witness 29 dead men at Pike River.
   the idea that people make life decisions on the basis of self i.e. greed. Witness short term decisionitis at Pike River leading to financial collapse and 29 men killed.
   the idea that self-regulation works. Witness the global financial crisis.

   .. tra la la …. they just spent six years in a leaky boat … tra la la
2. Pascal's bookie 2

   1 April 2014 at 10:58 am

   “So this may be the price to pay if National gets re elected and gifts Epsom again to Act, a commitment to do nothing further about climate change.”

   Nope. This is what ACT will have to front for if they want a deal with National.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     1 April 2014 at 11:44 am

     +1
   • felix 2.2

     1 April 2014 at 11:39 pm

     +1
3. Rodel 3

   1 April 2014 at 11:04 am

   Norman vs Whyte..was no contest. Norman looked as if he was irritated at having to waste his time pretending to ‘debate’ with Whyte. I don’t think even Epsom / Remuera right wing voters will support this ACT candidate.

   Trying to think of a punnish slogan using the words ,’Hide, Banks’ and ‘Whyte’?
   • Jenny 3.1

     3 April 2014 at 6:26 am

     “I don’t think even Epsom / Remuera right wing voters will support this ACT candidate.”
     Rodel

     The truth is that they didn’t last time.

     The majority of Epsom voters including National supporters did not vote ACT, (even when they were deliberately directed to do so by their leader John Key.) Polling showed Banks was trailing Goldsmith right throughout the campaign, he had to beg Key for his public blessing, which was finally granted at the farcical tea party pantomime. The tea party fiasco proved to be enough to give Banks enough support to edge ahead of Goldsmith.

     But even then, the majority of Epsom voters did not vote ACT!

     What really helped ACT across the line in Epsom was the votes that went to Labour and the Greens.

     If the Greens and Labour had not stood candidates in Epsom, ACT would not have got in.

     And remember that this was before the revelations about John Banks Dotcom Sky City split donations fiddling scandal.

     The majority of the people of Epsom did not vote ACT, they are even less likely to vote ACT this time.

     The strategy for the Left is clear. National is more Left than ACT, Left voters in Epsom would choose National over ACT every time.
     • Rodel 3.1.1

       23 April 2014 at 8:23 pm

       Jenny
       Sorry it has Taken me a while to see your response.

       “The strategy for the Left is clear. National is more Left than ACT, Left voters in Epsom would choose National over ACT every time.”

       Your logic is impeccable and should be publicized more among left voters.
       It may persuade the Epsom Labour friends of mine who couldn’t bear to vote National last time and just stayed home.
4. Bearded Git 4

   1 April 2014 at 11:09 am

   ACT are just looking for publicity which translates into votes. It follows (Micky) that the less posts we have like this on TS the better.
   • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1

     1 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

     I disagree. Not all publicity is good publicity, whatever the naughtiest kid in class thought.
     • Tom Gould 4.1.1

       1 April 2014 at 1:15 pm

       Isn’t this the guy who figures incest is okay? Alongside the moon landing dude, surely would have terminated any serious or rational political career. But not with our juvenile media. No, these boys are players.
       • Richard McGrath 4.1.1.1

         5 April 2014 at 9:36 pm

         I think from memory you’ll find that Jamie Whyte finds incest repugnant but doesn’t think there needs to be legislation banning it, when it involves two consenting adults who are not significantly mentally impaired and who are able to access information about the likely consequences of consanguinity.
     • Bearded Git 4.1.2

       1 April 2014 at 6:18 pm

       The problem is Stephanie that a surprisingly large percentage of people don’t believe in climate change. For instance 23% in the USA on 16th January this year-see this link:

       http://www.livescience.com/42633-climate-change-disbelief-rises.html

       Not sure what the numbers are in NZ but ACT only needs to get a fraction of these nutters to vote for it to get several seats in parliament on the coat-tails of the Epsom electorate. That is why this kind of publicity is good for them and bad for the Left.
       • You_Fool 4.1.2.1

         2 April 2014 at 7:39 am

         Of course the idiots that think that were probably already voting ACT
5. captain hook 5

