My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« UK Met withholds climate data to avoid embarrassment | Main | A perspective on Honduras »




especially the title


Acid fails to read the signs, yet AGAIN.. sigh!

Jonkey has now admitted that his remarks about Keisha were "rather flippant" and says he will meet with her.

Well that is one thing he shares with Billy English - brilliant hindsight!

Ha Ha Ha !!!


"Acid fails to read the signs, yet AGAIN.. sigh!

Jonkey has now admitted that his remarks about Keisha were "rather flippant" and says he will meet with her."


SO WHAT. I did see that comment.

The PM still had every right to say what he did.

BTW: There's actually a good letter to the editor in todays NZ Herald which says it pretty well.

She's a socalled 'Do Gooder'. Who really doesn't know what she's talking about.

Also reducing our dairy cows by 700,000 to reduce methane emissions. Ain't going to Save the planet either.


These scientists deserve the 'Ship of Fools' Award!

More Clouds can actually 'trap heat' making it warmer!!

Cloud ships on course to beat climate change, says Copenhagen study

Quick climate changes fixes come with huge dangers, warn scientists



I read the posts... mirrors in space to reflect some heat! Remote control 'Cloud ships' spraying sea water into the air! What a joke!



I read the posts... mirrors in space to reflect some heat! Remote control 'Cloud ships' spraying sea water into the air! What a joke!"


Yeah. It's the same as the proposals to dump urea and iron filings into the oceans to absorb carbon. 'Madness'. I'll give the Greenies some credit where its due. They oppose those solutions.

The iron experiment they did in the Southern Ocean didn't go all that well.

Setback for climate technical fix

The biggest ever investigation into "ocean fertilisation" as a climate change fix has brought modest results.

The idea is that putting iron filings in the ocean will stimulate growth of algae, which will absorb CO2 from air.

But scientists on the Lohafex project, which put six tonnes of iron into the Southern Ocean, said little extra carbon dioxide was taken up.


This also applies to our own halfwit of a Minister Nick Smith. Heard him on Newstalks Larry William's program lastnight. All he does is quote Gareth Renowden. Laughable. It appears though the NZ's emission reductions won't happen unless India and China also sign on.

An extra $1400 in tax per person a year was also mentioned. They can get stuffed. If the Greenies believe in it so strongly. They can pay double the amount in tax!!

BTW: Greenies. You better stop composting recycling advocacy. Composting gives off Methane. You better start racking up all the leaf litter in the forests. That gives off methane aswell!!

I Accuse:

It is in this spirit that I issue my own version of “I Accuse.”

I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, “global warming”, in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called “carbon credits,” based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a role in the alleged warming process.

The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade and predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come.


This carbon credit business is just another version of tulip bulb trading that went on. People woke up to that one. They talk about wealth re-distribution, yeah right! Distributed to the wealthy from the lesser of us me thinks.

Earth is a living thing it will level its self. It is much larger, older and wiser than we are in matters of nature and will make natural balances in due course of time. It works in thousands and millions of years not just a few decades like we do. How arrogant mere Humans are to think we can disrupt the Earth to these degrees then fix it again.

When it was first called Global Warming, I said Climate Change. Now to cover their buts they say Climate Change and now I say Natural Climate Fluctuation.

Take a look further into the politics of the World. It is not just a Climate scare that is being generated here. It goes much deeper into CONTROL. A few greedies want it all for themselves. Look and what the U.N. is doing. They desire to control us and our thinking. Americans are resisting the Obamacare health plan that would put huge controls on their lives. Goldman Sacs control much of the financial market in the U.S. They can push and pull at Wall Street. The market can live or die at their will. It is all POWER and CONTROL.

You cannot separate the climate from the finances of the World. One thing to take ones mind off the other. Put things in perspective and look across the board.

Congratulations to those of you who will not be sucked in by this enormous lie being broadcast across the Planet. There is no Climate change in the way they are presenting it.

However, I do agree with one thing and that is to be more careful and less wasteful with the resources of our beautiful planet. For our own financial and health states we need to be more prudent in our living.


Of Interest:

ETS Forum - The Climate Craze
by Walter Starck

August 11, 2009

Global Warming, a Mass Mania

Unfortunately, the academics, activists, politicians and bureaucrats leading the push for carbon dioxide taxation and use of renewable energy are non-producers who are woefully ignorant of both the economic reality of productive activity and the practical limits of technology. They are techno-economic-illiterates with a cargo cult understanding of production. Their prescriptions amount to a ritualistic belief that admitting sin (GW) and making an appropriate sacrifice (carbon dioxide taxes) will in some undefined (magical) way bring forth all the right changes, discoveries and implementations that are needed to effect a bright new world of clean endlessly renewable energy with minimal inconvenience to anyone.

