Discussion:
Dangerous stuff
Add Reply
Tony
2020-01-23 01:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
John Bowes
2020-01-23 01:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
Teaching a one sided view of ANY subject is a sure sign of a despotic and corrupt government. But it's okay Hipkins can see all will be well in thirty years according to the latest bullshit he's distributed on his plans for the education system!
George
2020-01-23 19:18:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
Rich80105
2020-01-23 20:16:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prohet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prohets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'wer're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
Have you read the resource material? Here is one link:
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
John Bowes
2020-01-23 21:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prohet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prohets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'wer're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
Try playing some of Saint Greta of the lost childhoods videos Rich. You'll get all sorts of bullshit written by her parents on them!
Rich80105
2020-01-24 20:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prophet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prophets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'we're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
As for reality, see:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and from this:

"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.

His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."

and

"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.

Malcolm Turnbull is onto it:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/22/former-australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-says-trump-is-the-worlds-leading-climate-denier
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
Tony
2020-01-25 03:25:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prophet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prophets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'we're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/22/former-australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-says-trump-is-the-worlds-leading-climate-denier
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
And for real reality -
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
And more real reality -
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
No-one is saying there is no such thing as climate change (except perhaps an
insane US president) but we don't need panic and we don't need to take on board
suspect and scientifically questionable tactics like rushing into electric
vehicles until the technology is made good.
George
2020-01-25 19:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:25:53 -0600
Post by Tony
No-one is saying there is no such thing as climate change (except
perhaps an insane US president) but we don't need panic and we don't
need to take on board suspect and scientifically questionable tactics
like rushing into electric vehicles until the technology is made good.
For at least 40 years we have had all manner of claims that we were in
the last years of the Earth.
Not only global warming/climate change but any weather event was
'proof' of whatever crazy was the fashion of that time.
And in another 40 years the world will know that its been a great big
con and scientists (the real ones) will be treated as if they were the
perp.
Rich80105
2020-01-25 22:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:25:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prophet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prophets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'we're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/22/former-australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-says-trump-is-the-worlds-leading-climate-denier
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
And for real reality -
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
And more real reality -
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
No-one is saying there is no such thing as climate change (except perhaps an
insane US president)
So why are you raising such an opinion if no-one except Trump is
saying it?
Post by Tony
but we don't need panic and we don't need to take on board
suspect and scientifically questionable tactics like rushing into electric
vehicles until the technology is made good.
And who has suggested either that we need to panic or that we take on
board suspect nad scientifically questionable tactics?

Sure, Simon Bridges has criticised the government for not purchasing
more electric vehicles (and taken pride in his purchases), but are you
accusing him of taking on board suspect and scientifically
questionalble tactics?

Do you disagree with the article by Andrew Bayly or the comments by
Malcolm Turnbull?
John Bowes
2020-01-25 23:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:25:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prophet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prophets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'we're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/22/former-australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-says-trump-is-the-worlds-leading-climate-denier
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
And for real reality -
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
And more real reality -
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
No-one is saying there is no such thing as climate change (except perhaps an
insane US president)
So why are you raising such an opinion if no-one except Trump is
saying it?
Because idiots like you and Labour/Green are pushing the 'Chicken Little 'approach to a natural event:)
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
but we don't need panic and we don't need to take on board
suspect and scientifically questionable tactics like rushing into electric
vehicles until the technology is made good.
And who has suggested either that we need to panic or that we take on
board suspect nad scientifically questionable tactics?
You, Labour/Green and the left!
Post by Rich80105
Sure, Simon Bridges has criticised the government for not purchasing
more electric vehicles (and taken pride in his purchases), but are you
accusing him of taking on board suspect and scientifically
questionalble tactics?
Yes. Why shouldn't we when it's a proven and obvious fact!
Post by Rich80105
Do you disagree with the article by Andrew Bayly or the comments by
Malcolm Turnbull?
Who the hell is Andrew Bayly? While Turnbull is pushing the 'Chicken Little "claim we have a climate emergency!
Tony
2020-01-26 01:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 21:25:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
I haven't heard anyone who could be called anything close to yur
strident prophet with a 'we're all gonna die' scenario - do you have
any reference to such strident prophets, or indeed anyone or any
organisation pushing 'we're all gonna die'? What we do know is that
some people have died in a number of recent 'one in 500 years'
disasters - as well as in the Australian fires, reportedly a billion
animals.
https://www.tki.org.nz/What-s-new
or
https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-resources/Education-for-sustainability/Tools-and-resources#collapsible1
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/22/former-australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-says-trump-is-the-worlds-leading-climate-denier
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
And for real reality -
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
And more real reality -
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
No-one is saying there is no such thing as climate change (except perhaps an
insane US president)
So why are you raising such an opinion if no-one except Trump is
saying it?
Don't be silly, I am not saying that there is no such thing, Trump is. Simple
really.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
but we don't need panic and we don't need to take on board
suspect and scientifically questionable tactics like rushing into electric
vehicles until the technology is made good.
And who has suggested either that we need to panic or that we take on
board suspect nad scientifically questionable tactics?
The mad panic to move away from traditional energy sources to new ones that
still have unproven science is well known. These include anything using large
batteries and even wind farms that are now suspected to cause serious damage to
the environment. Do some reading.
Post by Rich80105
Sure, Simon Bridges has criticised the government for not purchasing
more electric vehicles (and taken pride in his purchases), but are you
accusing him of taking on board suspect and scientifically
questionalble tactics?
Irrelevant and who cares?
Post by Rich80105
Do you disagree with the article by Andrew Bayly or the comments by
Malcolm Turnbull?
I am simply stating an opinion shared by many. I encourage caution and not
blind panic/
John Bowes
2020-01-23 21:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:25:55 -0600
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks of indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of
the issue taught - guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any
education just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in
schools is appalling, George Orwell could have written it.
Just wait for the effects when the public wake up to the fact that
they've been conned.
It is not going to be pretty.
All those claims from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s have been
conveniently forgotten and the prophets are becoming more strident as
their 'we're all gonna die' scenario doesn't happen
The more I think about the 97% consensus bullshit the more I don't believe it. Hell! Are they saying the polled EVERY scientist and they all answered? That's a lie right there! and if they only polled a thousand or so as is usually done the claim reeks of the sort of bullshit we've been getting from Rich and Keith on the new religion :)
James Christophers
2020-01-26 01:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
All doctrine is, essentially, one-sided.

Nothing to stop those two titans of the New Zealand media, you and du Fresne, from raising a nationwide strike by children and their parents against the new climate curriculum for it to be laughed out of existence.

Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!!

