NAct MPs: heckling from “their armchairs”

Written By: - Date published: 3:01 pm, November 12th, 2013 - 128 comments
Categories: aid, climate change, disaster, greens, International, national/act government, russel norman, sustainability - Tags:

Today in the House, leaders of political parties spoke to John Key’s motion on the Typhoon in the Philippines.  Russel Norman read out a statement that was spoken by

Philippines climate negotiator Naderev “Yeb” Saño told the delegation at the 19th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP19) Monday …

There is a report on the Saño speech in an article on Common dreams (as linked above).

Norman’s speech, that was heckled from the government benches for daring to make a “political” statement to such a motion: he was heckled for daring to read a speech calling for urgent action on climate change.

From the Common Dreams article on Saño’s speech:

Saño, the Philippine Climate Change Commissioner, delivered his address during the opening session of the 12-day climate talks in Warsaw, Poland three days after Typhoon Haiyan made landfall, wreaking havoc across his island nation.

“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness,” Saño told the assembly, describing the massive devastation and thousands feared dead following Typhoon Haiyan, the “strongest in modern recorded history.”

“We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw,” he added, appealing to the representatives of nearly 200 countries who assembled in a bid to reach a new agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol that expired last year. Many anticipate the talks will only amount to a 2015 agreement for new limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

“Typhoons such as Haiyan and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to delay climate action,” Saño continued.

[…]

To climate change deniers, or those countries who are less impacted by the effects of global warming and therefore are less motivated to enact meaningful change, Saño challenged them before the Warsaw assembly,  saying, “I dare them, I dare them to get off their ivory towers and away from the comfort of their armchairs.”

But the shameless government hecklers, rather than ponder the seriousness of the situation, just heckled from the comfort of their seats in the House.

Norman called for Saño’s words to be honoured by taking urgent action in response to climate change.

As reported on Common Dreams:

Saño concluded his speech by acknowledging the personal toll of the storm, saying that his family hails from the devastated town of Tacloban where Haiyan made landfall on Friday.

Further impressing the severity of his commitment and the urgency of a climate agreement, Saño pledged to go on hunger strike until “clear progress is made,” saying, “In solidarity with my countrymen who are struggling to find food back home and with my brother who has not had food for the last three days… I will now commence a voluntary fasting.”

The full Saño is included at the above link.

As fender commented:

Not surprising, Key probably informed the Nats that Colin Craig is the new authority on climate change..

[update] Yeb Saño to Russel Norman

I salute you Russel Norman. http://adoptanegotiator.org/2013/11/12/and-they-laughed/ …

128 comments on “NAct MPs: heckling from “their armchairs” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    12 November 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Russell Norman got heckled in the House today, during the speeches to the PM’s Philippine’s motion. Norman was heckled for quoting from a Philippine’s spokesperson’s comments about climate change, and then Norman talked to the issue of climate change.

    [karol: moved the rest of this thread here from open mike – so that the move of Bill’s comment doesn’t put all the responses out of sync]

    [Bill : sorry for mucking up the comments to your post and well saved. Big bashful smiling red smiley. No. I’m not going to attempt to put up an actual smiley and reckon I’m retiring from stressful back-end button pressing for the day]

    [karol: not a problem, Bill. I’ve had similar things happen with moving comments. Keeping a thread together seems to work, though there may be a better way of resolving it. Hope you have a relaxing evening. ]

    • fender 1.1
      12 November 2013 at 2:29 pm

      Not surprising, Key probably informed the Nats that Colin Craig is the new authority on climate change..

    • Bill 1.2
      12 November 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Was he not meant to mention global warming in the context of the typhoon….’cause like, that’s political or something? I mean, are we to imagine or pretend that the typhoon was an unavoidable tragedy that occurred in a vacuum – meaning that empty and meaningless platitudes are appropriate by way of a response?

      What I’m wondering is, that given the apparent ‘totaling’ of the infrastucture, and given that places aren’t being repaired (eg – New Orleans) and given that putting the same infrastructure back would be a waste of bloody time and energy…what are these twats who assume the role of governance actually suggesting be done now?

      A part of me thinks we’re going to see the very rich hop aboard their private jets and the ‘not quite piss poor’ jump aboard commercial flights while whole swathes of people are consigned to a future in a wasteland come refugee camp.

      And scenarios, whereby the rich get out and where the poor are abandoned to waste after storms and such like will play out again and again and again in various parts of the world until….well, until when? Until the private jets run out of landing strips? Until there is nowhere left to run bar places that have little fenced off, heavily guarded and catered to oases existing in a world of flotsam and jetsam?

      I know that image is all a bit dystopic sci-fi sounding. But since we are only at the very beginning of weather responding to climate changes. And since we are ‘locked in’ to a future of unprecedented weather events due to the lag between climate changing and weather responding fully to those changes. And since we all live within and rely upon infrastructures that simply cannot and will not withstand the severity of a whole lot of what’s coming. well, let me put it this way….ten years from now, your town gets ‘knocked over’ by some weather event and all services and supplies are disrupted. Do you really think anyone is coming to rebuild? And do you really think we have the materials and designs to withstand any repeat weather performances in the unlikely event a rebuild occurs?