   1 April 2014 at 11:44 am

   There is two strains at work in the world today.
   The ones who thik its all ok and the ones who think that something needs to be done and soon.
   Only time will tell who is right but in the meantime the people have to put up with lowbrow noo noo heds maquerading as libertarians who are mainly accountants and know nothing except how much anything costs on the day and how to make people pay up for stuff that they dont really need but have been persuaded to buy.
   The thing is everythng has an invisible cost that is considerably larger than the sticker price and with an impact that is not neccesarily visible to the either the maker or the consumer.
   All these impacts on the environment are starting to add up and will come on like a rogue wave with a force that is irresisitible. In the meatime the ACT crew are still busy using economic power to bludgeon others for the psychological satisfaction that it affords them in their semi-privileged position. However like hothouse flowers when the shit hits the fan the useless and the parasites will be the first to go.
   fair is foul and foul is fair.
   welcome to the monkeyhouse.
   • aerobubble 5.1

     1 April 2014 at 3:15 pm

     The climate changes. Its nature, natural. When the Earth last had all the buried carbon we dug up and burned circulating in the atmosphere, the atmosphere was warmer, thicker, and the sun cooler (as stars age they heat up). So of course its not maybe, it scientific fact that we’re screwed. Anyway the fact that the uniformity party for do nothing, ACT has found a intellectual without any… …well.. ..intellect… should surprise nobody, we have had thirty year of the uniform lockstep stampede towards dumb that is Thatcherism. The targeted distortion, dispersion and disruption of any contravening contradiction of their economic one true faith, free markets provide like Midus.
     Such free market bastions as Haiti and Somalia come to mind.

     Its unfathomable why ACT is such a stupid party with such stupid people attached to it…. …no, wait, no its not unfathomable, its historical, they are the conservative lobby who want nothing to change and are given money to produce just that. Those with too much wealth and yet to weak to keep fighting in the market to regenerate. ACT is a contradiction of its ideology and its backers, it would laugh at the people who give it money for being saps, probably does.
6. lprent 6

   1 April 2014 at 1:39 pm

   Act have consistently been scientific morons. What is new?

   It is what happens when you have bullshit con artists wanting to feather their own nests thinking that they know how to think.
7. One Anonymous Bloke 7

   1 April 2014 at 1:47 pm

   I don’t think the voters of Epsom are going to warm to Mr. Unclecousin and his anonymous candidate. Say what you like about Rodney, he’s a personable sort of chap. Mr. Unclecousin just looks uncomfortable.
   • Tracey 7.1

     1 April 2014 at 3:41 pm

     they will votefor kermit the frog if it will give national a pal…
   • Rodel 7.2

     1 April 2014 at 10:28 pm

     Hide personable? He was not. He was disagreeable, unattractive, and selfish. Even ACT members disliked him.
     • Jenny 7.2.1

       3 April 2014 at 6:33 am

       “Even ACT members disliked him.”
       Rodel

       As did the majority of Epsom voters.
8. Tracey 8

   1 April 2014 at 3:43 pm

   bear in mind ACT doesnt know the difference between the weather and climate. the breadth of their ignorance explains charter schools and aucklands super city… no cries of tails wagging dogs though.
9. logie97 9

   1 April 2014 at 3:46 pm

   Key, at a press conference yesterday, indicated that the government is well aware of climate change, and that he personally believes that human beings are influencing it. He went on to say that his government is actively pursuing policies to manage emissions.

   But he then went on to say that in the overall scheme of things NZ is a bit player. When the big polluters take action, changes for the better will happen. He even asserted that he chatted with the Chinese PM over dinner about it. (Wow the things this man chats about (via an interpreter) over dinner, – probably mentions the All Blacks as well…) What would be nice to hear from him is that he has made formal representations.

   Of course Mr Key, as just one citizen of this world, has no more right to produce more than any other person. (but he probably doesn’t see it that way).

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/national/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503075&gal_cid=1503075&gallery_id=142066
   • Tracey 9.1

     1 April 2014 at 3:55 pm

     internal national party polling must show kiwis believe in climate change and potential impact so he is pretending to believe to get back into power to keep doing nothing…
     • logie97 9.1.1

       1 April 2014 at 8:31 pm

       Tracey, what was more disconcerting about the press conference, given that Key now subscribes to anthropogenic global warming (not his words because I doubt he can pronounce them), rather than take steps to implement policies to reverse the damage, he maintains NZ experts are adapting grasses that will survive. So as you were NZ. The man really just doesn’t get it …
   • Jenny 9.2

     3 April 2014 at 6:59 am

     “But he then went on to say that in the overall scheme of things NZ is a bit player. When the big polluters take action, changes for the better will happen.”
     logie97

     What a cheek, telling the Chinese to do as I say, not as I do.

