Key makes "peace" with actress

[short-circuit]

Sheeple mate, most people are nothing more than sheep. They follow wherever they are told to go; they live on their fear and stupidity and they don't think for themselves. So, who benefits????

Makes me feel kinda bad for sheep...

Too true - listen to your leader: "Nothing to see here folks, move along and let business carry on as usual"

[Clivoris]

I can never be bothered wading through the piles of Climate Change "information". In my arrogance it seems that it's a waste of energy. Any fool can see that as a species we are being wasteful and thoughtless with limited resources and it will end in tears. The more "civilised" we get the greater our ability to make truly monumental fuck-ups. Now I'm off to use as many of the non-renewable resources as I can before they are all gone.

[rainman]

...has the intellectual fortitude to enter a debate on climate change and expect an apology from the PM when he says what we're all thinking?

Speak for yerself, James. I am pretty sure I'm not thinking what you're thinking.

Besides Key was being an obnoxious and offensive arse, just trying to get a cheap laugh out of a business crowd, and he needed to apologise for that. And he has as much intellectual cred on the issue as Keisha has, or indeed Rodney Hide has.

Yet no one takes him seriously when he suggests that we simply don't have enough data to predict weather 48 hours hence, let alone long reaching climactic change as the result of human activity.

Wonder why?

Point a bunch of Kiwis at some slappers on the telly though, and we're all "signing up" because of the "children". Won't somebody think of the "children".

Some of us have a moral compass. The evidence of the deleterious effects of our petroleum-based industrial lifestyle are plain to see for all but the most blinkered libertarian "rugged individualists" - whose brains would explode, I think, if they permitted themselves to understand the doctrine of property rights in a more reality-based sense.

Somebody does indeed need to think of the children, and the mess we are leaving them in our relentless quest for flat-screen tellys and other shiny crap toys, and I applaud Keisha and Robyn and Rhys and the others, "slappers" and non-"slappers" alike, that have the guts to do so.

[rainman]

The inconveniant truth is man made climate change can't be proved.

No, the "inconveniant" truth is you're very poorly informed as to how science works.

The suggestion that "mankind" on earth influences the behaviour of the universe is preposterous! Just a bunch of

With or without mankind, climate and everything else worldly changes constantly.

Leaving aside your poor choice of "universe" rather than "planetary ecosystem" - that's complete tosh and representative of a distinct lack of joined-up thinking.

Consider (as merely one example of many) marine "dead zones". The number of these has been doubling every decade since the 60s. I'm not aware of any remotely credible commentator who suggests these are not caused by man's activity - being nitrogen-based fertilisation of crops, and consequent runoff, in this case. Now the individual farmers could claim it's "preposterous" that they could influence anything as mighty as the ocean, yet collectively they very obviously do.

The science here is pretty clear - the impact of excess N in ocean systems is fairly well understood, the correlation between location of the dead zones and industrial farming is pretty precise, and they don't occur naturally to the same extent. Lesson: many little farmers affect big ocean.

Similar pattern for climate change. The science behind CO2 (and other gases) impact on atmospheric temperature isn't argued by any credible scienists, and we know we've emitted heaps more recently than in other historical epochs. Guess the lesson? Many little (and big) polluters affect the big atmosphere.

Yes - other things affect this too, and yes, there is constant change in nature. But using that as a flat denial of the existence of human-induced climate change is deception of the first order.

[Big Dave]

I've gone from a 6 litre V12 to a 5 litre V8.
So I did a few burnouts to celebrate being green.

[mowgli]

The science behind CO2 (and other gases) impact on atmospheric temperature isn't argued by any credible scienists, and we know we've emitted heaps more recently than in other historical epochs. Guess the lesson? Many little (and big) polluters affect the big atmosphere.

While no one could credibly argue that we collectively have no effect on climate, the question is how much. I put it that, human induced carbon emissions are to natural cycles, as my swimming in the ocean is to the tide. SFA!

The climate change debate is nothing but a Trojan horse intended to bullshit us into accepting the ETS and a new world order. The green army are hapless pawns being used to spread this new religion to the uneducated masses. They are succeeding!!! Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[rainman]

While no one could credibly argue that we collectively have no effect on climate, the question is how much. I put it that, human induced carbon emissions are to natural cycles, as my swimming in the ocean is to the tide. SFA!

