Shame on you

77 comments on “Shame on you ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   26 November 2009 at 12:52 pm

   What gutless person wrote this tripe and couldn’t even give us his fake name to go by.

   [lprent: Why would you need it? Just debate the points in the post if you disagree.
   To divert into wanting names is irrelevant and really just shows the paucity of your own opinions. ]
   • Daveo 1.1

     26 November 2009 at 12:55 pm

     ‘gingercrush’
     • gingercrush 1.1.1

       26 November 2009 at 1:06 pm

       Yes ok fine. Name: Conrad Lake. Age: 26. Lives in Christchurch.

       My whole point was that this post doesn’t even have a fake name one can attribute it to.
       • snoozer 1.1.1.1

         26 November 2009 at 1:09 pm

         who gives a toss, gc?

         Look to me like you’re afraid to actually challenge the points made in the post.

         Great post, mysterious stranger!
       • felix 1.1.1.2

         26 November 2009 at 2:40 pm

         No-one cares about your name, ginge.

         We go by the quality of your argument. And it appears you don’t have one today.
   • Bright Red 1.2

     26 November 2009 at 1:07 pm

     you’re a pathetic little monkey aren’t you gingercrush.

     you don’t have the brains or the balls to engage in the substance, perhaps there just is no argument to counter what the guest poster writes, so you attack the person.

     Yeah, and I know I am attacking you personally… but what else is there? No substance, no thought, no analysis, just an angry little tool of the capitalist elite.
   • Nick Jolliffe 1.3

     26 November 2009 at 1:08 pm

     Ginger, I dont know who wrote this (and dont particularly care). What I can say using my own name is that the author is 100% correct. National and the Maori party are a disgrace.

     PS dont bother answering without your real name.

     [lprent: If I see another one of these ‘real name’ conversations, I’ll just start banning left, right, green or centre. It is a stupid tactic that I’m tired of. If people choose to use real names, it is against my advice, and done at their own risk. However it is not a topic of discussion. Argue on the opinions.

     On this site there is exactly one persons name that is required to be visible, that is mine, to register the domain. ]
   • Draco T Bastard 1.4

     26 November 2009 at 3:23 pm

     The name doesn’t make a difference to the truth and the truth is that National have been lying to us, have passed legislation that will do us harm and have shown themselves to be completely incompetent. All of which our PM is “relaxed” about.
2. bobo 2

   26 November 2009 at 2:02 pm

   Hillary Clinton maybe? but yeah the gist of it is true, Nact might be going up on a bonfire if they carry on with slapshit, poorly thought out government once these policies start to bite the general public. Anyone mentioned foreshore lately or is that policy replacement on hold for another year until Nact don’t need the Maori party anymore and discard them faster than a used condom.. that’s if the Maori party hold together that long.
3. Boris Clarkov 3

   26 November 2009 at 2:33 pm

   Never in the history of New Zealand politics has so much taxpayers’ money been hurled into the chasm with such contempt

   Surely you’re talking about the last nine years of exorbitant taxation that was entirely flushed down the welfare toilet in order to support the lifestyle choices of the Labour-voting beneficarycriminals.

   Never has the world consensus about the crisis of climate change

   Consensus? Based on scientific data that was intentionally artificial and results which were intentionally obfuscated.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

   Never EVER – has a minority party betrayed its base like the Maori party has betrayed its voters.

   5th Labour government, that betrayed it’s support base in the tax paying workers of New Zealand, overtaxed them to their knees and flushed the tax take entirely down the welfare toilet, taking the entire country from prosperity into poverty.

   Smoke some more weed hippie, us tax-payers aren’t paying a tithe to the climate-change cult.
   • Daveo 3.1

     26 November 2009 at 2:54 pm

     Mate – read the post, dude said “minority party”
     • snoozer 3.1.1

       26 November 2009 at 3:02 pm

       ha! i was going to do a point by point response to Boris but then I thought it would be both more fun and more meaningful to pull my own fingernails.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1

         26 November 2009 at 4:03 pm

         us tax-payers aren’t paying a tithe to the climate-change cult.

