- Date published:
10:05 am, December 14th, 2007 - 28 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags: bill english, climate change, john key, phil goff
Here’s a clip that aired last night on TV3.
It shows NZ leading the world in our response to climate change in Bali. To quote the reporter, New Zealand is “…putting words into action… [announcing] ambitious plans to go carbon neutral”.
National on the other hand has no credibility on climate change. They don’t have any real answers. Many of them, including John Key, are climate-change deniers.
As Phil Goff put it in this YouTube clip four months ago, “There are two big issues facing the world. In terms of conflict – Iraq. In terms of wider issues it’s about global warming. In both cases, John Key has got it wrong.”
Evidently Key’s personal ambition doesn’t stretch as far as helping to save the planet.
“[Climate change] is a complete and utter hoax.”
(Hansard, 10 May 2005)
“[I’m] quite worried that policies are going to be driven by this Armageddon mentality that the world has far too much carbon.”
(Investigate, Feb 2007)
“I am a climate change sceptic. There I’ve said it.”
(Ashburton Guardian, 10 Nov 2006 )
“I am not inclined to agree with the Government”s view that there is a scientific consensus on climate change.”
(Wairarapa News, 16 Aug 2006)
“As a politician I am not sure about this climate change story.”
(Hansard, 17 Feb 2004)
All your base can you please tell me why you find it necessary to put climate change in square brackets in your quotation of John Key?
New Zealand is certainly proving to be a world leader in “announcing ambitious plans” to deal with climate change. There is of course the small matter of the ambitious plans never being put into action, but what the hell, it makes for good headlines.
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.
Here’s the full quote:
He’s pretty clearly a climate change skeptic in that quote.
Also check out this link for a swell photo of Bill English in full climate change denial mode: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=123
So if your intent wasn’t to mislead, the quote would actually be
“I am somewhat suspicious of it [climate change]”
While what John Key did or did not say/imply 2 years ago may be of some passing interest, I’m far more concerned about what he says now about climate change leading into 2008.
Good work using the phrase “climate change denier”, and making it sound ever so suggestively like “holocaust denier”.
That should make help make the debate more open…
So, Tane, you quote what Mr Key said in May 2005. That was 2 years ago.
Do you not permit Me Key to change his mind ?
In the world I inhabit, people are free to change their mind – am I living in the wrong world ?
Jesus Tane – you seem to have riled Larry Curly and Mo with this one…
How misleading can you get. You have deliberately conflated a political agreement with an environmental process and then compounded that by effectively saying ‘Oh that;s what he thinks anyway’ to try and cover your deception.
DO helen clark and Phil Goff and other ministers still beleive in closing hospitals and selling off state assets.
Speaking of hypocrisy, what do you think about the Labour govt’s latest plans to sell off assets and schools to private interests? You guys were fairly dead set against such sales last time I looked. Wasn’t selling schools a “faultline issue” for Labour.
carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
botanists put extra CO2 into greenhouses to accelerate plant growth
“[Labour] don’t have any real answers. Many [senior Labour Party officials] … are climate-change deniers.”
Two can play at that game.
What you are doing by persisting with a deliberate misquote is utterly and inexcusably dishonest, Tane.
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.
Rgraham, Mike, I’m sure Key will say whatever the public wants him to, as long as it gets him into power. However, that quote is probably a better indication of his convictions, and also what his policy direction would be if he was in a position to implement any.
djp – it does cause the odd problem though…
Kimble are you talking about the English quote – I’m pretty sure he was talking about his views, that’s why the “I’m” is bracketed.
The quote you gave – did you say that? Bit of a vanity post isn’t it?!
Sounds like someone keeping an open mind to me. If he had said climate change is a hoax, then he would be denying it. But he didnt.
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.
“Kimble are you talking about the English quote – I’m pretty sure he was talking about his views, that’s why the “I’m” is bracketed.”
Matthew do you practice at playing dumb or are you just naturally gifted?
lemsip, Friday afternoon mate. That was so blatantly, clearly, and obviously a pisstake I’m somewhat concerned that you didn’t see it.
Matthew: it certainly does -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#The_1986_disaster
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).
DJP – cool link – I’d never heard of that one…
Does the calcium in milk counteract the leeching?
Phil – considering the implications of climate changge for human lives and welfare, I’m perfectly happy with ‘climate change denier’ haivng conotations of ‘holocaust denier’
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?
Let’s see what people think of what John Key said 2 years ago, in 10 years time.
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.
Oh and I nearly forgot: in there with wealth, is the use of Nuclear energy. I withdraw all my predictions above in the event that NZ goes nuclear.
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.
“I’m perfectly happy with ‘climate change denier’ haivng conotations of ‘holocaust denier’.”
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.
roger nome said:
“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.”
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?
“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.
Guys, come on. You can’t call sceptics of Climate Change “deniers” when they don’t agree with you.
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.