Curious. What do you base that belief on?

[mowgli]

Curious. What do you base that belief on?

That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

[short-circuit]

That this is a political debate not an environmental one.

Environmental change will have politic implications so? What's that got to do with the science?

[Shadows]

What I fail to understand is how can some little girl's opinion should suddenly be regarded as important just because she acted in a movie once upon a time.

I see nothing that qualifies her to speak on such things, so why should anybody give a fuck what she thinks? I tell you why - because the fucking Woman's Weekly said so.

She should stick to acting, that's what she's good at. That is all.

Key has acted like a soft cock by apologising. He said have stuck to his guns and told her to shut the fuck up and leave the people with some clues get on with running the country.

Greenies be fucked.

[Hitcher]

Perhaps Mr Key is embarrassed that he descended into ad hominem attack. Hardly surprising for a politician, as anybody who has ever listened to Parliamentary question time can attest.

Forget about celebrity cause endorsement and the the Sandcastle-Hugheses of this world. Get suck into the rort that is Greenpeace instead.

40% carbon emission reduction? Where did that number get magicked up from? Where's the scientific analysis that supports that figure? Where's the economic analysis that clearly outlines what that means for every man, woman and child alive in New Zealand in 2020?

The government produces data produced by reputable analysts like NIWA and Infometrics, and Greenpeace says that's bullshit.

I know what bullshit is, but what's Greenpeace?

It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate, and its operations in New Zealand are a franchise. It is the McDonald's of activism, in more ways than one.

It is an organisation that is more concerned with commercial endeavour than it is about the environment. It uses science extremely selectively (e.g. climate change and genetic modification) and formulates its policy lines at an advertising agency.

Cheryl West may genuinely care about the environment and the future of this planet, but she is nothing more than a pawn in Greenpeace's New Zealand fundraising activities.

[short-circuit]

Perhaps Mr Key is embarrassed that he descended into ad hominem attack. Hardly surprising for a politician, as anybody who has ever listened to Parliamentary question time can attest.

Forget about celebrity cause endorsement and the the Sandcastle-Hugheses of this world. Get suck into the rort that is Greenpeace instead.

40% carbon emission reduction? Where did that number get magicked up from? Where's the scientific analysis that supports that figure? Where's the economic analysis that clearly outlines what that means for every man, woman and child alive in New Zealand in 2020?

The government produces data produced by reputable analysts like NIWA and Infometrics, and Greenpeace says that's bullshit.

I know what bullshit is, but what's Greenpeace?

You yourself have decended into an ad

It is certainly not a membership-driven organisation whose policy making is transparent to its paying "members" and which is accountable to those same members.

If Greenpeace was a membership-based organisation, then a couple of busloads of people could rock up to an Annual General Meeting (which it doesn't have) and do serious democratic stuff, like voting off directors or even winding the organisation up.

That can't be done, because Greenpeace International is a multinational corporate conglomerate, and its operations in New Zealand are a franchise. It is the McDonald's of activism, in more ways than one.

It is an organisation that is more concerned with commercial endeavour than it is about the environment. It uses science extremely selectively (e.g. climate change and genetic modification) and formulates its policy lines at an advertising agency.

Cheryl West may genuinely care about the environment and the future of this planet, but she is nothing more than a pawn in Greenpeace's New Zealand fundraising activities.

You yourself have merged a rebuttal of the legitimacy of a call for large-scale policy change relating to the planets environmental state, with an ad hominem attack of your own on Greenpeace's involvement in that message

[RC1]

who is Keisha ??

[NDORFN]

Supposed climate change due to exhaust emmisions aside... what about air-quality? Any of you dudes consider that?

[Hitcher]

You yourself have merged a rebuttal of the legitimacy of a call for large-scale policy change relating to the planets environmental state, with an ad hominem attack of your own on Greenpeace's involvement in that message

Given that I set out to do that, I am pleased that you have seized upon my intent.

I am not questioning the need for mitigations to carbon emissions and other measures designed to reduce humankind's dependence on fossil fuels. Indeed the New Zealand government has done much already and has a cunning plan in mind to do more.

Greenpeace wants 40% reductions, with no intellectual rigor or scientific analysis to justify that position. They should put up or shut up. Unfortunately they will do neither.

And an attack on a legal entity rather than on a specific person cannot be ad hominem. Look it up if you don't believe me.