     John Key ignorantly refuses to listen to his scientific advisors.

     This is what Sir Peter Gluckman the chief science advisor to the Prime Minister’s office says on the matter:

     “The collective wisdom of the scientific community is that action is needed now.”

     “New Zealand is a small emitter by world standards – only emitting some 0.2% of global green house gases. So anything we do as a nation will have little impact on the climate – our impact will be symbolic, moral, and political”
     Sir Peter Gluckman Chief Science adviser to the Prime Minister.
     http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/climate-change/

     As Professor Gluckman points out we could and should be a world leader, his words bear repeating.

     “Our impact will be symbolic, moral, and political”

     Now that would have been something to say at the dinner table before the Chinese Premier to make him sit up and listen and make him think I need to keep an eye on little New Zealand.
10. feijoa 10

    1 April 2014 at 5:01 pm

    Tim Groser has been quoted in the DomPost saying it’s not up to central government to do anything about effects of climate change – it’s all for local government to sort out!!!!
    Mind boggling
    • Tracey 10.1

      1 April 2014 at 5:10 pm

      but in auckland central govt IS local govt
    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      1 April 2014 at 8:39 pm

      Unless the National Party doesn’t like what the local government is doing.
11. Bob 11

    1 April 2014 at 5:13 pm

    We don’t need the ETS, we just need to plant pine trees, it fixes ‘Climate Change’ and has been peer reviewed and all, yay for pine trees! http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26340038
    Wait, don’t Labour want to cut down pine trees?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      1 April 2014 at 5:15 pm

      🙄

      The argumentum ad nauseam. How original.
      • Tracey 11.1.1

        1 April 2014 at 5:23 pm

        bobs still laughing and srylands has called his imaginary colleagues over to read it.
        • srylands 11.1.1.1

          1 April 2014 at 6:23 pm

          WTF are you on about?
          • Tracey 11.1.1.1.1

            1 April 2014 at 6:28 pm

            dont be rude
      • weka 11.1.2

        1 April 2014 at 9:22 pm

        Reforestation is a crucial part of any sane response to AGW. I think mixed forest is a better way to go in many places, but certainly we could be letting wilding pines grow into forests in lots of areas where we are currently spraying them ffs. That’s some kind of fucked up shit, poisoning trees in what should be a post-carbon age.
        • mickysavage 11.1.2.1

          1 April 2014 at 9:30 pm

          Yep reforestation would work. The calculation has been made that if a third of the area in the world that has been deforested was reforested then we could deal with the excess CO2.

          New Zealand is doing nothing about climate change
          • weka 11.1.2.1.1

            1 April 2014 at 10:12 pm

            Thanks micky, I’d missed the link that previously.

            The other thing worth keeping an eye on is regenerative agriculture. It’s making some big claims re its ability to sequester carbon by building soil fast. There hasn’t ben a huge amount of good science on this yet, but it’s starting to come out and there are plenty of people doing the actual farming now to show that the soil building techniques are working (faster than conventional ideas about how long it takes to build soil).

            http://conference.bioneers.org/agriculture-and-climate-change-an-interview-with-darren-doherty/

            http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-23/an-anguished-question

            http://www.marincarbonproject.org/science/land-management-carbon-sequestration

            The great thing is that in addition to direct AGW issues, these farming methods create stable food security and build resilient ecosystems (esp in relation to drought), both of which we need given the future.
        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.2

          1 April 2014 at 10:30 pm

          In NZ wilding pines are a weed that will destroy the native forest.
          • weka 11.1.2.2.1

            1 April 2014 at 10:59 pm

            Those wilding pines that affect important native ecosystems should be removed. But wilding pines also grow in many places where there is no forest of any kind, nor important conservation estate, and where reforestation would be a better use of land. I’m talking about areas where pines are being felled or sprayed and no other land restoration is being done. That’s criminal given AGW. I don’t like monocrop pine plantation so much, but I think wilding pines could be encouraged into multispecies forests. So many benefits.
            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.2.1.1

              2 April 2014 at 7:25 am

              Like most living things, they spread without control. For those areas where reforestation would be a good idea then we need to plant native forests.
              • weka …

                2 April 2014 at 9:39 am

                Yes, native ecosystem restorating would be preferable. But there are a couple of points here. One is that NZ as a society is not interested in funding that at this point in time, beyond the bits and pieces we are already doing. So the idea of restoring native forests is wonderful but not realistic in terms of AGW timeframes (or PO ones either).

