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

« Errors in Royal Society of NZ climate change paper | Main | Air Con doco, part one »



What about the South Island. And dont forget that 90 % of the carbon trading is dodgy. and search for Hungary for evidence.


Have just watched a satellite launch on the news, gone to assess the 'shrinkage' of the polar caps due to global warming, they don't give up do they? that's where money is being WASTED!!

(not so) Silent

I see the following info has gone up on Niwas site on 3 Feb.
Does this info answer the CCS's concerns?
I have my own thoughts but would interested in yours or the CCS's comments on this info.



"The World Bank has approved the $3.75 billion loan for Eskom's 4.8GW coal-fired electricity plant in South Africa, despite the abstentions of British, US and the Dutch representatives."
See -

This will be the world's biggest coal fired power station, and will obliterate any emissions savings made in the UK.

What about NZ?
Can anyone in NZ government explain in simple terms how the ETS will go anywhere near helping reduce global CO2 levels?

Looks like a levy on taxpayers. Behaviour will not change.

Answers needed soon.
South Island meeting would be good too.

Thanks for posting this Ian


Personally, I'd suggest that if the govt wants to press ahead with eco-taxes, then we should keep them in-house and use levies from petrol and domestic power to fund things like house insulation and double glazing (even NASA's James Hansen concurs here)

A global carbon market is basically wide open to scamming, as has been seen already.

We would be giving away a billion dollars every four years for no benefit, when we could recycle that into local initiatives that created local wealth AND provided an environmental benefit.

Carbon taxes merely suck up to the UN and their cronies. We don't need them; we are a proud and independent nation. Let's keep it that way.

(not so) Silent

Geoff. agree totally.


There's more on the South Africa and World Bank deal at Pielke Jr's blog here

This should be ESSENTIAL reading for all NZ politicians.

Chuck Bird

"South Island meeting would be good too."

I believe Christchurch is in the South Island.

DUNSANDEL: Thursday 15 April - Dunsandel Community Hall, Hororata/ Dunsandel Road, Christchurch, 7 p.m. (with Rodney Hide)

lemon ade

Yes, what a worry. I expected better of this administration, but they are really no better. No Ian, they're definately no longer listening! Thanks for all your hard work re this issue. I'm planning to attend.


Isn't this just dandy?

NZ is really screwed. They won't support scientists doing real research - and everyone I know has fled NZ altogether.

No one is left .... everyone has buggered off.

I put it to everyone here that the NZ economy is being mis-managed - and so is the intrinsic direction that this country is taking.

NZers feel powerless to this sort of nonsense. They vote with their feet - because like Saturn's Children, it does no good to try and change things.

Time for Kiwis to wake up. We are a destitute nation at the bottom of the world run by idiotic politicians with no brains, experience nor qualifications to back themselves up.

Any sane politician would be calling this sort of thing out in Parliament - and ribbing the Greens - and Labour for scamming the country.


No Zentiger. I myself don't think the science is settled - that's the nature of science.

A simple deflection claiming you agree the science isn't settled.

Aside from the fact that your agreement that the science isn't settled rings a little hollow on the AGW debate, it isn't about what you personally believe, it's the mere fact that we both know the quote "the science is settled" has been used by the AGW lobby so many times it is now common knowledge.

Ian is a conspiracy theorist because he advances conspiracies. In his case (read his last book , look at his silly post on FoRST funding of climate science in NZ, etc.) the "new world order."

You suffer from a common malady known as "conspiracy transference syndrome" where you take a common conspiracy topic such as "new world order" and suggest that just because some very powerful organisations, such as the UN want to create a global governance structure with huge amounts of funding provided from a very clever wealth transfer scheme built around a market mechanism pricing CO2, that the persons reporting this are "obviously nuts". Except that this is exactly what the UN has put forward, and the documents are in the public domain, and it's not actually a conspiracy, it's more a blatant attempt to change the rules of the game.

There are as many people on both sides of the debate that have twigged to the effects of this approach to managing the world's resources and costing the environmental use factor in a completely new way, and people on both sides of the debate, whilst acknowledging the same outcome see it as either the worst possible thing ever (taxation and the ability to bind countries to non-voted international laws) and the best thing since Stalin and Mao (a way to make capitalistic industrialists pay for the clean-up and restocking of natural resources they freely plunder). So yes, unfortunately, we are seeing a push to create a new world order in the same way introducing the United Nations after WWII and learning lessons from the predecessor, the League of Nations, created a new world order.

Moving off the Gold Standard and the establishment of the share markets created, in a sense, a new world order and there are other events in history that would show watershed moments. They are not conspiracies as such, but will still be described by others leading up to the event and beyond as conspiracies. Did they happen? Yes. Were they world changing? Yes. Think about it.

So Ian pointing out the far reaching impact of some of the political ramifications of the proposed international agreements tabled at Copenhagen and shelved due to the big countries twigging to the far reaching impact of what is being asked for is not a conspiracy as such, but every bit a chance at marking another huge political shift in the way countries interact.

That you are so dismissive of this, and characterise it as "conspiracy" when it's not discussed at all like that, is the reason why I am left thinking that you like to form opinions and make the facts fit.

Of course this leads to the other ridiculous conspiracy theory - that all the worlds climate scientists are colluding to falsify data and pull the wool over our eyes!

That is silly, isn't it.

Yes it's silly, because it's not what Ian has ever said. That's just a cheap shot by yourself to bolster your claim. Fabricating data that never existed. How AGW! (See, I can do the same thing too)

Equally, the opposite does not hold - just because they are scientists, doesn't mean they are immune from human frailty, such as destroying data, blocking contrary opinion and avoiding their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act etc - and the climategate emails certainly proved that point.

He will be telling us next that 9/11 was an inside job! That goes along with climate change denial, doesn't it?

But if AGW proves to have been a false alarm, then it will no doubt fall to you to tell us all about 9/11. Until either happens, why don't you agree to stick to facts rather than wild conjecture. It's unbecoming for a man of science.


And check this out, first from EUReferendum, and then the Guardian
(links at bottom)

This move comes alongside a meeting between Gordon Brown and "billionaire financier" George Soros, Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers, economist Lord Nicholas Stern and other finance ministers. In parallel, they were working on stitching up the financial package which is so central to the real agenda.

Their headline goal is to raise $30bn (£20bn) a year immediately and $100bn a year by 2020, ostensibly "to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change."

Whatever mechanisms are eventually agreed, however, of one thing there can be absolute certainty. Very little of the money allocated to this cause will ever reach its stated destination. As with the current aid programme, most of it will be soaked up by banks, finance houses, investors and brokers, in fees and commissions. Huge amounts will line the pockets of governments in the recipient countries, and NGOs will grow fat and rich.

Oh, and we'll happily take whatever piddling millions NZ may like to add to the coffers, thanks very much


Doh, sorry, not sure how my comment 2 above ended up on this thread. Should be on the one before on the Royal Society - addressing Ken.

Toledo spray insulation

Time for Kiwis to awaken. We are a destitute country at the end of the world run by stupid political figures with no heads, practical knowledge nor credentials to back themselves up.

RetroFoam insulation Toledo

As well as taxation merely draw up to the UN and their cronies. We don't need them; we are a extremely pleased and separate country. Let's keep it that way.

The comments to this entry are closed.