Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • rss
  • Home
  • Open threads
    • Climate – how to use open threads
      • Meteorology
      • Global warming
      • Climate science
        • Papers
        • Atmosphere
        • Temperature records
        • Energy and fuel
        • Solar
        • Ocean heat content
        • Radiation, radiative imbalance
        • Sea levels
        • Ocean acidification
        • Polar regions, glaciers and ice
      • Regions
        • Europe
        • Asia
        • South America
        • Africa
        • Australia
        • UK
        • USA
        • New Zealand
      • News
      • Controversy and scandal
      • Disproving AGW
      • Economics
    • Politics
      • ETS and carbon taxes
    • UN
      • IPCC organisation
      • IPCC politics
      • IPCC science
      • NIPCC
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • News releases
    • February 8, 2010
    • December 20, 2010
  • Climate Realists
    • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
    • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
    • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
    • Newsletter #4 2011
  • Files
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About

What do we get, Dr Smith?

Richard | August 21, 2009

Update

The minister’s reply was received on 22 September. You can read it here.


Yesterday Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change, told Parliament that our citizens must “contribute” a “significant” amount towards the government’s climate change targets.

He thinks they should give about $30 per week per family. We agree that is “significant”. Barry Brill, former National Energy Minister, who prompted Rodney Hide’s question to the minister, asserted it will be more like $112 per week.

Now that’s more like political suicide. Incredible! Incredible, because Nick Smith hasn’t refuted it, he’s only disagreed with it, but, more importantly, he hasn’t told us what we get for it. Hope they check the price, too.

“We’ll charge you this amount, unless we charge four times more. Sign here, OK?”

We’re horrified at this public expression of disdain from our bright new National government towards the people of New Zealand, who haven’t been consulted over this life-threatening new tax. Yes, life-threatening; that’s a huge amount to take out of household budgets, even if the economy wasn’t already struggling.

Seen the jobless figures lately? The unemployment rate is 6.0% and there are 138,000 people unemployed, the highest since 2000.

The other thing about our citizens: a huge majority scorn the carbon reduction targets. In the Herald’s recent online poll (admittedly, not a scientific instrument) 89% voted that the targets were unachievable. Only 11% disagreed.

Our question for Nick Smith (prompted by Prof. Bob Carter) is: “How much global warming, in degrees C, will be averted by NZ families sacrificing $30 per week, perhaps more, for the next several decades?”

This question is direct and reasonable and should have been already answered by the government. It should have been broadcast loudly. We should all know it off by heart. It is the sort of question asked by every organisation to justify not just some, but every large expenditure: “What do we get for our money?” Everybody asks this, but not these Nats, it seems.

So what do we get, Dr Smith? What do we get for something that will cost our families from $30 to $112 each and every week from now until the utmost limits of our parliamentary majority? What do we get?

It had better be something pretty wonderful.

We will ask the question until it’s answered, Dr Smith.

Categories
ETS, Global warming, New Zealand, Politics, Taxation
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« Drop conspiracy talk, just look at your thermometer More unfounded alarmism at Hot Topic »

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Thanks to WordShine for hosting our site:
   WordShine for polished writing
   WordShine for academic editing
   WordShine to say what you mean

Hot off the press

  • NZ temperature record — it’s worse than we thought
  • The fallacy is strong in that one
  • More about the NZ temperature record
  • Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Mother of a hoax
  • Mass matters
  • Public opinion at tipping point
  • Insensitive climate
  • In the beginning was the Warming
  • No global warming in New Zealand
  • My precious
  • Credible source, credible argument, credible doubt
  • NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence
  • More mindless moping on the Maldives
  • Climate lies in high places
  • A case of the blind leading the climatologists
  • A letter to Gavin Schmidt goes unanswered
  • Real Climate smashes methane disaster theory
  • Recruiting AR5 reviewers on ‘spoofed’ IPCC website
  • Letter to the editor

Latest comments

  • Richard C (NZ) on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • Andy on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • Richard C (NZ) on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • wINdSider on Wind turbine failures
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • De-wayne on Wind turbine failures
  • Andy on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • De-wayne on Wind turbine failures
  • Richard C (NZ) on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • Andy on The fallacy is strong in that one
  • Warwick Hughes on NZ temperature record — it’s worse than we thought
  • Richard C (NZ) on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Richard C (NZ) on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Nick on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Nick on Sceptics query our truth – we shall besmirch and slander them
  • Andy on Wind turbine failures
  • Richard C (NZ) on Polar regions, glaciers and ice
  • Richard Treadgold on NOAA conducts Orwellian revision of empirical evidence
  • Richard C (NZ) on Europe

PayPal Tip Jar
To support what we do here,
please drop us a tiny tip. Thank you!

Thank you
To those who've been so generous,
I'm humbled. Thanks!


Click to get your own widget

Tags

ACT Activists AGW Air temperature Australia Barry Brill BOM Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading CCG blog Chris de Freitas Christopher Monckton Climate Conversation Group Climate profiteering Climate research Climate Science Court action Data quality Disproving AGW Energy supply ETS Glaciers Global warming Hot Topic IPCC Joanne Nova New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Peter Gluckman Rajendra Pachauri Royal Society Roy Spencer Sceptics Science bias Sea ice Sea levels UK United Nations Watts Up With That Wind turbines

Categories

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Climate change links

  • Bishop Hill
  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Climate Etc. (Judith Curry)
  • Climate Realists
  • Global warming at a glance
  • Jo Nova
  • Kiwi Thinker
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Science of Doom
  • Watts Up With That

 

August 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Previous posts

Oil prices

StatCounter

 
StatCounter
hits
rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox