Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Really? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629775
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind
any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to >>reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the
Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
The only thing you guys know about carbon emissions is to tax the crap
out of everything..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind
any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to
reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the
Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind
any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to
reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the
Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind
any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to
reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the
Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutely nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:14:39 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The problem is that Paula Bennet has (rightly) signed us up to an international agreement to mitigate against climate change, which is
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind
any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to >>reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the
Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutely >nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
Bill.
On 4/28/2016 5:09 PM, BR wrote:
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutelyJudging from the greens air travel expenses they should stay quiet.
nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
We have to have power.
Every year there are more people, more houses and more industries.
There is only so much hydro and solar power is useless after sunset.
Unless the greens want to get large wheels to walk around in to produce
power
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:09:01 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:14:39 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The problem is that Paula Bennet has (rightly) signed us up to an international agreement to mitigate against climate change, which is
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind >>>any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to >>>reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the >>>Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutely >>nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
Bill.
already srtarting to affect the country.Those agreements that it will
be expensive to continue to ignore our level of emissions. Now that
they are not able to use dubious means to meet quotas, this issue is
likely to be adding to the government's need to accrue further debt -
unless they pass that cost on to all polluters . . .
See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00321/paris-agreement-could-be-ratified-this-year-bennett.htm
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:09:01 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:14:39 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>The problem is that Paula Bennet has (rightly) signed us up to an
wrote:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject
to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind >>>any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions.
The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to >>>reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the >>>Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with
it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government
as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear
unable to anticipate . . .
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutely >>nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
Bill.
international agreement to mitigate against climate change, which is
already srtarting to affect the country.
Those agreements that it will
be expensive to continue to ignore our level of emissions. Now that
they are not able to use dubious means to meet quotas, this issue is
likely to be adding to the government's need to accrue further debt -
unless they pass that cost on to all polluters . . .
See: >http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00321/paris-agreement-could-be-ratified-this-year-bennett.htm
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:33:32 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>Well, affecting, but you are right - no kidding.
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:09:01 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:14:39 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:The problem is that Paula Bennet has (rightly) signed us up to an >>international agreement to mitigate against climate change, which is >>already srtarting to affect the country.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11629811
It's an editorial, possibly to avoid a named journalist being subject >>>>to retaliation for telling the truth:
". . .But the public has been given no sense of a coherent plan behind >>>>any of this, let alone a programme of national emissions reductions. >>>>The cap and trading system is a mystery, the investment in attempts to >>>>reduce methane from farm stock has yet to show progress. Climate
change might not be the most politically pressing subject on the >>>>Cabinet's table but a respectable government ought to be dealing with >>>>it. This one is waiting for others to lead. "
and then we have this: >>>>http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/302509/huntly-power-plants-to-stay-open-until-2022
It seems its not just Bennet that is out of her depth - the government >>>>as a whole are flailing around just reacting to events they appear >>>>unable to anticipate . . .
The best thing that can be done about these "emissions" is absolutely >>>nothing.
Resucing "emissions' is nothing more than a very expensive solution
for which there is no perceivable problem.
Bill.
Climate change affacting the country? No kidding.
Regardless of yur opinion (and I nopte you give no evidence for your assertions), the reality is that we are signed up to internationalThose agreements that it will
be expensive to continue to ignore our level of emissions. Now that
they are not able to use dubious means to meet quotas, this issue is
likely to be adding to the government's need to accrue further debt - >>unless they pass that cost on to all polluters . . .
See: >>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1604/S00321/paris-agreement-could-be-ratified-this-year-bennett.htm
The climate scam is a global scam regardless of who is the government.
It is being driven mostly by the leftist crooks at the UN and the
likes of the Obama administration in their lust for political power
and global control.
There is no proof whatsoever that human enterprise is having anyAgain your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at
measurable effect on the climate. The proposed solution is to tax,
regulate and restrict, none of which will make a the slightest
difference to what the weather will do, but will make most people
poorer and less freethan they were, and at the same time significantly >increase the size of the entrenched bureaucracy, who always vote for
the left as a bloc to retain their cushy well-paid jobs.
Bill.
The climate scam is a global scam regardless of who is the government.Regardless of yur opinion (and I nopte you give no evidence for your >assertions),
It is being driven mostly by the leftist crooks at the UN and the
likes of the Obama administration in their lust for political power
and global control.
the reality is that we are signed up to international
agreements that require us to actually do something about the way we
look after our environment.