                The second is that it is far easier to work with nature than against it. It’s true that wilding pines spread, but the reason they are there in the first place is because nearby there are pine trees that have been intentionally planted (including plantation). Unless we are going to eradicate all pines in NZ (hugely irresponsible in an age of AGW), wilding pines will continue to exist alongside other plants and ecosystems.

                Because pines grow so easily, they are an asset in restoring land that has been pushed to its limit. If you look at some of the land around places like Alexandra, it literally won’t grow anything other than pines. Establishing native ecosystems there is extremely difficult (there are good reasons why that land isn’t regenerating itself, some of that is climate, some of it is because of human activity eg overgrazing and soil degradation, some of it is rabbbits etc). That pines will grow there is a good thing. They will change the local environment for the better and in time we could then plant other things more easily.

                I can’t think of any native forest in that area (might be some), although there is conservation estate of other kinds of native ecosystems especially higher up (they have been hugely altered by humans). But most of the anti-wilding pine pressure stems from people’s love of the iconic landscape (the Grahame Sydney effect). That’s important too, but not more important than land care and AGW mitigation. We really don’t have a good perspective on this issue in NZ.
                • weka …

                  2 April 2014 at 9:51 am

                  “it literally won’t grow anything other than pines.”

                  Am going to qualify that. In some places it appears that nothing else will grow now. But in other areas nearby we know that plants that restore land will grow eg broom. Broom is nitrogen fixing, stabilises land, and provides shade for other plants. You still have to deal with the rabbits, but broom is a decent enough way to re-establish native ecosystems. Guess what DOC does on its land? It sprays broom. Some of that is probably warranted in places where there are small native plant ecosystems, but there is also much DOC land where this practice is insane. It’s about cultural attitudes not land care. Fortunately DOC nationally is starting to shift its perspective on this, largely due to places like Hinewai on Banks Peninsula, who have pioneered using exotics as a way of restoring native systems, and research has since been done. But slow, far to slow.

                  If you look at pines as a pest, in isolation, and then target that pest, in isolation, you will use up lots of resources and at best commit to an ongoing cycle of effort and land degradation. But if you look at pines in the context of where they are growing, the whole ecosystem, then the pictures starts to look quite different.
    • logie97 11.2

      1 April 2014 at 5:22 pm

      … yep, probably at a similarly sustainable rate as at present except that they want to put value added to the product, and also encourage its use domestically. What’s the problem in that?
      No where near as carbon dioxide producing as the steel and concrete industries.
    • lprent 11.3

      1 April 2014 at 9:55 pm

      Don’t be silly. Pine trees with a life of what ? 40 years growing time before they’re cut down and start excreting that fossil CO2… Transient and irrelevant. They’re be useful if we planted Kauri and left them to grow for sever hundred years. Of course the Kauri ar dying….

      The problem for your moronic grasp of science is that the carbon cycle is literally thousands of years long before the fossil carbon burnt by you today is sucked into a long-term sequestration naturally. Currently humans have NO ability to sequester fossil carbon in any significiant levels or for long enough

      Best idea is not to burn it in the first place and level leave it where it has been sequestered.
      • weka 11.3.1

        1 April 2014 at 10:14 pm

        I’d be interested in your views on these Lynn

        Act thinks the IPCC is scaremongering
        • RedLogix 11.3.1.1

          2 April 2014 at 7:26 am

          Combine food forests with aquaponics and there is a big part of the solution.
          • lprent 11.3.1.1.1

            2 April 2014 at 2:02 pm

            Not really. It is still part of the active carbon cycle in a time frame of decades..

            Basically if we want to maintain climates at anything like their current levels, then we have to sequester a HUGE amount of carbon that has already been drawn into the atmoshere and oceans and do so in such a away that it doesn’t go back into the atmosphere over the next thousand years or so..
        • lprent 11.3.1.2

          2 April 2014 at 1:54 pm

          Building soils is a good way to sequester carbon, but what you really need is a good flood to lay a thick layer of a fine silt over it to lock it in for a few centuries. Otherwise if it is still exposed to the atmosphere then it will stay in a equilibrium.

          Making peat bogs is better. Problem is that they are so susceptible to climate change causing them to release carbon. Same for soils BTW. You have to be able to store it for thousands of years…

          You have to remember the size and timescale of the issue.