The leading scientific prophets of this cult are overwhelmingly comprised of young researchers whose entire careers are based on climate alarmism. In contrast, the middleground, balanced (“sceptical”) scientists are overwhelmingly researchers with well established expertise in other fields. The alarmists repeatedly refer to a catechism of highly selective evidence to support their claims. The sceptics cite voluminous other evidence from their own varied fields which contradicts the alarmist's claims.

Even when alarmist evidence is conclusively discredited (e.g. the hockey stick graph), the climate alarmists continue to use it, and to dismiss all conflicting evidence no matter how sound or voluminous it may be. When their own claims fail, they revise the evidence, not their hypothesis. Recent examples of this have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropical tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc. All these phenomena have been subjected to dubious data manipulation trying to make a silk purse to suit GW out of a sow’s ear of empirical data which refuses to conform to their hopes.

GW has become just another faith based belief, immune to all conflicting reason and evidence. Although it maintains a claim to being based on science, it's relation to genuine, evidence based, logically consistent, refutable science is not unlike that of Scientology, with which it shares a number of commonalities.

The amazing thing about all this is that people who claim to be scientists are so willing to become so profoundly and righteously committed to a belief in something that, at best, is highly uncertain, and the reality of which will inevitably become apparent in the not too distant future. It appears that such persons somehow think that their own unshakable faith will determine that reality. It also seems clear that what they claim to fear so greatly is, perversely, what they actually so desperately hope for.

Where GW departs from ordinary academic disputes and becomes a dangerous fundamentalist mania is in the righteous and fervency of its proselytizers. This is apparent in the anger and abuse directed at any who dare question their pronouncements. It has gone so far as leading warmers comparing scepticism of GW with holocaust denial, suggesting that GW dissent be made a criminal offence and even advocating Nuremburg style public trials for offenders.

The recent but largely unreported trend of global cooling has become increasingly hard for warmers to deny or explain away, and there is increasing evidence that various other core elements of the GW hypothesis are incorrect. In the face of failing claims and prophesies, the prophets of GW are becoming more and more strident and apocalyptic . The cooler it gets the shriller their cries of warning about warming become.

In addition to the true believers, GW has attracted a large contingent of self-interested fellow travellers. Politicians, bureaucrats, political activists and manifold financial interest have perceived advantages to be gained from climbing aboard the GW bandwagon. Large vested interests are now involved, and there is great pressure to lock in emission controls and subsidies before popular support weakens.

Despite all this, in the end the entire matter is only an empty irrelevant charade. The developing nations will not cease their development even if developed ones do. A modest increase in energy prices will not result in decreased emissions and large cost increases that will do so will result in recession and severe economic disruptions. This is not speculation. We have already had two clear instances. Any government which does not understand this will be replaced.

Australia's annual carbon dioxide emissions are only about 1.5 percent of the global total. This is barely equal to China's increase in emissions over 6 months. Whatever we do or don’t do to reduce emissions will have negligible effect on the global total. In any event, estimates of natural uptake of CO2 over our land and EEZ area are greater than our emissions. By any reasonable accounting, we as a nation should be receiving carbon credits, not being forced to buy them.

Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most senior and experienced marine biologists, with a professional career of studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems.


Hey, Acid Comments! Don't expect the AGW zealots to even CONSIDER your ideas, as you're clearly nothing more than a "conspiracy nutter". It's that very intellectual arrogance that has them so enthralled by the IPCC.


Of interest:

Carbon Credit Fraud has become big business for the Russian Crime Gangs and the Italian Mafia also.

Seven arrests in suspected £38m carbon credit fraud
Seven people have been arrested and 27 addresses raided over an suspected £38m fraud involving the trade of carbon credits to avoid paying value-added tax (VAT).


Of interest:

INTERVIEW-Global forest destruction seen overestimated

RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The amount of carbon emissions caused by world forest destruction is likely far less than the 20 percent figure being widely used before global climate talks in December, said the head of the Brazilian institute that measures Amazon deforestation.

Gilberto Camara, the director of Brazil's respected National Institute for Space Research, said the 20 percent tally was based on poor science but that rich countries had no interest in questioning it because the number put more pressure on developing countries to stem greenhouse gases.

Camara, who stressed that he thought Brazil's deforestation rates remain too high, said recent calculations by his institute using detailed satellite data showed clearing of the world's biggest forest accounted for about 2.5 percent of annual global carbon emissions.

Given that the Amazon accounts for about a quarter of deforestation globally, a figure of about 10 percent for total emissions caused by forest destruction is likely to be more accurate, Camara said.

The 20 percent figure used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on calculations from sampling of forests by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), he said.

The comments to this entry are closed.