But good luck, anyway, and don't forget to let us hear all about your successes at warding off yet another of the world's great evils that consume you so...
Tony
2020-01-26 02:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
Stupid pettiness removed. Those who actually care can contribute if they so
wish.
James Christophers
2020-01-26 02:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
George Orwell could have doubled his output, but he always knew his message suffices as it stands and always will.
Post by Tony
Stupid pettiness removed.
Sadly for you and your infantile delusions of power, from your browser only.
Post by Tony
Those who actually care can contribute if they so wish.
In which case I suggest what you should actually care about is that Thunberg serves to hold you and du Fresne up as the laughably insignificant minnows you both know you are.
Tony
2020-01-26 02:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks
of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue
taught
-
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
John Bowes
2020-01-26 05:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision smacks of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue taught -
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
George Orwell could have doubled his output, but he always knew his message suffices as it stands and always will.
Post by Tony
Stupid pettiness removed.
Sadly for you and your infantile delusions of power, from your browser only.
Post by Tony
Those who actually care can contribute if they so wish.
In which case I suggest what you should actually care about is that Thunberg serves to hold you and du Fresne up as the laughably insignificant minnows you both know you are.
So said a VERY insignificant minnow......
Tony
2020-01-26 22:14:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/118953618/climate-change-teaching-as-dogmatic-as-religious-indoctrination
The religion decision is no surprise but the Climate Change decision
smacks
of
indoctrination; let's see - there will only be one side of the issue
taught
-
guaranteed.
No balance, no counter arguments and therefore not, by definition any education
just politics. Teaching one-sided political doctrine in schools is appalling,
George Orwell could have written it.
George Orwell could have doubled his output, but he always knew his message
suffices as it stands and always will.
Irrelevant and obvious, even to you perhaps.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Stupid pettiness removed.
Sadly for you and your delusions of power, from your browser only.
I have no delusions about what I am doing. And it is having the effect I
intended.
So please stop pretending that you understand what motivates me. It is well
beyond your paucity of intellect.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Those who actually care can contribute if they so wish.
In which case I suggest what you should actually care about is that Thunberg
serves to hold you and du Fresne up as the laughably insignificant minnows you
both know you are.
At least I post what I believe unlike you who is dedicated to abuse,
irrelevance and childishness.
Thunberg will disappear into the oblivion has been destined for her by her
political masters. She is a puppet and I feel very sorry for her.
BR
2020-01-27 01:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.

Bill.
Gordon
2020-01-27 06:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Bill.
At 16 years old, young woman, teenager, would probably be more netural and
accurate.
George
2020-01-27 19:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Rich80105
2020-01-28 00:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.

There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783

and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull

No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
Tony
2020-01-28 01:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Rich80105
2020-01-28 03:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Tony
2020-01-28 04:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?. To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Rich80105
2020-01-28 09:31:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:46:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?.
You have no evidence that she is ignoring China - it is possible that
she has been unable to speak to anyone in China capable of making a
difference.
Post by Tony
To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Of course it doesn't - the key issue is whether all that can be done
is being done. Your presumption is as arrogant as the statements by
Niall Fergusson. If you are caught speedin on a motorway, Tony, it is
no excuse that they should have caught another car that passed you!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Conservation is not the same as climate science - there may be some
small overlap, but science has made great progress in the last 20
years.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming that
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
So who is claiming that carbon dioxide is a poison?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
So you agree that the science is changing - but that is not as
relevant as seeing htat New Zealand has missed virtually all the
targets agreed so long ago by Paul Bennett and the National-led
government. Do you agree that New Zealand should honour international
commitments, Tony?
Post by Tony
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Of course there is room for debate - you have restricted yourself to
irrelevancies and personal abuse - some things don't change.
Tony
2020-01-28 19:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:46:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?.
You have no evidence that she is ignoring China - it is possible that
she has been unable to speak to anyone in China capable of making a
difference.
That is what the article says, it is for you to provide contrary evidence.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Of course it doesn't - the key issue is whether all that can be done
is being done. Your presumption is as arrogant as the statements by
Niall Fergusson. If you are caught speedin on a motorway, Tony, it is
no excuse that they should have caught another car that passed you!
What nonsense, no logic and my opinion and that of the writers I referenced
remains uncontested.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Conservation is not the same as climate science - there may be some
small overlap, but science has made great progress in the last 20
years.
The overlap is massive, at least 80%. You are lying again.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming that
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
So who is claiming that carbon dioxide is a poison?
I didn't say anybody was, that was a headline referring to David Bellamy Read
the article, it is easy to read.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
So you agree that the science is changing -
I have never believed anything other than that, why would you ask such a
question?
Post by Rich80105
but that is not as
relevant as seeing htat New Zealand has missed virtually all the
targets agreed so long ago by Paul Bennett and the National-led
government. Do you agree that New Zealand should honour international
commitments, Tony?
Irrelevant, nothing to do with this thread.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Of course there is room for debate - you have restricted yourself to
irrelevancies and personal abuse - some things don't change.
I have not abused you so you are lying (that is a fact, not abuse).
I have merely posted two intelliegent (one scientifically based) articles and
of course you became defensive to the point of abuse.
Rich80105
2020-01-29 01:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:48:54 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:46:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?.
You have no evidence that she is ignoring China - it is possible that
she has been unable to speak to anyone in China capable of making a
difference.
That is what the article says, it is for you to provide contrary evidence.
The article did not offer any evidence - merely a statement that the
author had not seen Greta Thunberg in a particular place. That does
not make her statements in other forums invalid in any way.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Of course it doesn't - the key issue is whether all that can be done
is being done. Your presumption is as arrogant as the statements by
Niall Fergusson. If you are caught speedin on a motorway, Tony, it is
no excuse that they should have caught another car that passed you!
What nonsense, no logic and my opinion and that of the writers I referenced
remains uncontested.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Conservation is not the same as climate science - there may be some
small overlap, but science has made great progress in the last 20
years.
The overlap is massive, at least 80%. You are lying again.
Whenever someone disagrees with you , or does not support your
unsupported opinion, you claim they are lying - try addressing the
subjuect instead of just being nasty, Tony. And no the overlap is far
short of 80%.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming that
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
So who is claiming that carbon dioxide is a poison?
I didn't say anybody was, that was a headline referring to David Bellamy Read
the article, it is easy to read.
In thos case the stupidity of the headline is matched by the quality
of the article.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
Whatever the reason they did it, we are still bound by it, and should
be taking the actions that will reduce that cost - they just happen to
be the same actions supported in this article:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
That is an article from a New Zealand newspaper, arguing that action
needs to be taken - do you disagree?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you agree that the science is changing -
I have never believed anything other than that, why would you ask such a
question?
Post by Rich80105
but that is not as
relevant as seeing htat New Zealand has missed virtually all the
targets agreed so long ago by Paul Bennett and the National-led
government. Do you agree that New Zealand should honour international
commitments, Tony?
Irrelevant, nothing to do with this thread.
Of course it is relevant - and that is one of the things that has
Greta Thunberg and many others so upset.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Of course there is room for debate - you have restricted yourself to
irrelevancies and personal abuse - some things don't change.
I have not abused you so you are lying (that is a fact, not abuse).
More abuse - but then you will claim that it is just your personal
opinion, and being blatantly untrue does not change your right to be
totally wrong . . .
Post by Tony
I have merely posted two intelliegent (one scientifically based) articles and
of course you became defensive to the point of abuse.
Neither were scientifically based
Tony
2020-01-29 02:31:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:48:54 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:46:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic
we
have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?.
You have no evidence that she is ignoring China - it is possible that
she has been unable to speak to anyone in China capable of making a
difference.
That is what the article says, it is for you to provide contrary evidence.
The article did not offer any evidence - merely a statement that the
author had not seen Greta Thunberg in a particular place. That does
not make her statements in other forums invalid in any way.
Neither have you provided any evidence.
And of course it makes her handler's motives questionable, no-one can miss that
obvious truth, except you perhaps.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Of course it doesn't - the key issue is whether all that can be done
is being done. Your presumption is as arrogant as the statements by
Niall Fergusson. If you are caught speedin on a motorway, Tony, it is
no excuse that they should have caught another car that passed you!
What nonsense, no logic and my opinion and that of the writers I referenced
remains uncontested.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Conservation is not the same as climate science - there may be some
small overlap, but science has made great progress in the last 20
years.
The overlap is massive, at least 80%. You are lying again.
Whenever someone disagrees with you , or does not support your
unsupported opinion, you claim they are lying - try addressing the
subjuect instead of just being nasty, Tony. And no the overlap is far
short of 80%.
Rubbish it is almost the same thing.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming that
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
So who is claiming that carbon dioxide is a poison?
I didn't say anybody was, that was a headline referring to David Bellamy Read
the article, it is easy to read.
In thos case the stupidity of the headline is matched by the quality
of the article.
In your unsupported and unprofessional opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
Whatever the reason they did it, we are still bound by it, and should
be taking the actions that will reduce that cost - they just happen to
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
That is an article from a New Zealand newspaper, arguing that action
needs to be taken - do you disagree?
Irrelevant. This thread is not about agreements that have been made.
Action may be needed but as you have always ignored it is a question of
balanced and well considered action, not blind panic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you agree that the science is changing -
I have never believed anything other than that, why would you ask such a
question?
Post by Rich80105
but that is not as
relevant as seeing htat New Zealand has missed virtually all the
targets agreed so long ago by Paul Bennett and the National-led
government. Do you agree that New Zealand should honour international
commitments, Tony?
Irrelevant, nothing to do with this thread.
Of course it is relevant - and that is one of the things that has
Greta Thunberg and many others so upset.
Irrelevant as I have stated above.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Of course there is room for debate - you have restricted yourself to
irrelevancies and personal abuse - some things don't change.
I have not abused you so you are lying (that is a fact, not abuse).
More abuse - but then you will claim that it is just your personal
opinion, and being blatantly untrue does not change your right to be
totally wrong . . .
You are the only one who has beenm abusive here. And now compounded with more
abuse. You can't help it clearly, probably an illness.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I have merely posted two intelliegent (one scientifically based) articles and
of course you became defensive to the point of abuse.
Neither were scientifically based
Another lie, David Bellamy was a scientist, you are not and yet you dare to
judge him.
John Bowes
2020-01-29 02:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:48:54 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 22:46:07 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Of course it is not a diversion, why is this young woman who should be being
educated, not political, ignore the largest polluters on the planet?.
You have no evidence that she is ignoring China - it is possible that
she has been unable to speak to anyone in China capable of making a
difference.
That is what the article says, it is for you to provide contrary evidence.
The article did not offer any evidence - merely a statement that the
author had not seen Greta Thunberg in a particular place. That does
not make her statements in other forums invalid in any way.
Wrong! Her statements have been written by her parents as has become patently obvious to everybody except lying, blind supporters of the new relion Rich!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
To call
that a diversion is in itself an admission that she is (through her handlers)
ignoring the major problem.
Of course it doesn't - the key issue is whether all that can be done
is being done. Your presumption is as arrogant as the statements by
Niall Fergusson. If you are caught speedin on a motorway, Tony, it is
no excuse that they should have caught another car that passed you!
What nonsense, no logic and my opinion and that of the writers I referenced
remains uncontested.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d.
To suggest that David Bellamy was not in the field of conservation is just
plain stupid.
Conservation is not the same as climate science - there may be some
small overlap, but science has made great progress in the last 20
years.
The overlap is massive, at least 80%. You are lying again.
Whenever someone disagrees with you , or does not support your
unsupported opinion, you claim they are lying - try addressing the
subjuect instead of just being nasty, Tony.
No Rich! That is the way you operate you lying little toad!
Post by Rich80105
And no the overlap is far
short of 80%.
So what is it Rich? 79%, 78%? We need some proof not your unsupported opinion :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming that
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Only to people that cannot or will not understand the real issue here, welcome
to that club.
So who is claiming that carbon dioxide is a poison?
I didn't say anybody was, that was a headline referring to David Bellamy Read
the article, it is easy to read.
In thos case the stupidity of the headline is matched by the quality
of the article.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
You really are a nasty old man. What any government agreed to whenever they
agreed to it is absolutely irrelevant. For two reasons, one - that the science
is changing and two - that they did so for political reasons.
Whatever the reason they did it, we are still bound by it, and should
be taking the actions that will reduce that cost - they just happen to
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
That is an article from a New Zealand newspaper, arguing that action
needs to be taken - do you disagree?
He probably will. It doesn't matter WHO signed us to it. It's unaffordable and only going to damage or destroy the NZ economy if we blindly follow it!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you agree that the science is changing -
I have never believed anything other than that, why would you ask such a
question?
Post by Rich80105
but that is not as
relevant as seeing htat New Zealand has missed virtually all the
targets agreed so long ago by Paul Bennett and the National-led
government. Do you agree that New Zealand should honour international
commitments, Tony?
Irrelevant, nothing to do with this thread.
Of course it is relevant - and that is one of the things that has
Greta Thunberg and many others so upset.
Most of them have been brainwashed (though whether they had one is debatable) just like you Rich. Try acquiring some comprehension skills. You might be surprised at how flaky the whole so called science is.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Submission - you really have to ask that? Submission to the political whym of
those people, that clearly includes you, that believe there is no room for
debate - just do as you are told by your superiors because we know best. George
Orwell, stand up and be seen for the seer that you clearly were.
Of course there is room for debate - you have restricted yourself to
irrelevancies and personal abuse - some things don't change.
I have not abused you so you are lying (that is a fact, not abuse).
More abuse - but then you will claim that it is just your personal
opinion, and being blatantly untrue does not change your right to be
totally wrong . . .
Accusing you of lying is not abuse Rich. It's a statement of fact and only highlight what a stupid little Marxist you are!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I have merely posted two intelliegent (one scientifically based) articles and
of course you became defensive to the point of abuse.
Neither were scientifically based
Once again your lack of comprehension and blind support of doctrine prove what a comprehensionless spin doctor you are for the biggest scam in world history!
Crash
2020-01-28 07:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?

Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.

Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-28 09:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "

So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783

I posted extracts from that article further back in the thread :
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.

His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."

and

"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.

Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Crash
2020-01-29 02:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Any protagonist in any political protest such as that fronted by
Thunberg arouses suspicion when the perpetrators targeted are
demonstrably not the major players. James views are irrelevant to the
point I am making.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Nothing to do with Thunbergs actions so not related to the point I am
making.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-29 04:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Any protagonist in any political protest such as that fronted by
Thunberg arouses suspicion when the perpetrators targeted are
demonstrably not the major players. James views are irrelevant to the
point I am making.
It is not clear what yuo 'suspect', Crash. I do no know if China has
signed up to reduce emissions, but I 'suspect' that they have actually
made progress in reducing theirs. I also 'suspect' that access to
decision makers in China is more difficult than in Europe and America,
where I 'suspect' politicians have made promises and agreements in the
past that they are not fulfilling. It is easier to criticise the
'campaign strategy' than the substance of the campaign of course.

The actions of some politicians to increasehte use of coal for example
is a clear indication that the goal of reducing emissions is not
shared - and Trump can at least point to having withdrawn from
previous agreements. It should not be surprising that it is seen as
desirable that voters in the USA be encouraged to reject that action -
and Scott Morrison in Australia is producing similar protests.

From one of the links below:
"There are some key points we can learn from this perspective:

the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date:
at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of
historical emissions;
this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national
contributor;
the 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) – which are grouped
together here as they typically negotiate and set targets on a
collaborative basis – is also a large historical contributor at 22%;
many of the large annual emitters today – such as India and Brazil –
are not large contributors in a historical context;
Africa’s regional contribution – relative to its population size – has
been very small. This is the result of very low per capita emissions –
both historically and currently."
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Nothing to do with Thunbergs actions so not related to the point I am
making.
This thread has roamed over a number of issues - it started with
strange claims about an education programme that many had not at that
time read. many posters are capable of covering different related
issues in one post, particularly when they relate to the same
underlying issue.

So do you agree with the article by Andrew Bayly?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Crash
2020-01-30 03:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Any protagonist in any political protest such as that fronted by
Thunberg arouses suspicion when the perpetrators targeted are
demonstrably not the major players. James views are irrelevant to the
point I am making.
It is not clear what yuo 'suspect', Crash.
What I don't know what part of this you don't understand but let me
clarify further 'the perpetrators (that Thunberg) targeted (in her
appearance at the Zavos meeting) are demonstrably not the major (CO2
emissions) players'.
Post by Rich80105
I do no know if China has
signed up to reduce emissions, but I 'suspect' that they have actually
made progress in reducing theirs. I also 'suspect' that access to
decision makers in China is more difficult than in Europe and America,
where I 'suspect' politicians have made promises and agreements in the
past that they are not fulfilling. It is easier to criticise the
'campaign strategy' than the substance of the campaign of course.
Then I suspect you did not read my earlier cite at ucsusa.org. I have
since found a specific link to CO2 emissions by world regions from
1751 to 2017. These amply illustrate the current offenders,
particularly from 2000 onwards

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region.
Post by Rich80105
The actions of some politicians to increasehte use of coal for example
is a clear indication that the goal of reducing emissions is not
shared - and Trump can at least point to having withdrawn from
previous agreements. It should not be surprising that it is seen as
desirable that voters in the USA be encouraged to reject that action -
and Scott Morrison in Australia is producing similar protests.
I agree - but targeting anywhere but China is to target the minnow
offenders with respect to CO2 emissions. That is what Thunberg is
doing.
Post by Rich80105
at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of
historical emissions;
this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national
contributor;
You ignore current trends - that CO2 emissions from the USA are
declining, but CO2 emissions from China in particular are on the
increase.
Post by Rich80105
the 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) – which are grouped
together here as they typically negotiate and set targets on a
collaborative basis – is also a large historical contributor at 22%;
many of the large annual emitters today – such as India and Brazil –
are not large contributors in a historical context;
Africa’s regional contribution – relative to its population size – has
been very small. This is the result of very low per capita emissions –
both historically and currently."
None of which is germane to Thunbergs protests - that CO2 emissions
need to come down - and ignoring the single biggest offending country
in terms of current emission levels and trends since the turn of the
century.

My point is that Thunberg, in protesting about CO2 emissions, is
ignoring the biggest offender and targeting the minnow offenders.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Nothing to do with Thunbergs actions so not related to the point I am
making.
This thread has roamed over a number of issues - it started with
strange claims about an education programme that many had not at that
time read. many posters are capable of covering different related
issues in one post, particularly when they relate to the same
underlying issue.
So do you agree with the article by Andrew Bayly?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
George
2020-01-30 19:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The 'dangerous stuff' is all the fake news.
Ignoring the silent majority then screeching its empty head off when
their pet projects fail.
Which brings the crazies out onto the streets to block the majority
from going about their daily business.
Which pisses the silent majority off even more and leads to the crazies
going overboard trying to change the world to their image.
No silent majority says anything now because the crazies threaten harm
and even death if one transgresses their feelz....
Tony
2020-01-29 04:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
OK so you post sarcasm.
Whether you like it or not there are two sides to this issue.
Can you not see that?
Post by Rich80105
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Rich80105
2020-01-29 04:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:00:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
OK so you post sarcasm.
I merely re-posted part of a prevous comment, Tony. You will perhaps
recall previous examples of arcasm posted by yourself . . .
Post by Tony
Whether you like it or not there are two sides to this issue.
Can you not see that?
I can see that there are a large number of facets - the thread started
with some criticism of some material prepared to assist education on
the subject of climate change, and has roamed over multiple other
issues, but the underlying issue is the avoidance of acceptance that
there is a need for coutries to take actions to reduce the impact of
climate change - both because the alternative is increased problems
from higher temperatures, more extreme weather events etc, and beause
we and other countries have entered into international agreements that
carry penalties for not achieving some targets - and the reality that
this is accepted by both major parties as well as the Green Party;
National were in government when the initial commitments were made,
the current government is putting forward some related legislative
provisions, but there is resistance from many businesses which
envisage the possibility of additional costs arising from actions they
would have to take. Shutting down discussion by insisting on only
discussing particular small issues is one way some posters try to
avoid facing unpalatable truths . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Crash has declined to comment - is anyone brave enough to comment on
this article?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that Paula Bennett, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Tony
2020-01-29 05:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:00:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic
we
have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
OK so you post sarcasm.
I merely re-posted part of a prevous comment, Tony. You will perhaps
recall previous examples of arcasm posted by yourself . . .
I rarely use what you seem to love, that is sarcasm.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Whether you like it or not there are two sides to this issue.
Can you not see that?
I can see that there are a large number of facets - the thread started
with some criticism of some material prepared to assist education on
the subject of climate change, and has roamed over multiple other
issues, but the underlying issue is the avoidance of acceptance that
there is a need for coutries to take actions to reduce the impact of
climate change - both because the alternative is increased problems
from higher temperatures, more extreme weather events etc, and beause
we and other countries have entered into international agreements that
carry penalties for not achieving some targets - and the reality that
this is accepted by both major parties as well as the Green Party;
National were in government when the initial commitments were made,
the current government is putting forward some related legislative
provisions, but there is resistance from many businesses which
envisage the possibility of additional costs arising from actions they
would have to take. Shutting down discussion by insisting on only
discussing particular small issues is one way some posters try to
avoid facing unpalatable truths . . .
As you wrote, you appear to be incapable of seeing that there are two sides to
this issue. Proof positive in the latest post of yours.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Crash has declined to comment - is anyone brave enough to comment on
this article?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that Paula Bennett, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Rich80105
2020-01-29 09:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 23:51:18 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:00:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic
we
have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
OK so you post sarcasm.
I merely re-posted part of a prevous comment, Tony. You will perhaps
recall previous examples of arcasm posted by yourself . . .
I rarely use what you seem to love, that is sarcasm.
There you go again . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Whether you like it or not there are two sides to this issue.
Can you not see that?
I can see that there are a large number of facets - the thread started
with some criticism of some material prepared to assist education on
the subject of climate change, and has roamed over multiple other
issues, but the underlying issue is the avoidance of acceptance that
there is a need for coutries to take actions to reduce the impact of
climate change - both because the alternative is increased problems
from higher temperatures, more extreme weather events etc, and beause
we and other countries have entered into international agreements that
carry penalties for not achieving some targets - and the reality that
this is accepted by both major parties as well as the Green Party;
National were in government when the initial commitments were made,
the current government is putting forward some related legislative
provisions, but there is resistance from many businesses which
envisage the possibility of additional costs arising from actions they
would have to take. Shutting down discussion by insisting on only
discussing particular small issues is one way some posters try to
avoid facing unpalatable truths . . .
As you wrote, you appear to be incapable of seeing that there are two sides to
this issue. Proof positive in the latest post of yours.
I see more than 2 issues, many of which have multiple opinions and
beliefs. You appear to use only 2 fingers so often to others that you
think that is all there are . . .
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Crash has declined to comment - is anyone brave enough to comment on
this article?
Naturally Tony will not comment - I did not expect anything else.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that Paula Bennett, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
Tony
2020-01-29 19:00:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 23:51:18 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:00:49 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic
we
have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
So? James' comment from above is still relevant "Only problem for the
pair of you is that neither of you seemed to have noticed that wee
Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on you! Wakey wakey!! "
OK so you post sarcasm.
I merely re-posted part of a prevous comment, Tony. You will perhaps
recall previous examples of arcasm posted by yourself . . .
I rarely use what you seem to love, that is sarcasm.
There you go again . . .
You are quite simply incapable of accepting there are other opinions on any
matter, any matter at all, other than your own. Fact.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Whether you like it or not there are two sides to this issue.
Can you not see that?
I can see that there are a large number of facets - the thread started
with some criticism of some material prepared to assist education on
the subject of climate change, and has roamed over multiple other
issues, but the underlying issue is the avoidance of acceptance that
there is a need for coutries to take actions to reduce the impact of
climate change - both because the alternative is increased problems
from higher temperatures, more extreme weather events etc, and beause
we and other countries have entered into international agreements that
carry penalties for not achieving some targets - and the reality that
this is accepted by both major parties as well as the Green Party;
National were in government when the initial commitments were made,
the current government is putting forward some related legislative
provisions, but there is resistance from many businesses which
envisage the possibility of additional costs arising from actions they
would have to take. Shutting down discussion by insisting on only
discussing particular small issues is one way some posters try to
avoid facing unpalatable truths . . .
As you wrote, you appear to be incapable of seeing that there are two sides to
this issue. Proof positive in the latest post of yours.
Abuse deleted
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
So you think she should have done better - but perhaps she had tried
to talk to China and India - it does not affect her argument.
Post by Crash
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Because she can. It does not affectthe validity of her argument.
Post by Crash
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
It certainly got a lot of press, and recent meetings do seem to have
convinced some of the need for action - see
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
"Eight scientists from around the world were invited to address the
assembly, including Victoria University’s Professor Tim Naish. He
talked about Antarctica’s ice sheets and how they will contribute to
future sea level rises. He explained that 70 per cent of the world’s
fresh water is locked up in Antarctic ice, and that sea levels have
already risen by 20cm s in response to 1C of global warming.
His message was sobering: If we continue the way we’re going, he
believes sea levels could rise by 1.5m by the end of the 21st century.
If that happens, 800 million people around the world will have their
toes in the water."
and
"A consensus statement signed by all 19 noted with concern “the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on the
Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which highlights the
profound effects of climate change on Antarctica’s ecosystems and the
potentially catastrophic effects of Antarctic ice loss on global sea
level”.
Has Andrew Bayly got it right, Crash?
Crash has declined to comment - is anyone brave enough to comment on
this article?
Naturally Tony will not comment - I did not expect anything else.
I am glad you are happy. Andrew Bayly is on of many who hold opinions, some of
which are different to his. But you cannot live with that fact can you?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that Paula Bennett, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
George
2020-01-28 19:13:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 20:28:19 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed
to have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the
bung on you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is
being used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and
the use of similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in
their promotion of National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding
nazi members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as
speakers or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by
John Key as a distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and
fondled a plait - after all being a "man of the people" has not
hurt other populist "leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly
benefitted from being a young woman, but it is her message that
has been getting through - some of it almost certainly carefully
rehearsed, but some of it personal to her; her delivery and timing
has embarrassed some politicians who would rather bury the
subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to
panic we have -
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Simple. She (and her handlers) don't want to piss off their pay masters
James Christophers
2020-01-29 22:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.