          If we went off and made all of the surplus CO2 at current rates of generation into dry ice before it went into the oceans (bloody dangerous leaving it there), then within decades we’d have metres thick dry ice deposits over most of the land area of the world (and a hell of an energy budget trying to keep it contained).

          The natural CO2 cycle is literally thousands of years long. It hangs around for a long time before it gets stored in shells at the bottom of the sea floor or in fossil “soils”.

          So you have to store it it in something that is inherently unable to react with the atmosphere.

          Growing trees to cope with even a few decades of the fossil CO2 would mean that we’d be covering much of our farmlands with trees right around the world and starving people (who tend not to go quietly). The trees are still exposed to the atmosphere and can go up in CO2 at anytime. I’m sure taht a few people with matches wouldn’t have too much of a problem. How in the hell are you going to stop that happening for the next two thousand years?

          Basically living things are too transient to be of much use unless you first remove human interference out of the equation. I’d prefer not to be removed..

          It is a pointless drop in a bucket unless you first cut the supply of fossil carbon being shunted into the surface volatiles.

          If you want to be depressed, have a look at these two of my favourite links….

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/honey_mitigated_climate_change.html

          This one is pretty old now. Back in 2008, people still thought that it was possible to “store” CO2 in the oceans. I guess they didn’t think that one through..
          http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/carbon-capture.html
      • srylands 11.3.2

        1 April 2014 at 10:20 pm

        “Don’t be silly. Pine trees with a life of what ? 40 years growing time before they’re cut down and start excreting that fossil CO2… Transient and irrelevant. ”

        That is incorrect. Your statement would only be correct if we burned our forests at maturity.

        If the wood is converted to finished wood products the carbon is locked up for decades, even centuries.

        Pine trees that are felled in New Zealand (or die naturally) generally do not decompose completely (resulting in humus, and compacted soils). So the carbon released is less than the carbon sequestered.

        The net carbon emissions for different end uses were all accounted for in determining net carbon credits for emission units under the emission trading schemes of the Kyoto Protocol.

        So in summary, New Zealand’s radiata pine forests make a very significant contribution to emissions mitigation. That is why since 1997 New Zealand Governments have led the way at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in negotiating forest sink rules.
        • lprent 11.3.2.1

          2 April 2014 at 2:06 pm

          It is a temporary patch for less than a hundred years.

          Try and find the volumes of wood that were chopped down from our forests in the 19tn century. Most of it (~80-90%+) has already made it into the atmosphere as it has already been burnt.

          Basically the whole idea of “living carbon sinks” exposed to the atmosphere is just figleaf for fools like yourself. No one with any science background who looks at the carbon lifecycle places any credence on it being particularly useful.
      • Bob 11.3.3

        2 April 2014 at 9:47 am

        Good to see you going on a rant without reading the article I linked too again lprent!
        My comment had nothing to do with cabon cycles, it was around the ‘smell’ of pine trees which lower temperatures locally, add this to Mickeysavages link above around reforestation and we have the beginnings of a solution to ‘Climate Change’ (on the downstream side, work needs to continue on further reducing reliance on fossil fuels). What I am saying is the ETS is a crock of shit and that money should be put into reforestation rather than being used to help 3rd world countries produce more CO2 and exacerbate the problem!
        • lprent 11.3.3.1

          2 April 2014 at 2:22 pm

          I read it. It was clear that science was crap in terms of the total effect.

          It makes no particular difference because it is too far down in the air column to be particularly useful. You notice that they haven’t pointed out how high in the atmosphere these things form clouds and mist? There is a reason for that – it is really low. Therefore its effect is minimal at causing HEAT to be removed from the whole atmosphere when energy has been pouring in from the sun for 10s of kilometres striking molecules of water and air and being converted into heat.

          Basically the authors (or more likely the journo) appear to have confused a low humidity atmosphere as seen over the poles and deserts with a water laden one over a more temperate zone. And the effect of low level ground level clouds in reflecting light compared to weather system higher clouds. It is an effect, but a relatively small one world wide.

          You’ll also find that it has already been estimated into the existing climate models. They may not be able to understand how an effect is reached, but they can model the empirical results from looking at the energy return from satellites.