         Also, and too, stupid mofo might want to read what the National Party just did.
   • prosaic 3.2

     26 November 2009 at 3:04 pm

     A trumped-up story about leaked emails (which do nothing in themselves towards refuting the claim that climate change is largely a consequence of human activity) does not alter the scientific consensus.
   • Craig Glen Eden 3.3

     26 November 2009 at 3:49 pm

     Who let Boris out? Hes a thinker aye!

     Hey Boris have you heard the term white collar criminal? Thought not.
4. snoozer 4

   26 November 2009 at 3:13 pm

   i haven’t even seen the right present anything from these emails that is damning. In fact, I haven’t seen any quotes from the emails at all.

   All puff, no substance.
   • Andrei 4.1

     26 November 2009 at 3:42 pm

     You haven’t read them? And you dismiss them out of hand – that’s very closed minded of you.

     What do you think about scientists pressurizing scientific journals not to publish particular papers?

     What do you think about tit for tat peer reviews of science?

     What do you think about deleting scientific data?

     Its all in there my friend and more in their very own words. And these people custodians of the Global Temperature record as well as IPCC lead authors

     Tsk tsk
     • lprent 4.1.1

       26 November 2009 at 4:28 pm

       Andrei – to date I haven’t seen anyone come up with anything more than mildly embarrassing about those e-mails. Mainly comments about the authors opinions on other people.

       What I have seen is a lot of misinformed accusations by scientific morons like you. Most of those appear to be related to a completely false view on how science operates. I’d explain, but you really need to get yourself some basic science education first. Otherwise it will just whistle in through one ear and out of the other, which is what usually happens when people explain things to you.
       • Andrei 4.1.1.1

         26 November 2009 at 5:52 pm

         I see

         Do you think science works best with frank and open discourse, free exchange of data and ideas, with scientists allowing all and sundry to examine their methodologies and test their conclusions independently?

         Or does it work better with a closed clique keeping their data and methodology secret, excluding those with whom they don’t agree and preventing those with whom they don’t agree getting their work published?
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1

           26 November 2009 at 7:34 pm

           There’s a difference between free and frank discussion and personal emails.
           • Andrei 4.1.1.1.1.1

             26 November 2009 at 9:11 pm

             There is also a difference between open discussion of science and the necessity to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain what should have been accessible to all in the first place.

             And there is certainly a huge problem with deleting scientific data to prevent it being released under the Freedom of Information Act.
           • quenchino 4.1.1.1.1.2

             26 November 2009 at 9:40 pm

             Who cares . Publish all your own private emails going back a decade or so…and I’ll promise you that I’ll find something to misrepresent.
       • Herodotus 4.1.1.2

         26 November 2009 at 6:12 pm

         If we exclude the average person from such discussions then who can comment on Fin matters, Education or any other subject?
         Sometimes we get to review our outlook from a question from the “unclean” that makes us re-evaluate our position.
         Should Phil Goff beable to talk about monetary policy, John Key on Foreign policy as neither have the formal education to enable them to do so?
         What happens if climate change is not held not to be caused by CO2. Would that result in science being discredited to such an extent that we do not believe in any science?
         • Andrei 4.1.1.2.1

           26 November 2009 at 7:16 pm

           If we exclude the average person from such discussions then who can comment on Fin matters, Education or any other subject?
           Sometimes we get to review our outlook from a question from the “unclean’ that makes us re-evaluate our position.

           Exactly and that goes to the very heart of this scandal – the unclean is defined to be anybody who disagrees with the inner circle regardless of qualifications.

           I am reminded of the Catholic church forcing Galileo to recant by all of this – These IPCC clowns did just that and their word was gospel, those working in the field toed the party line or else.

           And its all there in black and white for the world to see now.

           What happens if climate change is not held not to be caused by CO2. Would that result in science being discredited to such an extent that we do not believe in any science?

           Do you mean what happens if it is shown that CO2 is not harming the environment – something I believe.

           Well there will be a huge scandal and many will have eggs on their faces but the Scientific method will actually be validated as show that cheats eventually get exposed – its happened before probably not as high profile as this but it has.

           But this doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis per se, it makes it look somewhat shaky because a great deal of the proof relys on these gentlemen’s work.

           What worries me is that because so many of the rich and powerful have a stake in this that there may be a concerted attempt to make it all go away.
           • Galeandra 4.1.1.2.1.1

             26 November 2009 at 9:13 pm

             Why not go and look at the reponse of the institution itself as a result of the furore?
             https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

             Believe what you like but accept that the majority anticipate a disaster which is already making. It’s deemed to be past time for action, and I’d be unsurprised if some countries don’t begin to take unilateral actions akin to declaring a State of Emergency in the near future.
             If you want to continue dancing on the heads of pins, try it on an ice floe or in the midst of one of the multitudinous drought zones. Don’t expect to be allowed to obstruct constructive discussion or debate about finding solutions. Quit nit picking.
           • Herodotus 4.1.1.2.1.2

             26 November 2009 at 11:08 pm

             “that the majority anticipate a disaster which is already making”. Just like Y2K when all the experts were warning of the end of the world as we know it. There are quite a few computer geeks who made a fortune on the event that never happened.
             The Uk wants to go vege. Our 2 greatest earners Tourism will stop, and no one will want our meat/milk. Both will be dirty industries, so what is the alternative then?
             ps So for the Worlds benefit we h the developed world HAVE to cut our emmissions. But the developing world can increase theirs. As we do not want to inpinge on their ability have the gains of a developed country.
5. Daveosaurus 5

   26 November 2009 at 3:25 pm

   I’m not surprised that the intertubes are too young to remember when Bruce Beetham hopped into bed with Muldoon after the 1981 election, but surely at least someone remembers when Peters hopped into bed with Bolger in 1996?

   Those people who still think the Maori Party made a wise choice would be well advised to reflect upon the outcome of those two previous arrangements: Social Credit lost two thirds of their 1981 voters in 1984; and Peters First lost all but one of their parliamentary seats in 1999.
6. prosaic 6

   26 November 2009 at 3:50 pm

   Well I did see some quotes from the emails (sorry, can’t remember where) and they did absolutely nothing to threaten the consensus on climate change. What I haven’t seen is any analysis–or even a bad argument–purporting to show that these emails have any implications for any climate change arguments, whether for or against anthropogenic climate change. You are right, no substance.
   • singularian 6.1

     26 November 2009 at 10:51 pm

     HARRY_READ_ME – get it straight from the horses mouth.
7. ConorJoe 7

   26 November 2009 at 3:51 pm

   Dear Guest Poster,
   Your palpable indignation is spot on.
   Your eloquent fury is timely.
   This is the wrong government for this crucial and critical moment in time.
   This is so so wrong. And now Copenhagen.
8. Eric Olthwaite 8

   26 November 2009 at 3:57 pm

   “Never in the history of New Zealand politics has so much taxpayers’ money been hurled into the chasm with such contempt for the poor citizens who will pay billions out of their own dwindling pockets”

   Ah yes, you must be talking about KiwiRail!

   word captcha = “explain” 😀
   • Bored 8.1

     26 November 2009 at 4:34 pm

     You need to be awarded a brass handled shovel for that comment. The cost of the rail will be minute compared to the cost you and I as citizens and taxpayers will cough up as a result of this legislation. Enjoy the feeling of your filthy lucre slipping off to those you support, from your pocket to theirs. A little hint, they wont thank you for it either, just demand more which you in your myopia will gladly render.
     • Eric Olthwaite 8.1.1

       26 November 2009 at 5:06 pm

       What on earth makes you think I support the National Party, its legislation, or those who benefit from it? I’m dead agin it all.

       My only point was one of being amused by a labour party blog being outraged by government waste.

       Word Capture, gets even better! = “labels” 😀
       • snoozer 8.1.1.1

         26 November 2009 at 5:15 pm

         which labour party blog?

         You might be libertarianz but the reality is it’s your side in power.
         • Quoth the Raven 8.1.1.1.1

           26 November 2009 at 5:26 pm

           snoozer – You do talk some rubbish. You don’t know what party he supports. What you said is like saying to a green party or alliance supporter unhappy when Labour is in power “well the reality is it’s your side in power”.
       • Bored 8.1.1.2

         26 November 2009 at 5:42 pm

         You assume Im Labour…hmmmm!!!!!! My award to you of the shovel is entirely based around rail versus ETS. Its a no brainer, you and I will get ripped big time by these clowns.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.3

         26 November 2009 at 7:37 pm

         The only government waste as far as Kiwirail is concerned was its sale.
9. outofbed 9

   26 November 2009 at 4:29 pm

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00407.htm
   so Goff does an mini Orewa
   is that wise ?
   • snoozer 9.1

     26 November 2009 at 5:17 pm

     outofbed. there are legitimate criticisms there and I don’t see any inflamatory language.

     Should Labour not be allowed to criticise things that are wrong if some Maori are benefiting from it?
10. Anne 10

    26 November 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Good speech but I wish Goff had left Hone Harawira out of it. He said his Harawira piece a week or two ago. Could he not have left it at that?
    • gingercrush 10.1

      26 November 2009 at 6:22 pm

      And your opinion of Brash’s speech was?

      And don’t try and pretend Goff was doing anything else other than dogwhistling. There are numerous ways to attack National’s ETS and the deal set up with the Maori Party without coming out with the nonsense Goff did.
      • Galeandra 10.1.1

        26 November 2009 at 9:40 pm

        Dog whistling? That’s nonsense. He’s quite explicit and makes valid criticisms as well as offering policy alternatives. I find his statements reasonable and worth discussion. You can disagree with them without imputing deviousness or manipulation to him, thoufgh that’s the soft line taken by some of the faces on the news channels today.
    • George D 10.2

      26 November 2009 at 6:29 pm

      Don’t worry Anne, it’s only wrong when the National Party or ACT do it.

      Captcha: splitting
11. Ron 11

    26 November 2009 at 6:29 pm

    I think Goff was expressing the disappointment and anger that many of us feel at the Maori Party betraying New Zealanders. They are now clearly a brown Tory party and therefore fair game. Their agenda MUST be called into question if they are to continue to sleep with the enemy.

    Goff’s speech was completely different from the Orewa speech. Brash’s was a clear call to arms to NZ racist voters. In Goff’s speech he’s asking legitimate questions about the Tories’ (and that now includes the MP) agenda.
12. Dreamcatcher 12

    26 November 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Well Guest post (wise soul), are you a member of the ‘intergalactic federation’ by any chance?
    Because I’m sure we have met before.

    I too have a severe problem with the ungrateful human race. We ‘ask’ for respectable leaders and we get ‘empty hearts’ instead.
    But really do the people care- not really, as life is too short to actually ‘care’ about anyone- except yourself.

    Missing the whole point really.

    But as my heart widens I may be able to work some magic, for quite a few of us (and even an odd ghost), bring back a sense of ‘worthiness’ to the pointless pitiful that make up ‘many’.

    True ‘change’ comes from the heart!
13. Anne 13

    26 November 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Bang on Ron.
    Goff is “expressing the disappointment and anger many people (including me) feel about the Maori Party.” The suggestion that Goff is doing a Brash is crap! My only criticism was his re-iteration of the Harawira expletives which, in my view, is not the central issue. It is the appalling betrayal of the Maori Party against so many of their own people.

    Thank-you to Guest poster for saying what needed to be said – and doing it in so pungent a way.
14. Dreamcatcher 14

    26 November 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Pungent?

    An interesting terminology but not good enough.

    It is ROMANTIC and like a ‘moment’ in the clearing!

    That is the proper term.

    Crystal vision (is the only way) not side stepping the whole ‘point’.
15. Anne 15

    26 November 2009 at 7:24 pm

    pungent – sharp-pointed; (of reproof,satire etc) biting, caustic; mentally stimulating, piquant. Is that enough Dreamcatcher? Now go and check your medication. Something’s wrong.
    • Seroquel 15.1

      26 November 2009 at 9:12 pm

      It has a dual meaning though doesn’t it?
      So you could possibly get away with using this ‘word’ in context, but with an afflicting meaning, to be cheeky?
16. Nick C 16

    26 November 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Make no mistake- this is a mini Orewa. Goff is playing to exactly the same sentiments which Brash played to in 2004. And his line is exactly the same as Don Brash’s: That government policy is unfairly favouring Maori.
    • Aklnut 16.1

      27 November 2009 at 9:50 pm

      Nick that’s bullshit, Brashs speech was just racist crap chasing the redneck vote.

      “Let’s be clear. This deal will not benefit Maori as a whole.”

      “the average taxpayer, Maori and Pakeha, will be paying this bill and it will be huge.They and the rest of us know this will cost our children dearly.”

      “This shabby deal, agreed to in secret …….. was about buying Maori Party support for National’s shambles of an ETS.”

      Doesn’t sound anything like Brashs speech!
17. Santi 17

    26 November 2009 at 7:42 pm

    I despise socialism, hate the Labour Party and all it represents, but I do agree with your opinion that Key and the coward National and Maori parties have broken all records for lack of principles and political decency. They deserve to be voted out in 2011.

    NZ is fucked.
18. Nicky Chapman 18

    26 November 2009 at 9:12 pm

    People are feeling confused and powerless, just as they’ve started acknowledging climate change is real. We need to change that fast, now.

    I and some friends have a nationwide formal petition going to Parliament on the 7-8 December: ‘Kiwis for 350’.

    The petition urges Govt to set a meaningful target (350 ppm CO2e) – it’s about setting the direction and the principles (using science, working in partnership), not the actual methods which will be many, varied and highly creative!

    I think people are already tired of divisive and punitive approaches – and many do seem to get the point of this petition.

    It’s not about NZ being suicidally self-sacrificing, but it is about playing our part as hard and well as we can.

    In the last two weeks, we have about 1,000 signed petitions from Dunedin alone, and as it’s on websites and blogs, hope for many more. Go to http://www.350.org.nz or http://www.caritas.org.nz. Print it out, sign it, share it around, and get back to address on petition by 2 December.

    Nicky Chapman
    Organiser
    ‘Kiwis for 350’ petition
19. rave 19

    26 November 2009 at 9:33 pm

    We shouldnt be surprised. There is a global crisis. Bosses are losing their profits. They are forcing us to pay for them. The Government is a naked servant of finance capital. Key is their stooge. Some of us are awake, many more will wake up. We need a bikers revolt only 1000 times bigger.
    Santi NZ is not fucked, its’s capitalism thats fucked. We don’t want to go down with the shit.
    We need socialism that liberates us from all this shit. The socialism of the past didnt succeed because it was always surrounded isolated and undermined by capitalism and turned into Stalinist dictatorships.
    Now capitalism is burying us all with its global economic crisis and climate catastrophe. Its time to dig ourselves out of the hole.
    We have to do it collectively and democratically so that we take control of production and produce only what we need. What else is that but socialism?
    Rosa Luxemburg once said it came down to socialism or barbarism. That’s the alternative. I know what I want.
    • vto 19.1

      26 November 2009 at 11:38 pm

      As often rave, you make some small senses
      • swingers club 19.1.1

        26 November 2009 at 11:52 pm

        Yeah rave- where’s your specialty, besides all the small stuff, what can you offer (that differs)?
        • rave 19.1.1.1

          27 November 2009 at 12:01 am

          An argument for a start. What’s your offer?
          • swingers club 19.1.1.1.1

            27 November 2009 at 12:40 am

            Well the biker’s revolt won’t do anything, leather jackets and beards won’t make a difference politically. .
            We can’t get rid of tags can we? capitalism, socialism blah blah fucking blah, all will live on- everyone always wants to make money (big business lives), socialism (whatever that means) it doesn’t make a difference it will always exist.
            Dictatorships exist as a ‘common government’ anyway.
            Politics- is just human nature taxing human rights .a blatant paradox.
            Instead of clumping tags, a person’s ‘individuality’ should be ‘praised’ higher.
            But the government don’t want that (as then we know our ‘worth’), that is why we are lumped in ‘groups, lifestyles, tags, religions’.
            Revolutions don’t work, but individual ‘awareness’ works. Knowing who you are.
            We won’t need a ‘tag’ when we are literally ‘free’, will we?
            But that is probably a pipe dream- too ideal for human nature to comprehend.
            But I do like the idea of freedom, instead of a gun to my head, don’t you?
            As freedom, works best, to ensure better compatibilities within human relations.
            • crimson&clover 19.1.1.1.1.1

              27 November 2009 at 1:26 am

              Absolutely Fucking A!

              I agree.

              Well said swingers club!

              [lprent: Complimenting yourself doesn’t seem healthy. ]
            • rave 19.1.1.1.1.2

              27 November 2009 at 11:23 am

              Who are you, Swinger?
              Give us your idea on how we get to freedom.
        • vto 19.1.1.2

          27 November 2009 at 12:13 am

          yeah, what’s your offer?

          swinger
          • swingers club 19.1.1.2.1

            27 November 2009 at 1:08 am

            You have my contribution, now what is yours?
            • vto 19.1.1.2.1.1

              27 November 2009 at 1:36 am

              let me thinky
20. tsmithfield 20

    26 November 2009 at 9:52 pm

    Obviously Goff wants Labour to be in perpetual opposition.

    Offending a potential coalition partner, and the constituents it represents is only confirming to them that Labour can’t be trusted, and National was the best bet out of a bad bunch.
    • quenchino 20.1

      26 November 2009 at 9:54 pm

      Last.Cab.Off.Rank.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 20.2

      26 November 2009 at 10:04 pm

      Why would anyone want to be in a coalition with a party who have just sold your children’s future down the drain?

      Did you read the Maori Party report to the Select Committee on the ETS? It was pretty strong stuff condemning the folly of not capping the costs of CO2. Obviously however that was negotiable.

      Time to draw a line in the sand.

      Time to stop using the planet as a political hostage.
      • Aklnut 20.2.1

        27 November 2009 at 9:59 pm

        You left out they sold their Mana, you know – the one they were supposed to be enhancing.

        Geez this bloody capcha is so appropriate, how does it keep doing that lol

        Captcha – desires
    • Ron 20.3

      27 November 2009 at 6:41 am

      I say again. The Maori Party are now obviously Tory party and therefore NOT a potential coalition party for Labour. In my opinion Goff should say to them – “you made the bed….”
21. tsmithfield 21

    26 November 2009 at 10:12 pm

    It is quite possible that the Greens might not make the 5% threshold next time. If that happens, the Maori Party might be the only cab on the rank for Labour.

    Advice to Goff: Don’t burn your bridges.
    • quenchino 21.1

      26 November 2009 at 10:17 pm

      Nah if the election doesn’t swing left enough so that the Greens miss 5%, then Labour will be fracked too. Besides the MP with Turia in it will never go with Labour anyway.. so its one of those arguments that takes you nowhere.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 21.2

      26 November 2009 at 10:26 pm

      If the Greens don’t win 5%, National will probably be able to govern alone. Interesting to see how they might interpret the Foreshore and Seabed Act under that circumstance.

      Advice to Goff: stick to your principles. No sleazy deals with the Maori Party
    • Ron 21.3

      27 November 2009 at 6:42 am

      Advice to Goff – stick by at least some of your principles and burn away.
22. outofbed 22

    26 November 2009 at 10:18 pm

    It is quite possible that the Greens might not make the 5% threshold next time

    Dream on
23. outofbed 23

    26 November 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Those whacky Greens eh
    Wanted a carbon Tax all those years ago Now practically everyone realizes that is the way to go even Act and Fed farmers
    The Greens have been banging on about our polluted rivers for years
    and today we have news that here we have some of the most polluted rivers in the world
    The Greens came up with the home insulation scheme, Labour fought against it
    and then claimed it, Nick smith dissed and now mentions it at every opportunity

    Perhaps we should listen to them more often
24. ParkDrive 24

    27 November 2009 at 12:45 am

    I’m going to say look, I really don’t understand the actual benefit of the ETS. Irrespective of whether Labours appalling piece of legislation was rendered further worse by the Maori Party and National, the focus should be on just what is the benefit?

    All I’ve heard is a lot of we must reduce carbon emissions.

    Now, how do you calculate that? You can’t. One volcanic eruption (which Ruapehu is due for within the next 12 months) is the equivalent of well over a million cars carbon emissions over the course of a month.

    The truth is there is no way of actually being able to calculate carbon, and what is an optimal level. All we have are guestimates. Nothing concrete, simply as no records were ever kept of carbon levels pre 1980. Barely a generation!

    Over the last 30 years, human activity has rapidly felled forests, and as an apologetic afterthought forests have been replanted at a greater rate than ever before – whether it’s native bush or conifers or macrocarpa pines.
    Plantlife thrives on carbon dioxide. The less carbon there is in the air, the fewer plants that survive.

    Earth is a living breathing organism (The Gaia Hypothesis) It is a fallacy to even begin to think that while everything else on the planet is alive, the earth isn’t? Here’s a tip: Just because it doesn’t have a soul, doesn’t mean it’s not living.
    Gaia knows what is needed. The volcanic eruptions of the last few years, the change in weather patterns, it’s a simple act of re balancing

    The planets poles are shifting. Where the great Scott and forgotten Amundsen planted their flags on the south and north poles respectively, it’s interesting to note that the polar opposite have moved considerably. The north pole for example moved across Hudson Bay for years and is now in the Atlantic ocean.

    The Emissions Trading Scheme is a fraud on both houses. The entire world has been suckered into it, and no doubt, as always, someone stands to gain a great deal of money from windfarms and carbon neutral generators.

    I am nota denier of climate change. I see the evidence all too well. All I’m saying is that it is happening, and nothing that mankind can do will ever stop the process, nor will it slow it down. As a snowball turns into an avalanche, so has the changing of Gaia has begun.

    What is good to see is that we are slowly waking up and realising that the consumerist society we live in is no good. Why have we not banned Plasma Screen TVs yet if we’re serious? Those power suckers use three times as much as LCD. Why don’t we invest in LED TV’s? They use half as much as LCD.
    We’re a TV Nation. We are now. Have you seen how fat people are getting?

    Let’s show we’re deadly serious. Let’s cut our electricity usage. Ban all LCDs and Plasma TVs for sale. Only allow in LEDs. As soon as something better than LED comes along, ban LEDs.
    Ban single glazed windows, ban indoor gas heaters as they pump out carbon monoxide something chronic along with making the house damper than before.
    Introduce compulsory insulation in all rental properties. Floor, Roof and new builds must have wall insulation.

    Only then will we actually be doing something concrete and worthwhile. Yes it will seem very daddy knows best, but it’s nothing that governments haven’t been doing for the last hundred years.
    Ban them all, then offer subsidies for people to replace them if they wish to. Give them cash incentive to return the TV, the gas heater, include windows in the home insulation subsidy, renters will love their landlord making their houses warm, and lets not forget they now compromise the biggest voting block in the country (and the poorest due to power gouging – $1000 each p/a geesus!)
    • George D 24.1

      27 November 2009 at 12:10 pm

      Why have we not banned Plasma Screen TVs yet if we’re serious? Those power suckers use three times as much as LCD. Why don’t we invest in LED TV’s? They use half as much as LCD.
      We’re a TV Nation. We are now. Have you seen how fat people are getting?

      Let’s show we’re deadly serious. Let’s cut our electricity usage. Ban all LCDs and Plasma TVs for sale. Only allow in LEDs. As soon as something better than LED comes along, ban LEDs.

      I ask myself the same question. We couldn’t even change the lightbulbs, or fit efficient showerheads.

      People will look back on this generation with anger and wonder.
25. grumpy 25

    27 November 2009 at 10:20 am

    Interesting article by Tahu potiki in The Press this morning – unfortunately not yet on their website.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS