Where is National on climate change?
Are National climate change deniers or not? Not an easy question to answer.
Bill English from Feb in Investigate (link from the Standard):
[I’m] quite worried that policies are going to be driven by this Armageddon mentality that the world has… far too much carbon.
Bill again from Agenda on the weekend:
GUYON Although just 18 months ago your leader was saying he was suspicious that this phenomenon actually even existed, I mean what credibility does the party have when it doubted the very existence of climate change only in mid 2005?
BILL I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking questions about it, there’s just in the last few days some quite reputable publications about the complexities, the problems of the modelling of the climate phenomena that we’re meant to be changing here, so I don’t belong to the camp and National doesn’t that says this is open and shut, there’s absolutely no doubt.
And this from No Right Turn about a recent press release from National MP Richard Worth:
National MP Richard Worth has put out a press release complaining that we are being “drawn into the mire of the Kyoto Protocol” and spouting the usual Denialist claims - that “the world has not warmed since 1998″ (wrong), that its all the fault of the sun and cosmic rays (wrong and wrong), and that everything’s OK as the arctic had less ice in the 1930’s and in the Medieval Warm Period (wrong).
So what the hell do they think? They’re trying to tell us that they aren’t deniers but it’s not that clear.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Having had a flip through The Standard… Did Jacqui Dean really table the global temperature vs lack of pirates graph?
Pastafari!
September 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I am glad that somebody from the Nat’s is prepared to be up front about this global warming con.
You should be happy about this Russ, it means you do not have to go on pretending that you will consider working with the Nat’s after the next election.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
good post fwwog,
it like jeanette saying them NAT getting real,
thems slow but catch up soon,
i been telling yous fwwog, go to NAT HQ and talk,
NAT 45% plus fwoogs mn things,
September 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
That wasn’t a press release.
It was “Newsworthy” Richard Worth’s weekly newsletter.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:05 am
It all doesn’t matter anyway we are doomed, if australia is meeting its kyoto target (which according to Al Gore it is) then the kyoto is flawed so drastically its not worth the carbon used to print it.
As for the “BlueGreen” national party, its a joke they will simply turn up the air conditioning when it gets too hot. Only reason i would vote for them is because if labour gets in again they will YET MORE NOTHING to help the situation, maybe 3 years in out or government will wake them up to the fact that we vote them in to LEAD this country not pass pet project bills about homo-marriages and create more taxes to pay for the ever expanding public service, which wastes time and money with such causes as arkmed zawheee (Wipes spittle from computer screeN)
Anyway as i was saying the WORLD is wasting to much time Global Climate change is here and its gonna get worse so stock your cupboards load your gun cause if its not the weather its the climate refugees which are gonna get ya!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:01 am
The question is which party is the worst, not which is the best. National represents the “doing very well don’t spoil the party crowd”, and the money (I suspect comes from property developers with homes to fill (and others). I don’t trust Bill English. Labour as ekstatek says. The Greens are an ingrown toenail party dominated by people who don’t think like the rest of us.
jh
September 25th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Ekstatek,
You raise some valid points about the Kyoto protocol. Australia managed to negotiate itself a target which was greater than its 1990 emission levels (as opposed to most other developed countries which had to reduce their emissions). I’m not sure if Australia is going to meet its target, the last data I saw suggested it won’t. In any case, Australia and the US have not ratified the agreement, so its a bit academic. The whole idea of the Kyoto protocol is that it would be the first step on the path to a solution, not the solution in itself.
The fact that Australia won’t even ratify Kyoto is (in my opinion) extremely selfish. The message they are giving the rest of the world is that “we value our economic development” over and above the welfare of the global environment. Its worse than that. If I was from Tuvalu (I’m not, but I’ve got family living in similarly low islands), and I turned up in a boat in Australia tomorrow because my home had been flooded by the rising sea level, Australia would probably immediately deport me to a prison camp, on Nauru or somewhere similar. They would then either try and return me to my flooded home, or send me to a third country. What sort of message does this give the rest of the world? At least New Zealand has agreed to take environmental refugees from Tuvalu (though the deal is not as good as it appears at first sight).
OK … I’ve just read the part of your post which says you want to shoot the climate refugees. I think I took your bait hook, line and sinker.
Have a nice day
September 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
i hear the latest poll is out..
the greens are down 2%.
any alarm bells ringing yet..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
More here.