      • King Kong 1.2.1
        12 November 2013 at 3:33 pm

        Didn’t happen like that after the boxing day Tsunami, why is this different?

        [Umm, the boxing day tsunami was caused by an earthquake. the typhoon was an extreme weather event, which are becoming stronger and more frequent due to climate change. Moron. Eddie]

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.1.1
          12 November 2013 at 3:41 pm

          Frequency. Certainty.

          *I give up. This is supposed to be a reply to KK @ 4.1.1

          [Bill: – Gah. Possibly ‘my bad’. My comment was originally posted in ‘open mike’. And I moved it over here. And there was me thinking it had been so flawless. Oh well.]

        • Bill 1.2.1.2
          12 November 2013 at 3:45 pm

          Yes it did. There are still people living in temporary shelters. And a tsunami, by its very nature affects only coastal strips – not entire swathes of inland or raised areas and the local infrastructure/services they contain and that can then (theoretically) be expanded back into affected areas.

          • karol 1.2.1.2.1
            12 November 2013 at 3:50 pm

            Reply to Bill @ 3.45pm: Not only is it different, but,as you said @ 3.18pm, there will increasingly frequent extreme weather events in the future: with each recovery stretching diminishing resources beyond their capabilities.

            • Tat Loo (CV) 1.2.1.2.1.1
              12 November 2013 at 4:04 pm

              Yep. And expect the extremely wealthy to start retreating into fortified holdouts or fiefdoms as this occurs over the next century.

        • King Kong 1.2.1.3
          12 November 2013 at 3:50 pm

          Sorry, no one sent me the memo that said we only clean up after non climate change events.

          Unlucky my Filipino brothers.

      • infused 1.2.2
        12 November 2013 at 3:38 pm

        Yes… we will rebuild, stronger. Humans have adapted for thousands of years. This is no different.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.2.1
          12 November 2013 at 3:43 pm

          Bravely said Infused. Keep your chin up.

        • Tat Loo (CV) 1.2.2.2
          12 November 2013 at 4:00 pm

          Humans have also died back to a handful of millions on several occasions. The chances of people surviving on this planet longer than cockroaches is approx nil.

          • Rhinocrates 1.2.2.2.1
            13 November 2013 at 12:52 pm

            Actually, despite superficial differences, human beings are astonishingly lacking in genetic diversity, suggesting a bottleneck of about 10 000 individuals about 70 000 years ago. This is often linked to the Toba supervolcano eruption.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_bottleneck

            Change is indeed not a problem and we can adapt. Stopping your car is not a problem either – you can put on the brakes and gently slow down… or you can drive into a concrete wall. The same result will be achieved, but the costs will be radically different.

        • Rogue Trooper 1.2.2.3
          12 November 2013 at 4:47 pm

          Different ecosystem unfolding . Carry on confusing.

      • karol 1.2.3
        12 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

        Bill: Was he not meant to mention global warming in the context of the typhoon….’cause like, that’s political or something? I mean, are we to imagine or pretend that the typhoon was an unavoidable tragedy that occurred in a vacuum – meaning that empty and meaningless platitudes are appropriate by way of a response?

        It shows how tied up the government is with useless protocols and an ideological bubble,over the real demands of NZ and the world. They do the routine thing of making standard statements about providing aid a band aid. Once the devastation of the Philippines disappears from the news, the government will show limited interest in their recovery – let alone in taking proactive precautions and preparations for the future.

  3. gobsmacked 3
    12 November 2013 at 3:12 pm

    It’s a very revealing episode … giving a damn about people versus giving a damn about decorum.

    Lots of ranting on twitter, but the award for Right Wing Moran Speaking Braynes goes to this guy …

    https://twitter.com/BeepeeNZ/status/400080260022009856

    “People more important than climate change”. That’s priceless. Beyond stupid, beyond satire.

  4. King Kong 4
    12 November 2013 at 3:14 pm

    To be consistent, I hope that every time Russell hears someone fart, he writes a strongly worded missive to Watties.

    • gobsmacked 4.1
      12 November 2013 at 3:17 pm

      You do know whose message he was relaying, don’t you?

      • King Kong 4.1.1
        12 November 2013 at 3:22 pm

        Some emotional guy who just had his house tipped over?

        • mickysavage 4.1.1.1
          12 November 2013 at 3:43 pm

          The stupid it burns …

          • Anne 4.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2013 at 4:10 pm

            Lets call the hecklers for what they are… philistines and cretins. And that includes the neanderthal above called King Kong.

            I want to know who they are: who on the govt.benches heckled and jeered. They deserve to be publicly named! Does anyone have an opposition MP mate they can contact and find out then name them here?

            Climate Change is not a political matter. It’s real and the planet is facing a catastrophic future. We have a bunch of ignorant, self serving, brain impaired parliamentarians who apparently don’t give a damm for the future of their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren – let alone the generations beyond that if mankind even gets that far – means they are not fit to be in a place like parliament.

