<< HOUSEHOLDER WATCHES PENNIES ~ MAIN ~ SMH REVEALS LINK >>
NEW ZEALAND WARNED NOT TO OFFEND FOREIGNERS
New Zealand’s National Party has pledged (conditionally) to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol if elected on September 17. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams finds this deplorable:
Williams said European nations see climate change as the biggest single risk to their future and are very focussed on it. New Zealand must be part of this, Williams said.
Why, these people are nothing but slaves to green-screaming Eurotrash! Whatever happened to independent and proud of it New Zealand?
New Zealand is only concerned about being independent from countries and cults that don’t care about New Zealand’s independence.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 31 at 11:04 AM • permalinkThis will be an interesting election. And the government there knows they’re in a bad way when they pull stunts like making Clarke look human.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 07 31 at 01:08 PM • permalinkWhat seems odd is Morgan Williams’ assumption that New Zealand should automatically care what Europe is focussed on. Why should this be? Europe is also focussed on downplaying the threat posed by unassimilable Islamic fundamentalists, and on arguing with the U.S. over the shape of bananas - are these things also worthy of emulation by New Zealand? New Zealand seems nearly always to be characterized in the American press as a sort of paradise; why ruin it by aping France?
Mr. Williams (and Europe) understandably do not want New Zealand to duck out of paying up. Europe (France) may sniff in disdain at money, but they secretly love it when they can get their hands on other people’s.
debi, there is a reasonable chance that Comrade Clark will get the arse in September. Labour has had the media in their pocket for a long time (suprised? don’t be) but even they have sensed the mood of the country and have given oxygen to the catalogue of blunders and hypocrisy that has followed Labour this year. I’m not writing her off just yet, the Polls look promising for the main opposition party but personally, most of my friends lean left and I fear that is a cross section of the NZ community.
So much for Morgan Williams because the news item says that the National’s policy is to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol from 2013 if New Zealand makes commitments to reduce emissions beyond those binding trading partners like Australia and the United States.
Talk about a non-event! Kyoto only has a first commitment period of 2008 - 2012 and nothing beyond that. All attempts to create a son of Kyoto and additional commitments have failed especially as more countries (politicians) recognise that they cannot deliver on it.
Oh what the heck, the Nationals may withdraw from Kyoto after the agreed time period! Or maybe they would keep NZ in the protocol after everyone else has left. How virtuous! Now how could I get some of the New Zealand compliance costs funnelled in my direction instead of to places like Russia? Any suggestions?
The independent and proud New Zealand died years ago and was replaced with the dependent travesty we see now.
The question is can they get back from where they are?
Posted by Harry Buttle on 2005 07 31 at 07:49 PM • permalinkI think we in NZ don’t have that much to be optimistic about unfortunately, even if National wins the election (which at this point in time is more likely than not so at least Comrade Helen will be out of the way). Don Brash is, Mick pointed out, soft left although at least he’s to the right of the British Tories. He’ll give us tax cuts, less pandering to the Maori grievance industry and look to get onside with America again so it could be worse.
An interesting study came out last week, which said kiwi women in their 30s outnumber their male counterparts by 35,000 or something like that. While it means someone like me is spoiled for choice at times, it also translates to more women running the country and therefore a higher chance of even more Helen Clarks. Apologies is this is somewhat sexist, but my observations are that women tend to be more left wing and have greater nanny-state tendencies, so basically we’re screwed.
Posted by brucey bonus on 2005 07 31 at 09:13 PM • permalinkTo say that NZ was a “quirky” place would be an understatement of massive proportions. Talk about suffering from the perils of isolation!!
How the hell do they justify the election and then the re-election of someone, such as Clarke, who possesses the personality of a zombie? Is there anyone on planet earth who is less inspiring than this complete dud? Poor thing missed out completely when thay were handing out personalities. Caught behind the door perhaps?
Aging Gamer - I am yet to see any evidence of this so-called “human” behavior to which you refer. Did I blink and miss it? From my vantage point, she is a card carrying member of the walking dead.
Posted by TruthHandler on 2005 07 31 at 09:13 PM • permalinkGruntled: exception that proves the rule, etc.
Posted by brucey bonus on 2005 07 31 at 09:59 PM • permalinkCan someone please give me a link to concise, scientific proof that
global warmingclimate change whatever the hell they are calling it this week) and global dimming is a crock of shite? I need to print out the info and give it to my neighbours who are really concerned about the whole thing, and don’t know about the 1% effect on the 3% total of all warming gases (which are the human/industrial contribution) which will happen with Kyoto, maybe.
thanksTruth, I said they made her look human (remember the makeover?) not that she was.
You could shave a baboon and get a Finley resident as a result, appearences aren’t that hard to alter.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 07 31 at 11:22 PM • permalinkHi Kae,
Try this site for info - CO2science.
—Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2005 07 31 at 11:38 PM • permalink#12 TruthHandler, “quirky” is dead right, I’ve only recently returned here after many years and I can’t quite get a handle on the mindset. Isolation I don’t think is quite correct. In a Geographic sense, sure, but Kiwis are amongst the most travelled people on earth, perhaps we just put our heads in the sand upon our return?
The circle of friends I returned to in NZ are the complete opposite of what I think of as lefties, but yet they readily bought into Michael Moore’s propaganda. They believe almost to a man that America is the biggest problem in the world today. Though not particularly skilfull, I enjoy arguing, I’m sure getting plenty of practice.
#11 Brucey..spoiled for choice? not where I am. You must live in Invercargill and Thanks a lot for putting a Stepford Wives type image in my mind of thousands of Helen Clark clones plodding the country in sensible shoes. I will now attempt to blot that out with alcohol.
Kae, try the incomparable Prof Philip Stott, although he posts less often these days:
Enviro Spin watchBrucey, #14: “#Gruntled: exception that proves the rule, etc.”
I’ve never fully understood how an exception can prove a rule. What an exception proves is that “the rule” isn’t always true.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 08 01 at 01:04 AM • permalink‘The exception that proves the rule’ is probably one of the most misunderstood idioms around. I believe it’s an old legal term (‘exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis’ if you’re a Latin fan), where an authority granted an exception to a rule in a special case, but in making such an exception, confirmed that in general the rule was valid and should govern in all other cases.
Posted by brucey bonus on 2005 08 01 at 02:15 AM • permalink#21 “Prove” in this sense means “to test”- as in “proving ground”.
Posted by Just passing by on 2005 08 01 at 02:19 AM • permalinkIndependent and proud of it . . . . sorry, but that doesn’t work when you decommission your defence force so you can have a strategy of being protected by Australia.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 01 at 04:31 AM • permalink#15 Kae, Michaell Crichton’s speech at Caltech from a couple of years ago is a fun read about global *cough* warming.
And Brucey, it’s not sexist. We here in Brackistan (whoever coined that name deserves a medal - it is spot on) have the amazing Ms Christine Nixon as our Chief Commissioner of Police. This is the lady who apparently didn’t wish to be defined by her sexuality and promptly granted paid approval for police officers to march in gay pride marches. In uniform. AND they got time to practise. That has led to police being able to take time out to march in other parades, such as those celebrating minorities.
Oh, and we have a muslim lady police officer. She still has to take time out during the day to face Mecca and say her prayers, and when she did her finals, they had to close off the swimming pool at the Academy so as not to have her sensibilities offended by possible infidel observers.
Nixon is also after access to police officers’ personal financial affairs. Ostensibly to keep tabs on corruption, of course. She has managed to piss off the rank and file to the extent that there is talk of the coppers going on strike. Link to today’s HeraldSunhere.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 01 at 06:42 AM • permalinkThanks for that Crighton article Nilknarf - or is it Franklin? This quote is to tease the others into reading:
As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?
about global *cough* warming...
I wonder how hardline greenhouse-sceptics feel about the agreement between the US, Oz, India, China and South Korea to curb CO2 emissions. For once, you can’t blame it on pressure from the almighty greens and their MSM fellow travellers. Bush and the hard-nosed Indian, Chinese, and Korean leaders wouldn’t piss on a greenie if he were on fire.
So maybe the agreement came about because the scientists of these countries have told their leaders that there may actually be a looming problem - and that something should be done about it.
BTW I have no problem about rejecting Kyoto, with its wildly unrealistic targets. But don’t dismiss global warming out of hand - unless you consider Bush, Howard, and the Asian leaders to be idiots.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 01 at 09:49 AM • permalinkI’ve never fully understood how an exception can prove a rule. What an exception proves is that “the rule” isn’t always true.
Their exceptionalism proves that the rule is generally true. For instance, men generally don’t date women notably older than them. Aston Kutcher is the exception that proves the rule - if that were not true, his relationship with Demi Moore wouldn’t be so notable.
Of course that brings up the question, why does anyone care about either those idiots anymore? Demi Moore’s ability to take off her top is void at this point, and Aston Kutcher is an ass who’s managed to piss off pretty much everyone.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 08 01 at 01:07 PM • permalinkNothing to apologise for, blogstrop. I’m not exactly wearing my cloak of invisibility.
Do I believe there is something about the climate changing? Yes I do, but it’s not unqualified. The climate has never been static, and there is no doubt in my mind that pollution and deforestation have had some impact. Just how much an impact I don’t know. I don’t think that too many people can say with unimpeachable authority that x is the definitive cause for global warming.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 01 at 07:49 PM • permalinkAlso check out junkscience.com. It has a counter comparing the amount of money spent to the amount of CO2 reduced. It’s almost funny, if it weren’t so true.
As for “the exception proves the rule” you’re confusing a logical or mathematical “proof” with, as indicated above, “testing” the rule. An exception does not establish that a rule is true, it seeks to *prove* the validity of the rule.
In other words, the exception “tests” the rule. If the exception is rare, the rule still generally holds. If the exception turns out not to be so exceptional/unusual, then you have to either change the rule or add a new rule.
Compare this to the “proving grounds” at White Sands and other places. A Proving Grounds is a place to test, especially, dangerous machinery like rockets, planes, and weapons to see if they fail under field conditons as opposed to in the lab.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 08 01 at 10:40 PM • permalink#22 & #23, Brucey and Just… Oh… OK. Thanks, that explains it. I’ve always tried to figure that one out from a logical standpoint, and it never made sense to me.
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 08 02 at 01:12 AM • permalinkWhat I just don’t understand about the whole Kyoto business when it comes to New Zealand is - why, why on earth?
My wall map puts New Zealand W-A-A-A-Y down there in the South Pacific, underpopulated, tidy and happy.
Why would anyone in New Zealand care about the dopey Kyoto Accord in the first place - let alone be prepared to bankrupt their little paradise over it?
Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2005 08 02 at 05:00 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Any chance of this National Party winning? or will it be Helen Clark again:(