Bennett has admitted that National were
wrong in the way they allowed the use of essentially bogus credits -
but National carefully waited until that cheating was no longer
available to make that inescapable admission.
Setting objectives and then doing nothing about meeting them is starting to bea National
party pattern . . .
There is no proof whatsoever that human enterprise is having anyAgain your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at
measurable effect on the climate. The proposed solution is to tax,
regulate and restrict, none of which will make a the slightest
difference to what the weather will do, but will make most people
poorer and less freethan they were, and at the same time significantly >>increase the size of the entrenched bureaucracy, who always vote for
the left as a bloc to retain their cushy well-paid jobs.
Bill.
all,
but I am sure useful dupes have been appreciated by National -
but the world does move on, and you will at some stage realise that
you have been teh victi of a typical political con from National.
Don't feel bad about it
- they are very good at even fooling
themselves.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 09:20:07 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Your willful blindness does not change reality, BR, but your slursThe climate scam is a global scam regardless of who is the government.Regardless of yuor opinion (and I note you give no evidence for your >>assertions),
It is being driven mostly by the leftist crooks at the UN and the
likes of the Obama administration in their lust for political power
and global control.
Evidence? I would like to see some evidence that mankind is creating a >climate problem. I have seen none because there is none.
I certainly approve of our country meeting its commitments. Apparentlythe reality is that we are signed up to international
agreements that require us to actually do something about the way we
look after our environment.
And you approve of this?
You should therefore be willing to pay the cost - National are settingBennett has admitted that National were
wrong in the way they allowed the use of essentially bogus credits -
I hope that National does everything in it's power to avoid complying
with this nonsense. Not that I'm expecting much. They too are guilty
of buying into the climate rort.
Of course you don't BR - cheating is always better than meetingbut National carefully waited until that cheating was no longer
available to make that inescapable admission.
I see no problem with cheating on the scammers.
Setting objectives and then doing nothing about meeting them is starting to be a National
party pattern . . .
Good. The less we are all forced to pay for so-called "saving the
planet" the better. But hey, if you want to spend your money on such
things, go for it, but I object to my money being spent in this way.
So you blame climate change on the number of public servants?There is no proof whatsoever that human enterprise is having any >>>measurable effect on the climate. The proposed solution is to tax, >>>regulate and restrict, none of which will make a the slightestAgain your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at
difference to what the weather will do, but will make most people
poorer and less freethan they were, and at the same time significantly >>>increase the size of the entrenched bureaucracy, who always vote for
the left as a bloc to retain their cushy well-paid jobs.
Bill.
all,
Don't take my word for it. Go and look up the facts for yourself. Look
back at the number of people employed by the government over the
years. Show me where I'm wrong. Produce the figures showing that the
Clark government reduced the number of public service bureaucrats
during the time they were in power.
In this case that's only National - Labour/Green do have coherentbut I am sure useful dupes have been appreciated by National -
but the world does move on, and you will at some stage realise that
you have been the victim of a typical political con from National.
National, Labour, a pox on both their houses.
Both parties are held to ransom by the overpaid career bureaucrats andAgain you blame something totally irrelevant for National not having
the idiocy that is MMP. The only point of difference between the
parties is that Labour encourages bureaucracy and unnecessary
compliance costs while National doesn't have the guts to confront it.
Your having been conned as a �seful dupe".Don't feel bad about it
Feel bad about what?
- they are very good at even fooling
themselves.
You have been the victim of a political con, that much is certain, and
the same goes for anyone else sucked in by the climate scam.
Bill.
Again your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at
all,
Don't take my word for it. Go and look up the facts for yourself.
On Sun, 01 May 2016 08:21:15 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
Again your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at
all,
Don't take my word for it. Go and look up the facts for yourself.
LOL Rich look up facts
There is more probability of Jesus walking down queen street.
On Mon, 02 May 2016 10:40:05 +1200, Liberty <liberty48@live.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2016 08:21:15 +1200, BR <buggeroff@spammer.com> wrote:
Again your wild assertions do not appear to be backed by any fact at >>>>all,
Don't take my word for it. Go and look up the facts for yourself.
LOL Rich look up facts
There is more probability of Jesus walking down queen street.
See my earlier reply to BR
Do youu have any evidence of any coherent plan to meet our
international obligations?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 166:23:52 |
| Calls: | 1,911 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,081 |
| Messages: | 935,592 |