“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.

“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.

“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”

As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...

If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.

New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.

Think on...
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
Crash
2020-01-30 04:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.
“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.
“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
That argument does not hold water. If CO2 emissions are causing
problems, the solution is reduction by all players. If the rest of
the world were to reduce emissions because of their long historic CO2
production, how are we best served when those reductions are cancelled
out by increases from China and India?
“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”
As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...
If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.
New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.
Think on...
Not too much thought required. In a world of 6,000,000,000+ people,
the per-capita stats of a country with less than 5,000,000 people are
insignificant. I agree those stats are embarrassing but I don't see
anyone from NZ preaching to the rest of the world like Thunberg is.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-30 08:57:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.
“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.
“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
That argument does not hold water. If CO2 emissions are causing
problems, the solution is reduction by all players. If the rest of
the world were to reduce emissions because of their long historic CO2
production, how are we best served when those reductions are cancelled
out by increases from China and India?
“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”
As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...
If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.
New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.
Think on...
Not too much thought required. In a world of 6,000,000,000+ people,
the per-capita stats of a country with less than 5,000,000 people are
insignificant. I agree those stats are embarrassing but I don't see
anyone from NZ preaching to the rest of the world like Thunberg is.
In a world of human egos, New Zealand can set a good example. If we do
the right thing there is no need to preach. That a protestor is
preaching to the world that she can access, and attacks those
tavelling in the wrong direction, does not invalidate the arguments
that she is using.

As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.

Internally, both National and Labour are fairly similar in their
voewpoints - they would have preferred that we not have the problem,
but we have made a commitment, and Simon Bridges and Andrew Bayly have
indicated they are convinced that there is a genuine need for us and
the world to make change urgently. The major difference between
National and Labour is that in an election year, National want to mute
their views to both be seen as blindly rejecting anything put forward
by Labour / Green, and they also know that they need to retain votes
from the bigooted far right deniers who want to put short term profits
ahead of long term survival . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2020-01-31 00:30:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.
“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.
“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
That argument does not hold water. If CO2 emissions are causing
problems, the solution is reduction by all players. If the rest of
the world were to reduce emissions because of their long historic CO2
production, how are we best served when those reductions are cancelled
out by increases from China and India?
Post by James Christophers
“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”
As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...
If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.
New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.
Think on...
Not too much thought required. In a world of 6,000,000,000+ people,
the per-capita stats of a country with less than 5,000,000 people are
insignificant. I agree those stats are embarrassing but I don't see
anyone from NZ preaching to the rest of the world like Thunberg is.
In a world of human egos, New Zealand can set a good example. If we do
the right thing there is no need to preach. That a protestor is
preaching to the world that she can access, and attacks those
tavelling in the wrong direction, does not invalidate the arguments
that she is using.
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Internally, both National and Labour are fairly similar in their
voewpoints - they would have preferred that we not have the problem,
but we have made a commitment, and Simon Bridges and Andrew Bayly have
indicated they are convinced that there is a genuine need for us and
the world to make change urgently. The major difference between
National and Labour is that in an election year, National want to mute
their views to both be seen as blindly rejecting anything put forward
by Labour / Green, and they also know that they need to retain votes
from the bigooted far right deniers who want to put short term profits
ahead of long term survival . . .
Typical bollocks from the king of lies Rich!
Crash
2020-01-31 01:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.
“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.
“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
That argument does not hold water. If CO2 emissions are causing
problems, the solution is reduction by all players. If the rest of
the world were to reduce emissions because of their long historic CO2
production, how are we best served when those reductions are cancelled
out by increases from China and India?
“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”
As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...
If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.
New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.
Think on...
Not too much thought required. In a world of 6,000,000,000+ people,
the per-capita stats of a country with less than 5,000,000 people are
insignificant. I agree those stats are embarrassing but I don't see
anyone from NZ preaching to the rest of the world like Thunberg is.
In a world of human egos, New Zealand can set a good example. If we do
the right thing there is no need to preach. That a protestor is
preaching to the world that she can access, and attacks those
tavelling in the wrong direction, does not invalidate the arguments
that she is using.
OK then. By that logic I should be off to Wellington to complain to
our PM about President Trump, who is setting up trade deals that have
a world-wide impact. Absurd? Yes, but the same principle applies to
Thundbergs selectivity of audience.
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
Internally, both National and Labour are fairly similar in their
voewpoints - they would have preferred that we not have the problem,
but we have made a commitment, and Simon Bridges and Andrew Bayly have
indicated they are convinced that there is a genuine need for us and
the world to make change urgently. The major difference between
National and Labour is that in an election year, National want to mute
their views to both be seen as blindly rejecting anything put forward
by Labour / Green, and they also know that they need to retain votes
from the bigooted far right deniers who want to put short term profits
ahead of long term survival . . .
You cant resist your off-topic political rhetoric - yet again.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-01-31 21:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:55:59 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 19:22:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:28:44 +1300
Post by BR
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 17:45:12 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Only problem for the pair of you is that neither of you seemed to
have noticed that wee Greta’s already long since pulled the bung on
you! Wakey wakey!!
There are striking parallels between the way this young girl is being
used as a propaganda mascot by the climate frauds, and the use of
similarly aged young girls by the Third Reich in their promotion of
National Socialism.
Yup.
All those shorts of cheering crowds of young females surrounding nazi
members that were shown before the main film...
Distraction is a common aim when using celebrities either as speakers
or attractive audiences - and may even have been used by John Key as a
distraction when he drank beer from a bottle and fondled a plait -
after all being a "man of the people" has not hurt other populist
"leaders". . . Greta has undoubtedly benefitted from being a young
woman, but it is her message that has been getting through - some of
it almost certainly carefully rehearsed, but some of it personal to
her; her delivery and timing has embarrassed some politicians who
would rather bury the subject.
There have been calls for debate, but it is hard to find cogent
argument against the message being put forward by Greta - closer to
home we have
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
and
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/malcolm-turnbull
No cheering young females, just relevant argument as well as opinion.
And on the side of those who are resisting the political calls to panic we have
-
https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/
In which an academic with no expertise in climate change argues that
Greta should have been protesting somewhere else
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that someone
protesting about CO2 emissions should target the largest current
emitters. Why target the World Economic Forum in Davos? The answer
seems obvious - selective targeting by Thunberg's handlers. There is
more value in capturing an international economic conference than
there is in taking on China and India anywhere.
Post by Rich80105
. . . . a diversion
really; certainly no coherent argument aganst the actions Thunberg is
advocating.
Agreed. But the selective targeting of countries and organisations
that are not the dominant players when it comes to CO2 emissions
elicits suspicion in me of orchestration not associated with the cause
of climate change but the cause of celebrity advancement.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
The dominant players here are China, USA, India, Russia and Japan,
with a combined 61%. However take out the USA and Japan and you are
left with China, India and Russia with a combined 41%. Why is Greta
not targeting these countries? Why is she targeting countries that
produce paltry levels of CO2?
Now lets look at trends: which countries are currently showing
increased CO2 emissions?
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Scroll down to see the graph from 1751 to 2017. The default graph
shown clearly illustrates who the big emitters are. Then click the
'relative' box to see which regions historically emit the biggest
percentage.
Protesting in Davos was pointless and this data illustrates where the
problem lies if climate change is caused by CO2 emissions.
Particular among the references you give, it’s the per-country cumulative CO2 emissions that are of significant concern because of the permanence of CO2 once introduced into the atmosphere.
“What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today.
“This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.
That argument does not hold water. If CO2 emissions are causing
problems, the solution is reduction by all players. If the rest of
the world were to reduce emissions because of their long historic CO2
production, how are we best served when those reductions are cancelled
out by increases from China and India?
“This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.”
As for the “tension” referred to above, the greatest irony of all is that China gets the emissions rap from members of its export clientele for the consequences of its efforts to keep them supplied with what are today their critical necessities of life. And it has achieved this over a mere 40 years by developing from a paddy-field culture to the world’s economic megalith without which New Zealand would be wiped off the global economic map. But that’s not all...
If the numbers given by Wikipedia and other sources are anything to go by, “clean, green” New Zealand’s total per-capita CO2 emissions are also level pegging with China’s.
New Zealand is also a net importer of China’s emissions while in 2018 the US’s per-capita CO2 emissions were, unsurprisingly, double those of China’s.
Think on...
Not too much thought required. In a world of 6,000,000,000+ people,
the per-capita stats of a country with less than 5,000,000 people are
insignificant. I agree those stats are embarrassing but I don't see
anyone from NZ preaching to the rest of the world like Thunberg is.
In a world of human egos, New Zealand can set a good example. If we do
the right thing there is no need to preach. That a protestor is
preaching to the world that she can access, and attacks those
tavelling in the wrong direction, does not invalidate the arguments
that she is using.
OK then. By that logic I should be off to Wellington to complain to
our PM about President Trump, who is setting up trade deals that have
a world-wide impact. Absurd? Yes, but the same principle applies to
Thundbergs selectivity of audience.
Whether you wish to complain to anyone about Trump does not
necessarily invalidate your concern, Crash. NOte that Greta Thunberg
is not a US citizen, and the audience for her speeches is far wider
than Trump; speaking at events where he is speaking does however
create a newsworthy contrast.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Correct.
Post by Rich80105
Internally, both National and Labour are fairly similar in their
voewpoints - they would have preferred that we not have the problem,
but we have made a commitment, and Simon Bridges and Andrew Bayly have
indicated they are convinced that there is a genuine need for us and
the world to make change urgently. The major difference between
National and Labour is that in an election year, National want to mute
their views to both be seen as blindly rejecting anything put forward
by Labour / Green, and they also know that they need to retain votes
from the bigooted far right deniers who want to put short term profits
ahead of long term survival . . .
You cant resist your off-topic political rhetoric - yet again.
For New Zealand, what we do ourselves is important - and whether we
are seen as a pariah whose commitment to international agreements is
shaky depends on political support for complying with those agreements
we have entered into - and that is, sadly, a policital issue. National
are putting short term partisan politics ahead of the best interests
of New Zealand.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/01/17/david-bellamy-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-poison-but-the-worlds-best-friend/
Which deatures a 2011 article by a respected scientist in another
fiel;d. The headline is of course misleading - no-one is claiming htat
carbon dioxide is a poison, just that, as is being demonstrated (and
perhaps particularly demonstrated since 2011!) that changes to the mix
of our atmosphere are likely to cause large changes in our climate.
Again nothing there
Post by Tony
But the panic merchants do not want debate, they want submission.
Submission to what, Tony? The National MP who I referred to wants us
to comply with the international agreements that a Paula Bennet, as
part of a previous National-led government, signed us up to. Is that
really so radical? I understand there are financial penalties for not
meeting targets - are you happy for us to do nothing, Tony?
--
Crash McBash
HitAnyKey
2020-01-31 08:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 21:57:26 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.

<snip>
Rich80105
2020-01-31 21:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
HitAnyKey
2020-02-01 03:05:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by Australia
walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New Zealand a
reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and almost certainly
assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security Council, and with trade -
possibly including China.
What planet do you live on?
John Bowes
2020-02-02 01:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by Australia
walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New Zealand a
reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and almost certainly
assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security Council, and with trade -
possibly including China.
What planet do you live on?
Marxism is the one true path according to the ever trolling Rich
;)
Tony
2020-02-01 03:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no debate.
Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to do with the
debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Rich80105
2020-02-01 08:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no debate.
Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to do with the
debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Prompted by New Zealand taking an anti-nuclear weapon stance; the
reaction of the USA was fairly predictable, but we are still proud of
being anti nuclear weapons.
Tony
2020-02-01 19:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no debate.
Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to do with the
debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Prompted by New Zealand taking an anti-nuclear weapon stance; the
reaction of the USA was fairly predictable, but we are still proud of
being anti nuclear weapons.
Whatever you believe about us being anti nuclear weapons is irrelevant. We were
booted out by the USA.
John Bowes
2020-02-02 01:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no debate.
Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to do with the
debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Prompted by New Zealand taking an anti-nuclear weapon stance; the
reaction of the USA was fairly predictable, but we are still proud of
being anti nuclear weapons.
WRONG! Prompted by New Zealand demanding USA would confirm ships coming here weren't carrying nukes! The response from the USA cost us millions of dollars in defence spending because Labour as usual didn't bother to think about the consequences of it's actions!
George
2020-02-02 19:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 17:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
WRONG! Prompted by New Zealand demanding USA would confirm ships
coming here weren't carrying nukes! The response from the USA cost us
millions of dollars in defence spending because Labour as usual
didn't bother to think about the consequences of it's actions!
The same requirement was not asked of the Russian and Chinese naval
ships that visited...
And we are not 'anti nuclear' that was the position of a left wing
government that was very anti America...
Rich80105
2020-02-03 02:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 17:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
WRONG! Prompted by New Zealand demanding USA would confirm ships
coming here weren't carrying nukes! The response from the USA cost us
millions of dollars in defence spending because Labour as usual
didn't bother to think about the consequences of it's actions!
The same requirement was not asked of the Russian and Chinese naval
ships that visited...
Yes it was. The question of nuclear propulsion was discussed, but not
seen as a determining issue, but it was rendered moot by the USA
refusal to say whewther any vessel carried nuclear weapons.
Post by George
And we are not 'anti nuclear' that was the position of a left wing
government that was very anti America...
You are correct, we were only anti nuclear weapons. We have long used
nuclear materials in various health and indutrial applications, and
shortly before this issue was raised we had investigated the possibl
edevelopment of a nuclear power system to generate electricity.

No past NZ government has been anti America - we have always
endeavoured to get along with them well, and both left and right
governments have worked hard to foster amicable trade and other
relationships. Equally I suspect there has been no government (either
'left'or 'right' that has agreed with all policies of the USA
government or presidency.
George
2020-02-01 19:34:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a
pariah whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty -
an act for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the
beginnings of recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no
debate. Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to
do with the debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Look how we were treated when Britain went into the Common Market...
Size matters only when the bigger country is fighting for survival and
the smaller country has an available Army Navy and Air Force...
Tony
2020-02-01 19:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a
pariah whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty -
an act for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the
beginnings of recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no
debate. Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to
do with the debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Look how we were treated when Britain went into the Common Market...
Size matters only when the bigger country is fighting for survival and
the smaller country has an available Army Navy and Air Force...
There are many examples of that.
Rich80105
2020-02-01 23:18:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a
pariah whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty -
an act for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the
beginnings of recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no
debate. Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to
do with the debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Look how we were treated when Britain went into the Common Market...
What aspect did you want us to look at?

We are now going through another round of negotiations as Britain
leaves the EU. What else did you expect?
Post by Rich80105
Size matters only when the bigger country is fighting for survival and
the smaller country has an available Army Navy and Air Force...
For both the UK and the USA, New Zealand participation in joint
military activities was a symbol of our then global alignment; we have
never been as important in modern times as we were in WW1. What our
participation in foreign mlitary activities is now of our alignment
with the United Nationals, a belief in the rule of law, and yes common
heritage and beliefs in freedom from tyranny that we share with many
other countries.

This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination - the thread veered
away from that as the paper under consideration was actually read by
some ofthe protagonists, and has since wandered all over the place.
What piint were you trying to make your most recent contribution,
Tony?
Tony
2020-02-02 00:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:42:36 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 08:58:33 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a
pariah whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty -
an act for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the
beginnings of recovery to show.
<snip>
We could argue about whether New Zealand or the USA folowed by
Australia walked away from ANZUS, but that split certainly gave New
Zealand a reputatoion for principled actions internatioally, and
almost certainly assisted New Zealand to a seat on the Security
Council, and with trade - possibly including China.
New Zealand was frozen out of ANZUS by the Americans. There can be no
debate. Whether our Nuclear ban was a good thing or not is nothing to
do with the debate. We effectively were removed by the USA.
The rest of your post is wishful thinking and cannot be proven.
Look how we were treated when Britain went into the Common Market...
What aspect did you want us to look at?
We are now going through another round of negotiations as Britain
leaves the EU. What else did you expect?
Post by Rich80105
Size matters only when the bigger country is fighting for survival and
the smaller country has an available Army Navy and Air Force...
For both the UK and the USA, New Zealand participation in joint
military activities was a symbol of our then global alignment; we have
never been as important in modern times as we were in WW1. What our
participation in foreign mlitary activities is now of our alignment
with the United Nationals, a belief in the rule of law, and yes common
heritage and beliefs in freedom from tyranny that we share with many
other countries.
This thread started off with wild claims
No wild claim.
Post by Rich80105
that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination - the thread veered
away from that
Why did you lead the thread elsewhere?
Post by Rich80105
as the paper under consideration was actually read by
some ofthe protagonists, and has since wandered all over the place.
What piint were you trying to make your most recent contribution,
Tony?
You were answering George and now changing to me (a bit untidy but still) but I
have made my point well enough in the first few iterations of this thread all
else was to answer attempts to move the subject.
BR
2020-02-03 04:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.

Bill.
Tony
2020-02-03 05:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
Indeed so.
Rich80105
2020-02-03 08:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
It started that way, but the thread moved away from that nonsense.
John Bowes
2020-02-03 12:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
It started that way, but the thread moved away from that nonsense.
No Rich. It moved away from the truth! The only nonsense was your blind support of your despotic excuse for a government!
Tony
2020-02-04 01:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
It started that way, but the thread moved away from that nonsense.
You have deliberately misunderstood what Bill wrote. He was, as you very well
know, saying that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination. And therefore not a wild claim
and not nonsense.
James Christophers
2020-02-04 04:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
It started that way, but the thread moved away from that nonsense.
You have deliberately misunderstood what Bill wrote. He was, as you very well
know, saying that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination. And therefore not a wild claim
and not nonsense.
To date, what signs or examples are there of a global mass movement of parents of school-age children against this 'indoctrination', and how effective have they been?
Tony
2020-02-04 05:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
This thread started off with wild claims that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination
It is.
Bill.
It started that way, but the thread moved away from that nonsense.
You have deliberately misunderstood what Bill wrote. He was, as you very well
know, saying that education on climate
change issues was tantamount to indoctrination. And therefore not a wild claim
and not nonsense.
To date, what signs or examples are there of a global mass movement of parents
of school-age children against this 'indoctrination', and how effective have
they been?
None you fool.
This is yet to be implemented. We shall see.

James Christophers
2020-02-01 23:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HitAnyKey
<snip>
Post by Rich80105
As a small country, New Zealand cannot afford to be seen as a pariah
whose commitment to international agreements is shaky.
Indeed. As we learned when we walked away from the ANZUS treaty - an act
for which it took the thick end of 30 years for the beginnings of
recovery to show.
<snip>
Strictky off-topic, I know, but time and realpolitik will always do their work and it has been no different in the case of the gradual unthawing of NZ’s compromised ANZUS status. But we still have some way to go.

Even with its more recent Five-eyes membership, New Zealand is still regarded by its partners as “unreliable” and there are still some policy decisions within the alliance that are not wholly shared with or divulged to New Zealand. I think this reflects this country’s staunch determination to maintain its sovereign independence - i.e., it is not prepared to be seen to kneel to the big and powerful, “benign” though they be. This, in turn, is understandably at odds with its crucial reliance on the major players in the alliance to support and aid it in any possible military threat to it borders.

Even so, I think it’s fair to say that what the alliance regards as its “most socialist” member, is treated as “an all-round good egg but - shall we say - still needs watching”. By far the biggest proponent of this is the UK which to this day is still smarting over its lost-and-gone-forever global dominion and its failure as yet to find for itself a new purpose and meaning.
Loading...