            Name and shame them!

            • Anne 4.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2013 at 4:15 pm

              Edit function on the blink. Last words should read – and that means they are not fit to be in a place like parliament.

            • TightyRighty 4.1.1.1.1.2
              12 November 2013 at 4:58 pm

              Right, so if we are sceptical about the human involvement in climate change we are neanderthals , philistines and cretins. sure to win you support for the policies you believe should be enacted to “prevent” storms.

              Climate was made a political matter, by political parties, like the greens. and by their supporters, who called for a political solution. now the wheels are falling off the movement through a lack of discernible change, we get shrieked at silly hysterical anons like “anne”.

              It’s either a political issue and the greens have a reason for being in parliament, or it’s not and russell norman can fuck off back to aussie. a much bigger polluter than NZ i might add.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                12 November 2013 at 5:05 pm

                a realpolitik issue ackshully.
                ooh, a half-ton of comments, only gets faster from here on in.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                12 November 2013 at 5:44 pm

                You have no claim to skepticism that will survive the most cursory scrutiny, Tighty.

                There is no lack of discernible change. There is a chorous of ignorati jumping on precise words like “significant”, and cherry-picking dates to measure from, while the planet continues to warm.

              • johnm …
                12 November 2013 at 7:35 pm

                Tightyrighty
                You’re an idiot moron of the first degree get lost you stupid beep beep. Anne is more onto it than you’ll ever be.

                • TightyRighty …
                  12 November 2013 at 8:10 pm

                  haha. oooooohhhhhh, you really told me johnm. got a crush on Anne?

                  I feel like i’ve been told by the smelly kid in primary school that i’m a mean meanie for reminding they stink. Like Anne’s hysterical name and shame call and now johnm’s “idiot moron – first degree”

                  Make me a badge you low rent waste of bandwidth

            • johnm 4.1.1.1.1.3
              12 November 2013 at 7:33 pm

              1000% right Anne!

    • greywarbler 4.2
      12 November 2013 at 3:28 pm

      Beans to you King Kong. There’s your acknowledgement for the day so you don’t feel totally bereft bewildered and useless in the world.

  5. infused 5
    12 November 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Nature happens. Simple as that.

    Anything to do with climate change isn’t going to stop Typhoons.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1
      12 November 2013 at 3:50 pm

      Yeah, weather has nothing to do with climate at all. Nothing. Oh no, wait, this just in.

      All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be….

      Kevin Trenberth.

      Ah well, good on you for having such a dogged faith in your personal opinion, Infused. After all, it’s the wingnut way.

      • mickysavage 5.1.1
        12 November 2013 at 3:53 pm

        And this from NBC News:

        Experts say Typhoon Haiyan was about as strong as it could theoretically get when it swept through the Philippines, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. But intensity limits have been rising over decades past — and climate models suggest they will keep rising over the decades to come, with the potential for bigger and more devastating storms.

        Of course there is nothing to fear or worry about and we can continue to trash the environment without concern …

        http://www.nbcnews.com/science/typhoon-haiyan-pushed-limit-bigger-storms-are-coming-2D11577486

      • alwyn 5.1.2
        12 November 2013 at 4:25 pm

        On the other hand there was this from the New Scientist of 21 September.

        “It’s been a slow season for Hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. The first one, Humberto, formed just last week and quickly fizzled out before it got anywhere near land”.
        As an update to this on October 24th we had a news story that the Atlantic Hurricane season of 2013 is the quietest in 45 years.
        http://news.yahoo.com/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-45-years-experts-170425159.html

        So, we appear to have serious hurricanes from global warming in the Pacific but unusually benign conditions in the Atlantic because of global warming. Odd indeed.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.2.1
          12 November 2013 at 4:27 pm

          Gosh. Different weather in different parts of the globe, all affected by climate. Amazing!

        • Anne 5.1.2.2
          12 November 2013 at 4:44 pm

          That is the pattern of global weather Alwyn. In a nutshell, one hemisphere (or part there-of) can experience moderate to mild weather patterns while the corresponding hemisphere (or part there-of) is being bashed about by storms and other extreme weather events. You see, nature tries to balance all things out one way or another. That is why we have cyclones and anticyclones – one counters the existence of the other. Indeed one can’t exist without the other.

          The problem we have is that mankind is doing its dammdest to bugger up that balance and succeeding alarmingly well.

          • alwyn 5.1.2.2.1
            12 November 2013 at 7:47 pm

            Do you have a reference that explains this? I find it hard to see any causal reason for different hemispheres to have complementary weather and I would be fascinated to see an explanation, or even evidence without an explanation for it occuring.
            Cyclones and anti-cyclones do not counter each other except in the trivial fact that one is a spot with high pressure and one with low pressure. A cyclone does not “cause” an anticyclone to be created.

            • Anne 5.1.2.2.1.1
              12 November 2013 at 9:09 pm

              Alwyn you have little comprehension of, or knowledge of meteorology because if you had, you would appreciate my discourse was aimed at the lay person which you obviously are…

              A cyclone does not “cause” an anticyclone to be created.

              In actual fact the physical properties that come together to form a cyclone will eventually produce an opposite process in an aligned region. That’s why they’re called cyclones and anticyclones.

              a spot with high pressure and one with low pressure

              lolz.

              • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                13 November 2013 at 5:59 am

                In actual fact the physical properties that come together to form a cyclone will eventually produce an opposite process in an aligned region. That’s why they’re called cyclones and anticyclones.

                Just…wow.

            • alwyn 5.1.2.2.2.1
              12 November 2013 at 8:47 pm

              I’m not sure whether you are answering me or not, as you appear to be replying to Anne’s comment.
              If you are suggesting this to me however this has nothing to do with what Anne is proposing. She is saying, as I read her, that the weather over in the Western Pacific is paired with the weather over the Western Atlantic, which is very nearly on the other side of the world. The link you give is for the weather a bit north and south of the equator, but otherwise fairly close together.
              Her hypothesis is rather like the 17th century view that there had to be a great southern land mass to balance Europe etc with a land mass in the South Pacific.
              If you weren’t talking to me please excuse this comment.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                12 November 2013 at 9:12 pm

                you may be excused as one of the better contrasts in the box of crayons. Always worth scribbling through imo

              • joe90 …
                12 November 2013 at 9:15 pm

                Just a hint that the convergence zone oscillates latitudinally affecting weather longitudinally – what occurs in the Pacific doesn’t necessarily correspond with events in the Atlantic.

                (shuts eyes re cyclone/anti-cyclone)

                • Rogue Trooper …
                  12 November 2013 at 9:23 pm

                  I smiled 😀

                • Anne …
                  12 November 2013 at 9:32 pm

                  – what occurs in the Pacific doesn’t necessarily correspond with events in the Atlantic.

                  Correct.

                  My use of the word hemisphere was in its broadest sense. Was not meant to be north and south.

              • Anne …
                12 November 2013 at 9:17 pm

                the weather over in the Western Pacific is paired with the weather over the Western Atlantic,

                Bollocks. I didn’t say anything of the sort. Indulging in your usual cock and bull spin…

                Slink back under your bridge Alwyn where you belong.

                • alwyn …
                  13 November 2013 at 11:01 am

                  It is very hard, when reading your original comment, not to interpret it as saying precisely that Anne.
                  When the original comment, to which I was replying connected the Phillipines cyclone to climate change I was merely pointing out that, if this was the case, why did it not also happen in the Caribbean, where precisely the opposite weather appeared to be happening. One would expect a glabal effect such as climate change to have similar results everywhere.
                  Your response to this was to inform me that “Nature tries to balance things out”. I, and I’m sure most people would interpret that, in light of the material you were supposedly replying to as saying that Nature was causing calm weather in the Caribbean to “balance” out the wild weather in the Phillipines (or the other way round if you wish).
                  You tell me that was not what you said at all. Fine, I’m take your word for it even if the way you expressed it says the opposite.

                  • Anne …
                    13 November 2013 at 6:33 pm

                    most people would interpret that, in light of the material you were supposedly replying to as saying that Nature was causing calm weather in the Caribbean to “balance” out the wild weather in the Phillipines

                    Most people you say. Well, if they are BM, Tighty Righty, King Kong and Alwyn clones then Yes, you’re probably right. But if they are informed and have a bit of knowledge of the related sciences, then the answer is NO. They would know I was saying nothing of the sort. You actually show how ignorant you are on this subject. Suggest you stick to subjects you know something about. Or own up to what you are really doing… tr–ling.

      • infused 5.1.3
        12 November 2013 at 4:40 pm

        read what I said douche bag. I said it’s not going to “stop” them.

    • Anne 5.2
      12 November 2013 at 4:23 pm

      Yep. Nature is telling us loud and clear:

      STOP TRASHING THE PLANET OR ELSE…

      Bigger and more horrendous typhoons and hurricanes is just for starters, and they will occur with ever increasing frequency.

      Yet another pea brained cretin.

      Edit: this is a reply to infused above.

      • King Kong 5.2.1
        12 November 2013 at 4:28 pm

        So what was nature telling us with all the violent storms that happened before we invented climate change?

        • Naturesong 5.2.1.1
          12 November 2013 at 4:39 pm

          I disagree that “Nature” tells us anything.

          The phrasing of your question reveals your bias. We did not invent climate change.
          We (meaning geeks, academics, scientists; folks who spend their lives chipping away at the frontier of ignorance) noticed a trend in both temperature averages and extreme weather events. A trend significant enough to warrant additional research. And as we have done more research and gathered data over the last 40 years it all points in the same direction, rising water levels and greater frequency of extreme weater events.

        • infused 5.2.1.2
          12 November 2013 at 4:43 pm

          Exactly. Your all acting as if hurricanes and typhoons suddenly started 10 years ago.

          This has been happening for hundreds of years. The reason why it’s worse now is because of population growth. More people being affected.

          • Richard Christie 5.2.1.2.1
            12 November 2013 at 5:18 pm

            Having children makes the wind blow harder.

          • North 5.2.1.2.2
            12 November 2013 at 10:26 pm

            Yes, Confused @ 5.2.1.2, population growth. Pause. Think about it. Population growth. And all that flows from it.

            You and King (Canute) Kong and BM. What else do you idiots do for recreation ? Other than trolling on TS and driving your unfortunate near ones to distraction.

            Hide behind the hedge with your slug gun gleefully shooting sparrows ?

          • Rhinocrates 5.2.1.2.3
            13 November 2013 at 1:02 pm

            Frequency and severity is the issue.

            Really, I cannot imagine that someone would actually, honestly be so stupid.

          • Tracey 5.2.1.2.4
            13 November 2013 at 1:15 pm

            hundreds of years? You believe the world was created 6000 years ago infused?

        • Rogue Trooper 5.2.1.3
          12 November 2013 at 4:53 pm

          and you can be correct at times also; yes, we did invent climate change. Well said Cheetah.

  6. Naturesong 6
    12 November 2013 at 4:21 pm

    One of the blogs I follow is Actuarial eye. It’s written by one of Australias leading actuaries.

    I’m reminded of a post she did several years ago about the effects of climate change and how warming temperatures increase the likelyhood of extreme weather events.
    At that time she was writing about the heat wave that Australia was experiencing, however her explanation goes further into extreme events in general. It’s quite a scary picture.

    How does climate change affect extreme weather events?

    You don’t need complex models of extreme weather events following climate change to realise that extreme events become much more frequent if the average temperature moves up a little bit. But complex models of extreme weather events suggest that the extremities move even further than a very simple normal distribution would suggest.

  7. gobsmacked 7
    12 November 2013 at 4:32 pm

    But the real point here is not that some fools deny climate change.

    It’s that John “I believe in climate change, I always have” Key and his MPs are not arguing against the reality of climate change, they’re arguing against saying so out loud.

    That’s Russel’s ‘crime’ here. That’s why the Nats are so angry. He’s exposing the hypocrisy, not of the climate change denier, but those who pretend they believe and care, while doing bugger all.

    • Rogue Trooper 7.1
      12 November 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Yup amigo. ( All Quiet on the Western Front )

    • Naturesong 7.2
      12 November 2013 at 4:56 pm

      The National Governemt is not doing bugger all. They are doing quite a lot.

      Open cast mine in Denniston Plateau.
      Open cast mine for Fonterra near Mangatawhiri.
      Deep sea drilling consents granted and drilling to commence near Oamaru and Taranaki first up.

      All in spite of those rabid commie hippy institutions; OECD and the World Bank. OECD calling for fossil fuel subsidies to be removed

    • Anne 7.3
      12 November 2013 at 5:48 pm

      gobsmacked outs one of the pea brained NAct parliamentary cretins who heckled… TAU HENARE.

      He’s exposing the hypocrisy, not of the climate change denier, but those who pretend they believe and care, while doing bugger all.

      I repeat what I said at 4.1.1.1.1
      We have a bunch of ignorant, self serving, brain impaired parliamentarians who apparently don’t give a damm for the future of their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren – let alone the generations beyond that if mankind even gets that far – and that means they are not fit to be in a place like parliament.

      • Bill 7.3.1
        12 November 2013 at 5:54 pm

        Oh, I don;t know if they are so much ‘ignorant, self serving etc…’ so much as accomplices in crimes against humanity. Or is it not a crime against humanity to insist that people continue to act in ways and to do things and to use things that will result in the deaths of millions? If it’s not, then what is it?

        • Anne 7.3.1.1
          12 November 2013 at 6:24 pm

          Hi Bill

          Oh, I don;t know if they are so much ‘ignorant, self serving etc…’ so much as accomplices in crimes against humanity.

          Not a lot of difference in my book. 😈

          Courtesy of TV3. Here’s the names of a few more of the cretins:

          BILL ENGLISH, JAMIE LEE-ROSS, PAULA BENNETT.

          Others approached said:

          It wasn’t that they’re against Climate Change, but that Russel Norman used it for political purposes.

          On the one hand they’re not against it (like it was some ideological viewpoint akin to walloping children) but rather the person who was trying to point out the seriousness of the obvious… was the one supposedly being political.

          The stupid, it hurts.

      • karol 7.3.2
        12 November 2013 at 5:57 pm

        And from gobsmacked’s link above, Shane Jones agreed with Henare. Maybe Jones should just join National?

  8. Ancient Ruin 8
    12 November 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Given the climate will change, be it under the influence of humans or otherwise (insert your preference and corresponding rate of change here) it seems sensible to be adaptable to whatever is thrown at you rather than sticking with the status quo. That’s what gets me – arguing that its natural is no defence for not being prepared (and prepared to do something now)…

    • Rogue Trooper 8.1
      12 November 2013 at 5:01 pm

      it’ll be the ruination of us all .

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      12 November 2013 at 6:08 pm

      “That’s what gets me – arguing that its natural is no defence for not being prepared (and prepared to do something now)…”

      Right, but that’s the core of it. If it’s man-made, and man-made because of emitting millions of tons of CO2, then part of the solution is necessarily going to be reducing emissions.

      But if it’s natural, and CO2 emissions don’t matter (which is what the deniers, fundamentally backed by the fossil fuel industries, are saying), then we can keep on with the same level of CO2 emissions we have now and look at other actions we can take to reduce the impact of climate change.

  9. ghostrider888 9
    12 November 2013 at 5:22 pm

    “Fine words can be sold
    honoured acts can oppress people”.
    -62

  10. North 10
    12 November 2013 at 6:42 pm

    How bloody outrageous of Russel Norman to rain on the parade of ShonKey (Little Churchill) Python by quoting a Filipino of note. Damn ! As Little Churchill laid further narcissistic claim to global statesmanship (vomit) ?

    Anyone who is not instantly compelled to clutch the pearls need only listen to the vulgar smoko-room squawk of the bloated, koretake, troughing, kupapa of the North, pissed-on-the-List, the thick Tau Henare – TV3 News tonight.

    My God how devilish are these Greens please ?

    • BM 10.1
      12 November 2013 at 7:04 pm

      My God how devilish are these Greens please ?

      They are a 10%, poopy party.
      I fart in their general direction.

      • North 10.1.1
        12 November 2013 at 9:54 pm

        You are a fart. You demonstrate it on a daily basis. All malodorous gas and no substance. No morals too it would seem. A selfish, goonish, ShonKey Python cargo-cultist. Karma will get you. I will applaud.

  11. Anne 11
    12 November 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Thanks North.

    Together with my 7.3 plus 7.3.1., I think we’ve nailed it.

  12. charles kinbote 12
    12 November 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Its good to have the Climate doctrine dogma preached by Norman. This way the media can see here just what will follow from a socialist Government. Is there any body from the religious branch of Science here who reads the complete screw ups the Bureaucratic IPCC is making. No such thing as medieval warming, the j curve applies here, but not there.Rings in trees signify growth here but hide this stuff over there, pure ideaology. Those of us who are socialists and sociologists are better qualified . Doubt is ignorance. Skepiticism is ignorance . We have science and we have IPCC science. One has the objective of fact finding the other fund finding

    [karol: You are on a warning – see here.

    Continuing with this line of comment also puts you on a warning for a banning]

    • Zorr 12.1
      12 November 2013 at 10:24 pm

      Citations from publications required

      kthxbye plonker

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.2
      12 November 2013 at 10:40 pm

      Gosh! I’m completely convinced by your expertise and sincerity, Charles, but I find these “science” types to be sticklers for accuracy. Would you might citing the IPCC AR5 references your witless drivel relies on?

    • gobsmacked 12.3
      12 November 2013 at 10:50 pm

      Hi Charles

      When John Key says “I firmly believe in climate change, and always have” … is he a fool? Or is he lying? (or both?).

      Do you agree with him, or not? I reckon he’s bullshitting, but do you believe him?

      http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/1714-NZ-committed-to-addressing-Pacific-climate-change.html

      PS I’ve noticed you tend to dump and run in these discussions. How about engaging in debate? It’s only polite, and you guys are big on politeness, right? Not like that scoundrel Dr Norman.

  13. Lloyd 13
    12 November 2013 at 11:21 pm

    The main influence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more on the sea than on climate.

    The oceans are becoming more acid because water absorbs carbon dioxide and this becomes carbonic acid, like fizzy drinks. Acidity affects sea life and we may find shell-fish off our menu well before we are swimming up Lambton Quay. Maybe Russell Norman would have more impact on the morons who think global warming is political if he tells them their oysters may run out rather than telling them they are killing Phillipinos.

    The second effect of increasing greenhouse gases is warming of the seas, which is more definite than any atmospheric effects. It is interesting that warm seas are the source of hurricanes. Warmer seas can obviously make stronger hurricanes.

  14. charles kinbote 14
    13 November 2013 at 1:35 am

    sorry to be witless people .I couldn’t tell a joke as well as Bill 1.2, 12 November 2013 at 3:37 pm

    ” Was he [ Norman ] not meant to mention global warming in the context of the typhoon….’cause like, that’s political or something? mean, are we to imagine or pretend that the typhoon was an unavoidable tragedy that occurred in a vacuum – meaning that empty and meaningless platitudes are appropriate by way of a response?
    “”
    haha yes thats right Bill joker, all disaster are caused by climate.
    Its really bad Bill, if those bloody Australians had kept paying the carbon taxes, there would have been no bush fires.
    I will deal with the tree rings shortly believers, you know that stuff where trees grow slow in the cold like the medieval times hidden agenda, Now remember no dirty words believers we are not used to blaspheming believers .

    [karol: You are on a warning – see here.

    Continuing with this line of comment also puts you on a warning for a banning]

  15. charles kinbote 15
    13 November 2013 at 1:42 am

    Believers, believers come see the magic . I will set up a blog site now.
    We will deal with Co2 first. Now you do know that Co2 has been at very low levels for the last few thousand years, don’t you believers. You do know that in Church don’t you.
    CO2 at huge levels right in those ice ages believers , graphics tomorrow socialists .

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1
      13 November 2013 at 6:27 am

      How do you know anything about CO2 levels? Have you been listening to those “scientists” again? I thought you said they were lying or something.

  16. charles kinbote 16
    13 November 2013 at 4:21 am

    Here you are Truthers, billions of tons of CO2 evidence , put glasses on, and don’t worry if you reject Science and stick with religion, so does IPCC. anyway if you don’t like this evidence well we have more.
    believersnz.blogspot.com

    [karol: so you have given a url for your own (hastily set up) blog. It has a copied image and a graph (no citation) on it, and no explanation. You’re taking the piss!

    Instead of just a link whoring excuse for citing evidence, try making an actual argument here, citing relevant and specific evidence. Otherwise any more comments from you on this thread will be deleted.

    Your style of argument on this thread so far is pretty abysmal, showing you understand zilch about climate change, and no willingness to seriously engage in discussion]

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 16.1
      13 November 2013 at 6:29 am

      Better make sure the source of your CO2 evidence isn’t a paleoclimatologist or you’ll look a bit foolish.

    • Rhinocrates 16.2
      13 November 2013 at 1:13 pm

      karol, I am astonished that you can make sense of that gibberish – it’s like Dada poetry.

  17. Paul 17
    13 November 2013 at 6:21 am

    Audrey Young from the Herald sides with the deniers.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11155991

    “Norman’s climate change lecture strikes the wrong note.
    Then it was the turn of Greens co-leader Russel Norman, who clearly decided he was not going to let this crisis go to waste, as the saying goes.
    Instead of his own speech, he quoted extensively from Yeb Sano, the head of the Philippines delegation at UN climate change talks in Warsaw.
    It was like getting a long lecture on cigarette-smoking instead of a eulogy at the funeral of someone who had died of lung cancer.”

    Shame on her.

    • chris73 17.1
      13 November 2013 at 7:22 am

      Good on her for writing what most of us are thinking

      • Paul 17.1.1
        13 November 2013 at 7:25 am

        I’m not thinking that Chris.
        I’m thinking what a leper NZ is becoming in the world thanks to the ‘me me me’ views of people like you.
        And aren’t you so clever copying the Conservative slogan? That’s all the right wing have…slogans.

      • framu 17.1.2
        13 November 2013 at 7:31 am

        for gods sake “shes just saying what everyones thinking” has to be the most thick witted moronic position to take on ANY subject

        Its the standard bearer of the anti thinking crowd – do you like belonging to the group that doesnt exercise any critical thought whatsoever?

        1) you have no idea what everyone is thinking and you mark yourself a fool to claim you do
        2) people should have a good argument, and the defense of it is that the argument is sound – not “heaps of people totes agree with me”

      • Tracey 17.1.3
        13 November 2013 at 11:02 am

        why do people right of the political spectrum always think that what they and their friends think is shared by everyone?

        A myth is a myth no matter how many of your friends believe it.

        • Rhinocrates 17.1.3.1
          13 November 2013 at 1:09 pm

          Put nicely by Anatole France,

          If forty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anatole_France

          To paraphrase, if forty foolish people claim that forty million silently think it, then it is an extremely foolish thing.

        • photonz 17.1.3.2
          14 November 2013 at 1:10 am

          Tracey says “why do people right of the political spectrum always think that what they and their friends think is shared by everyone?”

          Why do people on the left think that ONLY people on the right do that?

    • newsense 17.2
      14 November 2013 at 12:08 am

      oops missed this.yep. shame

  18. Craig 18
    13 November 2013 at 10:58 am

    Thirty years ago, in a situation of similar gravity, why do I suspect the same climate change denialist National Party MPs would have been nuclear winter sceptics?

    • Tracey 18.1
      13 November 2013 at 11:04 am

      30 years ago the right claimed the economy would collapse if we went nuclear free… cos the US would hate us

  19. Craig 19
    13 November 2013 at 11:01 am

    And some of them are quoting Brendan O’Neill, a seriously weird UK ex-Trot turned mad neoconservative opponent of social democracy and green politics…

  20. newsense 20
    13 November 2013 at 6:12 pm

    From Audrey Young:

    “It was like getting a long lecture on cigarette-smoking instead of a eulogy at the funeral of someone who had died of lung cancer.”

    Nope. More like it was sharing an empassioned speech against tobacco by the brother of the man who died, calling for action and being shouted down by Philip Morris apologists.

  21. photonz 21
    14 November 2013 at 1:20 am

    World News Australia reports
    “In its most recent assessment on global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there were no identifiable long term trends when comes to tropical cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons.”

    The funny thing is, if anybody else says exactly the same thing as the IPCC, they get called climate change deniers.

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      14 November 2013 at 1:24 am

      Links mate or it didn’t happen.

      Meanwhile, back to sanity:

      Global temperatures are almost half a degree Celsius above the long-term average so far in 2013, putting this year on course to be among the 10 hottest since records began, the world’s leading meteorological agency says.

      In a provisional statement on the global climate in 2013, the World Meteorological Organisation says the first nine months of this year tied with 2003 as the seventh hottest such period on record.

      The statement was released in Warsaw on Wednesday where countries are meeting for the latest round of negotiations on a new treaty to tackle global warming.

      In Australia, temperatures are on track for the hottest year on record. Australia’s temperatures from January to October were 1.32 degrees above average, which annually is 21.8 degrees.

      http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-heat-headed-for-record-20131113-2xgxd.html

      • photonz 21.1.1
        14 November 2013 at 2:09 am

        Colonial Viper says “Links mate or it didn’t happen.”

        Is there any point? I’ve linked to well know things like the Auckland blackouts, and the Post Office running down telecom when it was govt owned, and you just say they’re lies.

        If you know what google is, you can search the quote and you’ll find it thousands of times – take your pick.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 21.2
      14 November 2013 at 5:02 am

      The funny thing is, when people only want to discuss the things IPCC is uncertain of, while ignoring multiple lines of evidence, they get called climate change deniers. FIFY

  22. charles kinbote 22
    14 November 2013 at 1:32 am

    truthers, believers,
    I have put up the evidence where the IPPC slipped and slopped around the slope to warm it up.
    Also the trick [ ‘trick’ just a little IPCC euphemism for dishonesty ] they used to censor out the medieval warm, by throwing in oscillations . Go over to the graph, it is self explanatory when you look at it. Yes do pop over there truthers , and if there is not enough evidence for the hocus pocus, well there is more. lots more .
    believersnz.blogspot.com

    I am deeply ashamed to upset Karol of course
    < I know you all have climatology degrees and better, .

    "heres Karol in big bold letters …
    [karol: so you have given a url for your own (hastily set up) blog. It has a copied image and a graph (no citation) on it, and no explanation. You're taking the piss!

    Instead of just a link whoring excuse for citing evidence, try making an actual argument here, citing relevant and specific evidence. Otherwise any more comments from you on this thread will be deleted.
    Your style of argument on this thread so far is pretty abysmal, showing you understand zilch about climate change, and no willingness to seriously engage in discussion]
    and
    karol: You are on a warning – see here.

    Continuing with this line of comment also puts you on a warning for a banning]

    Hey I have an idea Karol, you tell me what to say and I'll try to write it

    [karol: if you are only capable of repeating what other people say without understanding, and not of looking at the evidence and using it as the basis for a reasoned argument, you’d be better not to write anything.]

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 22.1
      14 November 2013 at 4:41 am

      All this must be true, which makes it a complete mystery as to why the only people who will take you seriously are the Tea Party 😆

    • lprent 22.2
      14 November 2013 at 7:39 am

      Science is about uncertainty. An entire branch of maths (statistics) was built to deal that. You will find that assessment of uncertainty through the entire IPCC report including the definitions of exactly what they mean when they say “likely” etc..

      I realise that you are a slave to some kind of absolutist faith which leads you to be known mostly for parroting other people’s words. Perhaps if you actually read the IPCC reports first section you may gather an appreciation for how honest and smart people handle uncertainty and risk. They measure the level of it.

      It may help you with understanding your fear of measured honesty.

      In the meantime I suspect most of the people here will continue to regard you as being a prattling fool who is less concerned with the science, and more interested in a simple denial based mostly on deliberate misinterpretation of anything that isn’t a simple assertion of absolute faith.

  23. knuckle teamd 23
    14 November 2013 at 9:49 pm

    I would like to see the collective qualifications in Science [ if any] of the Standard team

    [lprent: Permanently banned troll under many names…. Now due for the treatment given to the real fuckwits of the internet ]
    .

    • lprent 23.1
      15 November 2013 at 5:31 am

      Ah how? You want to come and examine my Earth Science BSc from 1981? And qualifications merely a good starting point for science..

      But I think that there is a better starting point. You should have to prove that you can understand some basic science before we have to waste our valuable time on a illiterate moron who probably couldn’t understand something as basic as clay slippage morphology.

      Perhaps you should convince us that you are not simply a knuckle dragging moron. For instance by finding and clearly understanding something in the IPCC. Umm first year stuff – what about the isotope indicators in fossil calcium shell debris from ocean cores for sea temperature? Nice and easy first year stuff from 30 years ago in quaternary geology…

      But we all know how this is going to turn out. You’re going to whine and whinge about how that bad old man wanted you to prove you can think…. Adding you to auto-spam. When I have time I will see if you can.

      BTW: I’m not a “team” player… I just like persecuting fuckwit trolls. Please read the policy especially the sections about targeting authors, attempts on privacy, and how much I despise whining fuckwits like you.

    • Murray Olsen 23.2
      15 November 2013 at 7:26 pm

      You wouldn’t even understand the title of either of my theses, knuckle dragger. What you’d like to see is irrelevant. Anyone who knows anything about any branch of science knows whether someone else is worth taking seriously within the first couple of lines they write. You aren’t.