          Perhaps you should read about the depth of the atmosphere and how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It’d make things clearer for you.
12. tricledrown 12

    1 April 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Pine trees.
    We need a much wider diversity in our timbet industry.
    As we have seen with Kauri dieback and the painted apple moth.
    Having all eggs in a small basket.
    Is dumb and dumber.
    National by focusing on commodity based industries is putting NZs income in a extremely volatile small basket.
    Lead by basket case bankster.
    • weka 12.1

      1 April 2014 at 9:18 pm

      http://foodforest.co.nz/its-possible-its-viable-it-just-makes-sense/
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    1 April 2014 at 10:38 pm

    The hellish monotony of 25 years of IPCC climate change warnings

    But in the words of that great British band The Smiths, you can now stop me if you think you’ve heard this one before.

    That’s because all of the above comes not from today’s blockbuster IPCC report on the impacts of climate change, but from the first one started in 1988 and published in 1990. Much of the science it drew on was older still.

    Just so we can calibrate our memories here, 1990 was the year Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web, Nelson Mandela got out of jail and MC Hammer wore those pantaloons (U Can’t Touch This).

    Now more than 25 years after scientists started compiling that first report, the latest report is similarly alarming – just with added impacts and greater certainty.

    And it’s because of the idiots like National and Act that we haven’t done anything. Hell, even Labour carry some of the blame because they sure as hell didn’t do enough.
14. Murray Olsen 14

    2 April 2014 at 3:26 am

    I’m appalled that Jamie Whyte could have been a philosophy lecturer. I haven’t heard anything from him beyond the level of a Philosophy 101 student after a couple of beers and the first week of lectures, which mainly consist of handing out the reading lists, class timetables, and room schedules. It’s the poverty of philosophy writ large.
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      2 April 2014 at 7:26 am

      +1
15. Philj 15

    2 April 2014 at 7:20 am

    Xox
    But he does have a swanky Proper English accent! Slim pickin’s for a party with crazy and misguided bedfellows. And he has the ‘right’ surname. ..
    • felix 15.1

      2 April 2014 at 7:47 am

      ACT leadership and candidate selection processes operate on first names only.

      However on the internal documentation there is a space after the name where the board may write a short mnemonic relating to the applicant to help them memorise who the person is.

      Sometimes those mnemonics end up on the published material by mistake, usually when someone forgets the brackets. This happened in the cases of:

      Jamie (white)
      Don (brash)
      Rodney (hide!!)
      John (banks)

      True story. You can get Pete to check it if you don’t believe me.
16. irascible 16

    2 April 2014 at 7:30 am

    Well Colin Craig, the well known resident of Planet Key, seems to believe that we don’t have global warming merely the sun shining hotter or colder depending on its mood.

    “Responding to a question from Howick resident Bruce Waller on climate change, Craig says CO 2 levels have risen but whether the sun has a hot day or a cold day “is by far the biggest influence” on the Earth’s climate.

    New Zealand is a small contributor to rising CO 2 levels so it should not play a part in fighting climate change, he says.

    “I think that some people use it as an excuse to start writing a whole lot ….”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9892353/Jones-Craig-meet-the-people
    • You_Fool 16.1

      2 April 2014 at 7:54 am

      Like Jon Stewart said “Damn those thousand-aires conning us with their science to keep their cosy thousands of dollars a year jobs. We should listen to these nice billionaire oil tycoons who have no obvious benefit from not listening to the academics…”
17. tc 17

    2 April 2014 at 7:49 am

    What luddites act are, savvy climate denialists have moved on from shouting down the bvious onto the next meme but good old act eh.

    says alot about the calibre of sock puppett on offer to the hollowmen, maybe stabbing rortney wasnt such a great idea after all.
18. dv 18

    2 April 2014 at 8:03 am

    .I am not sure if this was satire.

    http://imperatorfish.com/2014/03/31/too-much-whyte-noise/

    The message from ACT is that if you’re a small player, you have no business trying to tackle large problems. Leave it to the big boys. They have the power to do something about it.

    It’s a compelling argument. The ACT Party is itself a tiny party, a small player in a parliament dominated by two parties. It holds less than 1% of the seats in Parliament, and regularly registers at or under 1% in the opinion polls.

    What business, then, does ACT have telling the public how the country should be run? Surely the message here is that if you’re small, you should shut up and let the big boys do the talking.

    So will ACT Party leader Jamie Whyte follow his own advice? I don’t want to hear another word from him before the election.
19. Philj 19

    2 April 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Xox
    ACT is the orphan/bastard child begat from Thatcher and … father unknown.

Links to post

1. Drill baby drill - The Standard: posted on 3 April 2014 at 8:20 am
2. National thinks the best approach to climate change is adaption - The Standard: posted on 9 April 2014 at 9:17 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS