Comments on: Nick unmasks truth — climate is changing

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:45:23 +0000

Piers Corbyn has it about right. As the financial and real estate cons pushed by the international banksters toppled, as they inevitably had to, the Green taxes foisted on the world have become a new avenue for politicians to rip money off the Revenue. The Great and the Good here in Outer Pongolia are all into it like pigs in warm mud – the English PM’s Dad-in-law and his titled friends are busy putting up wind farms and solar farms on their estates, all to hook into the National Grid and thus suckle on the public teat of huge and insupportable subsidies. The mad Prince Chuckles, who would hold Nuremburg-style trials to burn the unbelievers of man-made climate change at the stake if he could, has engineered a lovely deal for the Royal Estate, who own the seabed around the UK and are now collecting enormous and growing rentals from the off-shore windfarms. Interestingly, I recently discovered the scientific reason as to why the mad prince of doom’s habit of chatting to his flowers actually works – its the CO2 he exhales on his flowers that accelerates their growth, not that they listen to him and appreciate his little homilies, as he thinks!
The English are lovely people, but they are their own worst enemis – they will put up with anything in return for a good cuppa tea and glimpse of a passing Royal.
They are busy working themselves into a tizz right now over the forthcoming Royal Wedding..

By: QuentinF

QuentinF — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:09:28 +0000

Heres a great quote from Piers Corbyn.. Here Nick mate READ THIS!
“CO2 warmism can predict nothing and is disproved by observations irrespective of other ideas. However the
Authorities & politicians refuse to listen to our scientific solar-driven forecasts or apply our predictions because that
entails admitting that CO2 drives nothing and their con & plunder CO2 warmism would be exposed as a self-interested
desperate cult ideology with no purpose other than to propagate itself. It is build on tricks and fraud and will not go
quietly. It has become the ‘Mubarak regime’ of science and must be destroyed.
I love Piers correlation of AGW to Mubarak!!

I dont quite get where Smith comes from hes follows ‘ecconazi green extremist’ views yet hes supposedly a true blue Nat.

Yes he certainly should know better. His statements prove that the NZ govt is either blind naive or just part of the world criminal agenda of climate change.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:37:59 +0000

Smith is an Engineer by trade, so he should know better.

His Wikipedia entry on Climate Change sums it all up:

In 2005, Smith made the following comments on Labour’s policy of carbon taxes in his Nelson-Marlborough farming column:

* “The madness of the Government’s new carbon tax is that New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain.”

* “Labour Ministers may take pride in being toasted at International Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue.”

* “New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions made up only 0.4% of the global total and on a per capita basis our emissions are half those of countries like Australia and the United States. We are the only Southern Hemisphere country with binding legal obligations under Kyoto and giants like China and India have got off scot free.”[6]

From January 2008, Smith was giving speeches as National’s Climate Change Spokesman. In one speech, he stating there was no question that the destabilising of the earth’s climate, caused by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, was the “number one environmental issue”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Smith_%28politician%29

By: QuentinF

QuentinF — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:18:41 +0000

Looks like tricky “Nick” PhD twice removed (or should because there a braincell or 2 missing)
is trying to throw NZ back to the dark ages, maybe with some help from Ms Gillard ,over here, Im sure there was allot of “wink wink” on “climate change” matters going on behind the scenes when she was over there.
Yes comment on the EU, yes corruption heaven..or hell depending on which side you are on! (just read SPPI)

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:40:28 +0000

Hot Gossip – now we are talking. Top of the Pops in the seventies.
Check this Kenny Everett video:

Hot Gossip-Small pants and wellingtons-I Lost My Spade to a Greenhouse Reaper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFxR6S0qRc

I hope Gareth has a sense of humour.

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:02:19 +0000

Strewth! I just hopped over to Hot Gossip, using the link on Andy’s comment – what a bunch and how dare anyone have opinions counter to theirs! Kiwis tend to like authoritarian group leaders such as the late Rob Muldoon, who was a scary little bugger in the flesh but incredibly popular in some circles, but the blokes commenting on HG are somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun, so I suppose the extreme drongos who congregate there is unsurprising.
And I thought the faithful who tend to cluster to attack dissidents on George Monbiot’s blogs in the London Guardian are bad.

By: Ron

Ron — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:21:02 +0000

thanks for the heads up, will just have to try and keep calm while writing something!
Even the first sentence of the position paper seems to beg a lot of questions:
The Government is committed to implementing an “economically sound” and “environmentally effective” climate change policy….

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 04:02:13 +0000

This is a related document to the one discussed in the article, and deals specifically with the 2020 targets.

These are of a more immediate concern, of course than the 2050 targets.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/emissions-target-2020/cab-paper-2020.html

Point number 63 is interesting:

Fifty-nine submitters (19% of total submissions) were sceptical of climate change. Their submissions tended to focus on the validity of the science of anthropogenic global warming, and many provided arguments against the science used in the 2020 target brochure. The majority of sceptics did not specify a preferred target. Those who did tended to support a business as usual approach.

19% of total submissions are sceptics. That is quite a high number.

Remember to get your submissions in for the 2050 targets by 28th Feb, email address provided above.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:58:27 +0000

They don’t get the jokes do they?

Tim McGee – from Wikipedia

McGee has a passion for computers and enjoys playing games relating to tactical warfare and covert infiltration.

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

Maybe I am reading too much into this.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:00:45 +0000

I was trying to suggest that you can take a proposition A as given and then make deductions from that. You don’t have to agree with proposition A.